Educating future practitioners of social work and law: Exploring the origins of inter-professional misunderstanding

28 (2006) 638–653

www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Educating future practitioners of social work and

law: Exploring the origins of inter-professional

misunderstanding

Sarah Taylor 1

School of Social Welfare, University of California at Berkeley, 120 Haviland Hall #7400, Berkeley,

CA 04720-7400, United States

Received 27 March 2005; received in revised form 6 June 2005; accepted 14 June 2005

Available online 11 August 2005

Abstract

Lawyers and social workers working with disadvantaged populations frequently collaborate to

assist clients as they navigate such bureaucratic institutions as child dependency courts.

Collaboration in the child welfare field is often characterized by conflict as professionals negotiate

roles, duties, and varying ethical responsibilities. One overlooked cause of this conflict involves the

difference in how practitioners are socialized. This descriptive, exploratory study describes how the

graduate education experiences of future lawyers and social workers differ in both content and

process. Eight law and social work classes were observed. The results indicate that the education of

lawyers and social workers differs substantially in classroom environment, student–professor

interactions, educational techniques, and explicit reference to group process. These differences have

implications for the education of future professionals with respect to understanding authority,

discretion, and collaboration.

D 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Inter-disciplinary collaboration; Professional culture; Training of child welfare workers; Training of

child dependency lawyers; Qualitative research

0190-7409/$ -

doi:10.1016/j.c

E-mail add1 A doctoral

Children and Youth Services Review

see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

hildyouth.2005.06.006

ress: [email protected].

candidate at UC Berkeley.

S. Taylor / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 638–653 639

1. Introduction

Lawyers and social workers working with disadvantaged populations collaborate

often to assist clients in gaining access to resources and in supporting clients as they

navigate bureaucratic institutions. This collaboration is often characterized by conflict

as professionals negotiate roles, duties, and varying ethical responsibilities. The

conflict between lawyers and social workers received some attention by researchers

over a decade ago who looked at division of duties and attitudes as causes of the

problem (Fogelson, 1970; Russell, 1988; Sloane, 1967; Smith, 1970). However, little

current empirical research attempts to explain this conflict.

The lack of current research is especially evident in the area of child

dependency. Child welfare and legal professionals involved in the adjudication of

dependency cases have been required to collaborate more frequently since the

passage of the 1980 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA) and

1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). This federal legislation expanded

judicial oversight of child welfare agencies, and therefore increased the number of

hearings necessary to settle a child dependency case. Given the need for more

collaboration, it is surprising that so little research is available on the working

relationship of lawyers and child welfare workers who specialize in child

dependency cases today.

It is important to study the challenges faced by child welfare workers and lawyers

in fostering collaboration for at least two main reasons. First, the conflicts between

the members of these two professions can prevent the system from adequately

meeting the needs of children and families. These conflicts can cause delays and

prevent the judge from hearing all of the information necessary to make the best

decision (Weinstein, 1997). Second, conflicts may contribute to high levels of stress

and staff turnover for members of both professions (Carnochan et al., 2002).

There are many potential causes of tension between lawyers and child welfare

workers such as role conflict, attitudes about one another’s profession, and the nature

of the work itself. Differences in professional cultures are also a potential source of

conflict. An understanding of professional culture among inter-disciplinary workgroups

can facilitate collaboration (Meyerson, 1994; Russell, 1988).

One approach to studying these differences is to focus on professional education

programs. While in graduate school, students begin to understand and practice their

roles. The students’ relationships with one another and the professor, their terms of

address, their use of language, and their dress are all factors that can contribute to

the emergence of a professional identity. In addition to the technical information

taught in classes, the organization of the classroom experience communicates ideas

about status, beliefs about the roles of colleagues within and outside of the

profession, and expectations about the amount of autonomy and discretion they will

have as professionals.

Two research questions guided this study: 1) How do the educational processes of

social work and law school differ? 2) To what extent do the professional training

experiences of lawyers and social workers reflect distinct cultures that may influence their

future interactions?

S. Taylor / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 638–653640

2. Literature review

The literature review for this study is divided into three sections. Conflicts between

social workers and lawyers are reviewed in the First section. The Second section is a brief

overview of organizational culture and social identity theories that are relevant to this

study. The Last section highlights reasons for focusing on the artifacts level of

organizational culture.

