This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 09 October 2014, At: 22:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social Work Education: TheInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cswe20

Anti-discriminatory practice inpractice: Student placementexperiences as an aid to learningJane KennedyPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Jane Kennedy (2001) Anti-discriminatory practice in practice: Studentplacement experiences as an aid to learning, Social Work Education: The InternationalJournal, 20:3, 363-372, DOI: 10.1080/02615470120057442

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615470120057442

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:28

09

Oct

ober

201

4

SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION, VOL. 20, NO. 3, 2001

Anti-discriminatory practice in practice:student placement experiences as an aid tolearning

JANE KENNEDY

Abstract The role and nature of anti-discriminatory practice continues to be a key issue in socialwork education. This article examines the � ndings of a questionnaire conducted in one universitydepartment regarding the placement experiences of two sets of DipSW students in this area. The paperexamines both how they found the treatment of these issues in their placements and how theyexperienced putting theories of anti-discrimination into practice. It evaluates what contribution suchstudent experiences can make to the current debates in this area.

The proposition that anti-discriminatory frameworks need to be key components of socialwork practice continues to be an important part of social work training. However, the way inwhich this aspect of social work education should be taught, both in college and onplacement, and whether or not this learning has a signi� cant long-term impact on students’practice, continues to be a matter of much debate (Razack, 1999; Dominelli, 1998; Harlow& Hearn, 1996). Sullivan (1998) argues that while students are in� uenced by such teaching,their ability to carry this learning into their practice presents a more dif� cult challenge dueto the environmental pressures they may be presented with. She suggests that:

It may be dif� cult to maintain newly formed non-prejudicial attitudes outside theclassroom situation. Pressures on practitioners which may corrupt their non-preju-dicial attitudes include exposure to the existence of many forms of subtle prejudice,discrimination and oppression in the interpersonal, organisational and politicalenvironments in which they practice (Sullivan, 1998, p. 759).

In exploring the experiences of DipSW students while on placement, we may be able togain some knowledge of how the dif� culties identi� ed by Sullivan manifest themselves forstudents and how far they actually affect their ability, not only to maintain ‘newly formednon-prejudicial attitudes’, but to use them to promote anti-discriminatory practice.

This article will look to build upon the work of Cox and Hirst (1995) who examined the� ndings of a questionnaire that one university department used to monitor the placementexperiences of 47 CQSW students with regard to anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressivepractice. These students were asked to comment upon the occurrence of discrimination and

Correspondence to: Jane Kennedy, Department of Sociology, Social Policy, and Social Work Studies, University ofLiverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, Merseyside L69 7ZA, UK. Tel.: 1 151–794–3006 or 0796–7765057. Email: j.kennedy@liv.ac.uk

ISSN 0261-5479 print; 1470-1227 online/01/030363–10 Ó 2001 The Board of Social Work EducationDOI: 10.1080/02615470120057442

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:28

09

Oct

ober

201

4

364 JANE KENNEDY

oppression in their placements and upon their efforts to challenge such behaviour. Cox andHirst (1995) sought to comment on what lessons this could provide for students, placementagencies, and educational institutions. They hoped that by sharing the information they could‘contribute to the knowledge of students’ experiences of oppression on placement’ (Cox &Hirst, 1995, p. 54). From their work they found that the majority of the students whoreturned their questionnaire had ‘been on the receiving end’ or ‘witnessed’ incidents ofdiscrimination and oppression. From this they concluded that:

… educators, trainers and workers in agencies need to strive towards anti-oppressiveworkplace cultures, to facilitate students’ learning (Cox & Hirst, 1995, p. 44).

This paper will compare the � ndings of the 1997/8 questionnaire, undertaken in the sameuniversity department, with those of Cox and Hirst (1995) to establish: (i) whether studentscontinue to experience discrimination and oppression whilst on placement; and (ii) whatimpact the relationships and cultures present in the workplace can have on each student’sdevelopment and learning in the areas of anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice.

The questionnaires

The 1992 questionnaire reviewed by Cox and Hirst (1995) concerned itself with three areasof oppression: racism, sexism, and homophobia. In the years since this study was undertaken,the Anti-Racist Monitoring Committee, which was responsible for instigating this process,has broadened its aims to monitor all forms of oppression and discrimination within thecontext of the Diploma in Social Work course. In response to these changes, the question-naire has also been rewritten to widen its area of monitoring. However, the key elements ofinquiry remain: do students experience or witness incidents of discrimination while onplacement? What action, if any, do they feel able to take over these incidents? From whomdo they gain support for the action that they take?

In the academic year 1997/8 the questionnaire was given to a total of 95 students in the� rst and second years of the Diploma in Social Work programme, 19 of whom were BAstudents and 76 MA students. The students were given the questionnaires at a call-back dayto the university which took place approximately half way through each placement. Theywere asked to complete and return the questionnaire by the end of the placement.1 Forty-� vestudents returned the questionnaires representing 47% of the sample. These students hadplacements in statutory social services (20), voluntary agencies (20), the probation service (4)and one in a medical setting. This compared with the 1992 research where 47 CQSWstudents were asked to complete the questionnaire and 27 or 57% were returned. Thesestudents had placements in probation (12), statutory social services (9), and the voluntarysector (3). The high level of probation placements was due to the presence in 1992 of HomeOf� ce-sponsored probation students on the DipSW programme.

The comparatively low return rate of the 1997/8 questionnaire has been considered byCARO2 (Committee Against Racism and Oppression). They suggested a number of possibil-ities which may have caused this:

(i) there was nothing of enough signi� cance experienced by the students on placement toprompt them to complete the questionnaire;

(ii) there are a signi� cant number of students who do not feel that these issues are relevantenough to them to complete the questionnaire; or

(iii) the representatives of the committee did not make clear enough the aims and objectivesof the questionnaire.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:28

09

Oct

ober

201

4

ANTI-DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE IN PRACTICE 365

A number of strategies for addressing these problems are being considered. These includemaking completion of the questionnaire part of the placement portfolio, distributing thequestionnaire at the mid-placement meeting, and placing a statement about the questionnairein the student’s handbook.

In reviewing the results of this data one needs to be conscious of two points. Firstly, dueto the relatively low number of students who returned the questionnaires one must becautious in drawing general conclusions from this data. Despite this, the qualitative materialgenerated by this exercise can be seen as offering an interesting contribution to the debate onstudents’ learning and practice development in this area of social work.

Secondly, we are dealing here with the perceptions and understandings of the students withregard to what is, and what is not, oppressive or discriminatory practice. Therefore thesubjective nature of each student’s attitudes, values and learning becomes a factor in thisanalysis. However, what we can say about these particular students is that they had allcompleted a 16-week module on anti-oppressive social work practice, which included writingtwo assignments in this area, before going on placement. Also, all the students went on tosuccessfully complete both their placements and the Diploma in Social Work. This shouldsuggest that they have met at least one set of objective criteria for judging knowledge andskills in this area of practice. There are no doubt arguments to be had here about quality andconsistency of both placements and courses, as well as the nature of each student’s learningand indeed the still contested nature of what constitutes anti-oppressive practice.

Nonetheless, as Sullivan has argued:

Generally speaking students are aware of the underlying structural framework ofpower and oppression of the society in which the service user exists (Sullivan, 1998,p. 746).

To what extent these students have absorbed and accepted such learning is perhapsre� ected to some extent in their answers to the questionnaire. The students’ answers appearto be in� uenced by their college learning, their own attitudes and values and the practiceenvironment. It is also worth noting that, in the instances where students gained supportfrom practice teachers and other colleagues for their actions, they must have at least foundsome shared understanding of what they saw as oppressive and discriminatory situations.

The � ndings

For many institutions the creation of an ‘equal opportunities statement’ is seen as a � rst stepin demonstrating a commitment to addressing the issues of inequality (Blakemore & Drake,1996). The CARO committee therefore decided that the 1997/8 questionnaire would beginby asking the students about the presence of either an equal opportunities or anti-discrimina-tory practice statement in their agency. In response to this question, 36 of the 45 studentsstated that their agencies had such statements. However, only 30 of the students said thatthey were able to obtain copies of these statements. The students’ opinions of the quality ofthese statements, and their signi� cance for agency practice, varied considerably:

Notice in the of� ce and tea room.