2.1. Conflicts between lawyers and social workers

The conflict between lawyers and social workers received some attention by

researchers over a decade ago who looked at division of duties and attitudes as causes

of conflict (Brennan & Khinduka, 1971; Fogelson, 1970; Russell, 1988; Sloane, 1967;

Smith, 1970; Weil, 1982). Brennan and Khinduka (1971) developed a list of tasks to be

completed in a dependency case, and surveyed lawyers and social workers about who

assumes primary responsibility for each task, who should assume primary responsibility,

and what each expected the other professional group to say about who should complete a

specific task. As hypothesized by the researchers, social workers and lawyers disagreed

significantly about who was responsible for several duties. Russell (1988) repeated this

study with a modified version of the Brennan and Khinduka scale and found similar

results, reflecting the persistence of these conflicts.

Other empirical studies looked at attitudes of members of one profession towards the

other (Fogelson, 1970; Sloane, 1967; Smith, 1970, Weil, 1982). For example, social

workers viewed lawyers as overly analytical, inflexible, and uncaring (Fogelson, 1970;

Sloane, 1967), and lawyers saw social workers as too emotional and unprofessional

(Sloane, 1967). It is not clear how these attitudes have changed in the past three decades. Is

it possible that they have shifted in response to the dramatic increase in the number of

women pursuing legal careers? No current research on the attitudes of lawyers and social

workers towards one another was found for this literature review.

Several recent articles have noted the high degree of conflict between child welfare and

legal professionals (Herring, 1993; Johnson & Cahn, 1992; Weinstein, 1997). While

Herring (1993) and Johnson and Cahn (1992) presented research on models of

collaboration designed to strengthen professional relationships between lawyers and

social workers, they do not explain the causes of this conflict, and make only passing

reference to organizational culture. Similarly, Weinstein (1997) reviews the literature and

her own experiences as a lawyer to conclude that the cultural differences between social

workers and lawyers include: 1) attitudes about the value of an adversarial process; 2)

future versus past orientations when thinking about cases; and 3) beliefs about use of

professional discretion in making decisions. However, no empirical research on

differences in professional culture was presented.

2.2. Social identity and organizational culture theory

Social identity theory helps to explain how people become associated with various

group memberships, and what the meaning of that association is for the individual. This


discussion of social identity has been summarized from Hogg and Terry (2001). They note

that people adjust their perceptions and behavior according to group norms, and

differentiate themselves from members of other groups by observing how groups exhibit

different norms. Hogg and Terry (2001) describe self-categorization, which is the process

of becoming part of the group:

This transformation of the self is the process underlying group phenomena,

because it brings self-perception and behavior in line with the contextually relevant

ingroup prototype. It produces, for instance, normative behavior, stereotyping,

ethnocentrism, positive ingroup attitudes and cohesion, cooperation and altruism,

emotional contagion and empathy, collective behavior, shared norms, and mutual

influence (p. 5).

Identifying with a group is advantageous in several ways: 1) joining a group perceived to

be high status can contribute to increased self-esteem for members; 2) adopting group

norms can reduce anxiety about how to feel, think, and behave by allowing individuals to

conform to a standard; and 3) sharing group practices can encourage cohesion.

Hogg and Terry (2001) argue that b. . .professional and/or organizational identity may

be more pervasive and important than ascribed identities based on age, ethnicity, race, or

nationalityQ (p. 2). Since professional social identity can serve so many functions for

individual workers and the workgroup, it is important to consider how professional

identification and acculturation may be critical to the individual’s success in the

organization. How do the social identities of social work and law students evolve in

graduate school and ultimately reflect their organizational work roles?

In contrast to social identity theory, organizational culture theory provides a framework

for understanding variation in beliefs and rituals of workgroups and other associations.

Schein (1992) defined organizational culture as being composed of the artifacts, espoused

values, and tacit assumptions of an organization. Artifacts include observable objects such

as clothing, office space, behaviors, events, and language. Explicitly stated principles, as

described in the organization’s mission statement, practice literature, and formal

communications make up the espoused values. Tacit assumptions are the most difficult

to detect, as they are the underlying meanings associated with the artifacts and values.

Given that outsiders to any group typically encounter the other group’s artifacts and

espoused values first, and misunderstandings often occur when outsiders misinterpret the

meaning of another group’s artifacts, this study examined how the artifacts and espoused

values of professional training programs for lawyers and social workers differ.