It’s one of those policies that is being re-drafted.

Draft policy is very comprehensive. However, it is disappointing that it is only adraft in this day and age.

Average kind of statement paying lip-service to appropriate groups.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:28

09

Oct

ober

201

4

366 JANE KENNEDY

Detailed equal opportunity’s statement (written) is given during the induction dayat the placement agency HQ.

The content was quite structured and full of Social Services policy/equal opportuni-ties policies for implementation.

The statement on gay service users very comprehensive and reader friendly givingexamples and case studies.… the policy was discussed in the � rst supervision andthroughout the placement.

The 1997/8 questionnaire then moved to assess more directly how the students perceivedpractice in their individual placement settings. The students were asked to comment upon‘how consistently they felt the placement re� ected anti-oppressive practice’. They wereoffered a choice of responses, ‘never; sometimes; mostly; always’. The majority of thestudents (31) indicated that the placement re� ected AOP either ‘always’ (8) or ‘mostly’ (23).Only one student responded by ticking ‘never’. In making this judgement it is apparent fromthe students’ comments that it was not only the values and actions of practice teachers whichwere important but also those of other colleagues, as well as the general organisational ethosof agencies. If the students perceived a culture where anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressivepractices were seen as important, and their development part of an ongoing process, thenstudents felt they had a positive experience:

I feel that the team is very open to discussion if there is any concern that oppressivepractice is taking place, and it’s an ongoing discussion.

The ethos of the team was to be creative and � exible with resources and social workpractice very much focusing on clients’ needs in an anti-oppressive framework.

Social workers were very empowering to service users at all times; they value openlyany student input we can give the organisations.

Not a particular practice as such but as my placement comes from a medical modelof mental illness and I come to a great extent from the social model many areas ofdiscussion were opened up with both parties making valid points.

Those students who did not perceive a supportive or open learning environment felt theirlearning experience was a much poorer one, as is re� ected in their comments.

I found that my practice teacher re� ected extremely oppressive and discriminatorypractices, i.e. demeaning comments were made about physical appearance, intelli-gence and personal hygiene. Also I experienced oppressive practices regarding mygender as a woman; I was expected to � irt to obtain a work placement for a client!

Anti-oppressive practice was not seen to be a priority except when highlighted.Workers are often reluctant to challenge strongly an individual’s value base. This islinked to issues of � nance and resources because service users are seen as a resource.

In some cases people are embarrassed to challenge others, usually due to reactionsthey believe they will have received. In some cases people are unsure about how tochallenge without making the situation worse, embarrassing others or in� aming anyresponses/putting people off.

Students also commented upon occasions where they observed a more inconsistent patternof practice. This included occasions where practitioners may act one way with service users

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:28

09

Oct

ober

201

4

ANTI-DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE IN PRACTICE 367

while expressing another view in private, or where they would be clear about certain areas ofdiscrimination and oppression but not in others:

I believe within practice directly with clients this was always the case. However,certain members of staff have been judgmental, i.e. to drug users/criminal behav-iour, but this had not been directly to the service user but within the staff group. Ido believe that attitudes such as these will interfere with a person’s practiceindirectly with the service user.

Social workers were aware particularly of language they used, and possible effects ofdiscriminatory statements. However, ‘class’ issues not really addressed.

In both the 1992 and 1997/8 questionnaires, students were asked to identify actualincidents of discrimination and oppression. In the earlier questionnaire, where students wereasked to comment speci� cally on incidents of racism, sexism, and homophobia, Cox andHirst (1995) found that 56% of students identi� ed incidents of racism and sexism and 7%reported homophobic episodes.

In the 1997/8 questionnaire students were asked to identify any form of discrimination oroppression that they had witnessed or experienced. A majority of the students (30) said thatincidents had occurred during their placement. The incidents that they identi� ed representeda wide range of categories, which were as follows: racism (8), sexism (6), homophobia (2),disablism (2), physical abuse (2) and ageism (1). Nine students identi� ed what they saw asinstitutional and individual abuses of power. The students were then asked to describe theseincidents, their challenges to them and whether a positive outcome had been achieved.Overall, a majority of the students felt that a positive outcome was attained when challengeswere made. Set out below are some examples of the incidents that the students described:

Incident one:

During court proceedings (Local Authority obtaining care order) immense pressurewas put upon the mother from different directions to the point that she could notcope. This impacted on her care for the children and could have resulted in thechildren being removed again. Support has not been offered by social services onlycontrol, monitoring and assessment.

Were you able to challenge this?

I challenged this and the social worker agreed that the service user had been putunder immense unnecessary pressure by social services and legal services.

Was any positive outcome affected?

Turned poor practice to that of support.

Incident two:

Frequent racist language and opinions from young people (service users).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:28

09

Oct

ober

201

4

368 JANE KENNEDY

Were you able to challenge this?

Constantly challenging racist attitudes and language and general discussion.

Was any positive outcome affected?

There is some progress as the young people thought more about their attitudes.

Incident three:

Review meeting regarding a child with disabilities who was Asian. The family hadnot been invited. We lodged a complaint about this.

Were you able to challenge this?

Questioned lack of recruitment and recruitment drive for black and Asian fostercarers.

Was any positive out come effected?

No.

Incident four:

Generally treating service users in a non-age appropriate manner, i.e. telling serviceusers to be “quick love” when they announce that they are going to the toilet. Thisis a small example of an ongoing challenge in terms of oppressive practice.

Were you able challenge this?

I have challenged lots of issues but in a way that has not caused offence but rathergiven people another angle on working with people in mental distress.

Was any positive outcome affected?

Getting alongside care workers and guiding them without going in guns blazing insocial work style, has been effective. I have their trust and they discuss issues withme.

The students’ responses to these initial questions suggest that they had quite well devel-oped views in relation to what they saw as anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice.Equally, they were clear on how they believed this practice affected their own learning andthe quality of the service provided to service users. The question of what forms of supportthey received for both their views and actions on placement have particular relevance here.In the 1992 study, Cox and Hirst (1995) noted that the most common reaction of thosestudents who encountered anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory practice was to seeksupport from their practice teacher. They also noted that in the majority of cases the supportsought was given. Although the exact nature of this support was not recorded in every case,the responses included practice teachers reporting the problem to their senior mangers and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:28

09

Oct

ober

201

4

ANTI-DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE IN PRACTICE 369

in one instance a formal complaint being made. The students in this study also indicated thatother colleagues were a signi� cant source of support.

In the 1997/8 study we see the same pattern of support for students, with practice teachers(18) being cited most often followed by other colleagues (9) and team managers (7). We cansee from the students’ additional comments to this question that this support from practiceteachers and other colleagues is seen as a key factor for the students in their decisions as towhether or not to challenge what they saw as oppressive or discriminatory behaviour.

The issue was looked at favourably by the whole team.

Received support and reassurance from my practice teacher that my actions werecorrect and positive and non-oppressive.

Other colleagues are the major source of support.

My practice teacher is committed to confronting racism (in practice as well astheory!) so we were always able to back each other up when challenging.

In the 1997/8 study the students were also asked if there had been incidents that they couldnot challenge. Eighteen students stated that such incidents had occurred. The reasonsstudents gave for not challenging in these situations included not only the presence ofunsupportive colleagues but also feelings that their challenges would go unheard due toagency and political cultures.

Dif� cult to challenge offensive jokes by service-users … and to challenge oldermembers of staff who think they knew it all because they’ve been there 20 years.

I felt that my challenges of oppression fell on deaf ears. I also felt that this wasviewed as a sign of weakness by my practice teacher, that I was not willing to partakein the agency’s practices.

Con� ict between the voluntary agency and the issue of � nance, very dependentupon grants from the local authority and inter-agency fees which tend to bluntagency’s ability to challenge oppressive practice.

The question of who was responsible for the oppressive or discriminatory actions that thestudents observed or experienced was asked in both the 1992 and 1997/8. In their study, Coxand Hirst (1995) noted that in the majority of cases other workers in the placement agencieswere responsible for these incidents. This was also the case in the 1997/8 study, with 24students identifying other colleagues, including two practice teachers, and 10 citing serviceusers (some students identi� ed both).

From their responses thus far it is clear that, for students, shared commitment andunderstanding between students and practice colleagues to certain values and attitudes isimportant in creating a positive learning experience. In the 1997/8 questionnaire the studentswere asked ‘to what extent the learning on anti-oppressive issues on the placement wasconsistent with and complimentary to the rest of the course?’ What we see in the responsesto this question is that if this ‘shared commitment and understanding’ extends to the learningon the course this can further enhance the practice learning experience.

Very largely the same emphasis; hearing about these issues in actual practice washelpful.

Good consistency between placement and course.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:28

09

Oct

ober

201

4

370 JANE KENNEDY

Anti-oppressive issues were very relevant in regard to class/poverty/standards etc.:backed up teaching on course.

Anti-oppressive practice integrated into practice, team supportive of my transferringtheory into practice, able and willing to discuss in depth.

Students appear to have a greater understanding of oppression than some of theworkers who trained some years ago. Some workers felt it was not relevant.

Anti-oppressive practice sounds in theory not always easy to implement in practiceespecially in con� ict situations.

Resource issues always impinge on anti-oppressive practice. I don’t feel that therewas enough discussion on the course about REAL anti-oppressive practice.

There was no learning on anti-oppressive issues while on placement, therefore it didnot compliment the rest of the course, in fact it was extremely contradictory!

What we see in these � ndings is a variety of experiences and expectations which do notprovide a single relationship between the two settings. The range of answers moves from aclear and identi� able relationship between the values and philosophies of the course and theplacement to there being no connection between the two. Unsurprisingly, where there areseen to be shared values and understanding the students found it easier to integrate theoryinto practice. Where there were inconsistencies, it is worth noting that these were not justdriven by what some students saw as ‘poor practice’, but also from a view that the aspirationsdiscussed in the college setting can be unrealistic in practice due to the nature of the con� ictsituations and resource issues. One could speculate that what students observe here asinconsistencies are due not simply to ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ applications of anti-discriminatory oranti-oppressive practice but to a more essential debate about how one de� nes these concepts.For example, what is the role of the social worker when resources are limited? For Preston-Shoot (1995) ‘counteracting inequality and discrimination is central to any de� nition of goodpractice’, whereas Robert Pinker (Eaton, 1998) suggests that ‘those who believe … thatwelfare agencies may be vehicles for social change, are perhaps likely to be disappointed’.

Conclusion

In comparing the � ndings of these two small studies, a number of perhaps predictable resultsemerge: students continue to identify what they see as anti-oppressive and anti-discrimina-tory attitudes and practices; practice teachers still play a key role in supporting students whochallenge these behaviours; placements which were perceived by students as valuing anti-op-pressive and anti-discriminatory practices were seen as most helpful to developing practiceand learning in these areas. This was especially true if there was seen to be a continuitybetween learning in college and on placement. It can be said, therefore, that Cox and Hirst’s(1995) view that there was a need for ‘educators, trainers and workers’ to continue to worktowards creating ‘positive workplace cultures’ continues to be the case.

The types of discriminatory and oppressive incidents which were identi� ed in the � rststudy were also present in the second, with racism and sexism again featuring prominently.In the second study, we also saw the issue of resource allocation, uses of power in statutoryframeworks, as well as wider team and agency procedures being identi� ed by students asforms of discrimination and oppression which they believe should be challenged.

In these studies a supportive relationship between the practice teacher and the studentseems to have been a crucial component in creating a positive learning environment. This is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:28

09

Oct

ober

201

4

ANTI-DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE IN PRACTICE 371

perhaps what one would expect. It is interesting to note, however, that the de� nition of apositive relationship appears to be determined not only by a shared understanding of, andcommitment to, the ideas of anti-discriminatory and oppressive practice, but also by thewillingness of practice teachers to support students in their challenges to what they see asincidents of discriminatory or oppressive behaviour. It was also important to these studentsthat these af� rming and supportive attitudes were found in other colleagues, team environ-ments and wider agency cultures. When these supportive environments were not available,students still felt able to identify incidents that they saw as discriminatory but felt much lessable to challenge these behaviours. This was particularly true if practice teachers were seenas the source of poor practice.

These � ndings appear to support Sullivan’s (1998) view that ‘interpersonal, organisationaland political environments’ all in� uence the possibility of sustaining newly formed anti-dis-criminatory attitudes and values in the practice arena. It could be argued that due to theirintrinsically less powerful position (Preston-Shoot, 1995) and newly acquired ideas (Sullivan,1999), students are particularly vulnerable to these environmental pressures. This is es-pecially signi� cant if one takes into account that in both studies ‘other colleagues’ were mostoften cited as sources of discriminatory and oppressive behaviour. If we accept that students,precisely because of their status, are in a less powerful position than other workers, then it isunsurprising that it is the behaviours and practice of other workers which appear to impactmore strongly on students’ learning experience than the actions or attitudes of service users.In this situation, the issue of power differentials is important and may explain the need ofsome students to obtain support from other individuals who are deemed to hold equal powerin this situation, i.e. practice teachers and other colleagues, and their hesitation in challengingwithout such support.

The paradigms of anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory learning are complex areas whichcontain much more signi� cant debates than merely whether one is ‘for’ or ‘against’ this formof practice. Coupled with this, the ways in which a student’s own attitudes and value systemsare in� uenced by their academic teaching, their practice learning and their pre-course lifeexperiences means that making judgements about what students actually believe is dif� cult.As Sullivan (1999) and others have highlighted, assessing just what students have ‘learned’while on their courses and what, if any, of this learning they have been able, or willing tooperationalise within the practice environment is problematic:

There were often discrepancies between what students and workers thought or saidtheir attitudes and values were, and what they subsequently expressed in discussionor demonstrated in practice (Sullivan, 1999, p. 312).

In addition, Sullivan (1999) suggests that the practice teacher’s in� uence may not just beextended to simply obstructing or endorsing newly acquired attitudes and values, but couldreinforce previously held views of students which allow them to abandon or modify newlearning which they found dif� cult to accept. We need to acknowledge that practice teachersand other colleagues are also open to the pressures and in� uences of individual team andagency cultures which may not re� ect current thinking in the areas of anti-discriminatory andanti-oppressive practice.

Perhaps by examining students’ placement experiences in this area and asking them to giveexamples of their attempts to address these issues, we can gain some insight into exactly whatstudents do learn and believe, and whether they are able, or willing to maintain these beliefsin practice. The � ndings of these small-scale studies can at least give us some indicationabout the processes which in� uence the choices that students make when bringing theory intopractice in this area.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:28

09

Oct

ober

201

4

372 JANE KENNEDY

Notes1 Names, gender, and ethnic origin were not requested on the questionnaires. It has been argued (Shardlow& Doel, 1992) that such forms of identi� cation should be recorded; however, the CARO committee believedthat the students must have a say in their own monitoring and the students felt that the questionnaire shouldbe completely con� dential.2 Formally the Anti-Racist Monitoring Committee.

References

BLAKEMORE, K. & DRAKE, R. (1996) Understanding Equal Opportunity Policies (London, Prentice Hall/Har-vester Wheatsheaf).

COX, P. & HIRST, G. (1995) Placements as a site of oppression: some evidence and evaluation, Social WorkEducation, 14(1), pp. 44–59.

DOMINELLI, L. (1998) Anti-oppressive practice in context, in: R. ADAMS, L. DOMINELLI & M. PAYNE (Eds)Social Work Themes Issues and Critical Debates (London, Macmillian).

EATON (1998) Community Care, 24–30 September 1998.HARLOW, E. & HEARN, J. (1996) Educating for anti-oppressive anti-discriminatory practice, Social Work

Education, 15(1), pp. 5–17.PRESTON-SHOOT, M. (1995) Assessing anti-oppressive practice, Social Work Education, 14(2), pp. 11–29.RAZACK, N. (1999) Anti-discriminatory practice: pedagogical struggles and challenges, British Journal of Social

Work, 29(2).SHARDLOW, S. & DOEL, M. (1992) Practice teaching and knowledge, Social Work Education, 11(2), pp. 12–21.SULLIVAN, E. (1998) DipSW students and anti-discriminatory practice: questions of learning outcomes and

assessment, British Journal of Social Work, 28, pp. 745–761.SULLIVAN, E. (1999) The assessment of social work students’ attitudes, Social Work Education, 18(3),

pp. 311–321.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:28

09

Oct

ober

201

4