2.3. Artifacts and organizational culture

Schein (1992) recommended beginning an assessment of an organization’s culture by

describing its artifacts. Schein defined artifacts broadly to include b. . .dress codes, desiredmodes of behavior in addressing the boss, the physical layout of the workplace, how time

and space are used, what kinds of emotions one would notice, and so forthQ (p. 151).While I failed to locate any studies on the artifacts level of professional culture for child

welfare workers or lawyers, Gummer (1998) reviewed the literature on the importance and

meaning of dress in organizations. The review discusses two studies, one of nurses and the


other of administrative support staff, and describes how dress helps to establish identity,

express the degree of organizational control on the individual, and convey status to co-

workers and clients. Workers invest significant time and money in creating an appropriate

professional appearance since dress is an important symbol in performance of the social

role (Gummer, 1998). This implies that one reason for looking at the artifacts level of

organizational culture is that artifacts are very meaningful both to members of a given

culture and to outsiders.

3. Methods

A qualitative, observation-based, exploratory study was designed to focus on the

educational experiences of lawyers and social workers, and to understand the intangible

aspects of social identity formation and evolution of professional cultures. As Lofland and

Lofland (1995) wrote:

The central reason for undertaking this ongoing witnessing of the lives of others is

the fact that a great many aspects of social life can be seen, felt, and analytically

articulated only in this manner. . .The epistemological foundation of fieldstudies is

indeed the proposition that only through direct experience can one know much about

social life (p. 3).

The results demonstrate the value in studying professional culture through observation. As I

sat in my first class for this study, I noticed the use of humor in the classroom and began to

document it throughout that first observation and all subsequent ones. I found important

differences in the content and process of the humor used in law and social work classes.

Had I been conducting an interview study, I may not have thought to include questions

about humor, and even if I had, it is unlikely that respondents would have been able to tell

me accurately who makes the jokes in their classes and what exactly makes everyone laugh.

3.1. Sampling

In the spring of 2002, I observed two class meetings of two law and two social work

classes, totaling eight observations. In the law school, one large lecture course (75

students) and one small seminar (25 students) were selected for the study. Both social

work classes observed were small seminars (25 students). A law lecture class was chosen

because first-year law students are required to take several of these large classes, and it is

an important part of their professional training experience. In comparison, social work

students are required to take only two large lecture classes, and all of their other classes are

seminars of approximately twenty-five students or less.

The sampling plan was purposive. I selected classes based on the focus of this study

(lawyers and social workers who work with child dependency cases), and on the advice of

key informants in the law and social work schools who recommended classes relevant to

the study.

I observed each class twice to prevent gathering atypical data. For example, I observed

one law class the day after spring break, and several students were unprepared when the


professor called on them. When I made my second observation, all students who were

called on were prepared to summarize the cases being discussed that day. If I had only seen

the first class, I might have concluded that lack of preparation was a classroom norm.

An observation log (see Appendix) was developed and completed at each observation

to insure consistency of data collected. The final page of the observation log was reserved

for bsubjective impressions and data not included elsewhereQ to allow space to note any

unexpected or unusual data.

3.2. Data collection

The observation log was developed through a process of bglobal organizationQ as

described in Lofland and Lofland (1995). Relying on both a general body of knowledge

about culture and ethnography and a specific body of knowledge from the literature review

completed for this study, I created a log divided into broad categories such as settings,

classroom norms, and student qualities. Each log also began with a cover sheet describing

the objective facts about the class such as start time and number of students present.

Due to time constraints and limited resources, data was collected at one law and one

social work school in the San Francisco Bay Area (names of schools, professors, and

courses are excluded for reasons of confidentiality). These sites were selected for the study

because of their prominence as training programs for many lawyers and social workers

practicing in the Bay Area.

In keeping with Schein’s (1992) model of organizational culture described in the

literature review, the study focused on observing cultural artifacts and espoused values.

The artifacts studied included, but were not limited to: humor in the classroom, teacher–

student interactions, terms of address, use of language, dress, layout of classroom, number

of students in class, credentials of the teacher leading the class, time class is scheduled to

begin versus actual start time, length of class, breaks offered during class, eating and

drinking during class, and type of classroom instruction (i.e. lecture, open discussion,

breaking into small groups, etc.).

Classroom data was collected through direct observation. Attempts to increase the

consistency of the results from each observation were made through documenting

observations in the same way each time, and by having one researcher complete all the

observations. Since memory can be an unreliable data source, notes were taken while

sitting in classes, not afterwards. I checked the notes after each class for accuracy and

comprehensiveness while the memory of the observation was still very accessible to the

researcher.

3.3. Analysis

Since this is a qualitative study, analysis was an inductive process done through careful

reading and sorting of the data collected. I read each log twenty to thirty times, identifying

categories of data as I went along. For example, all comments that described student

participation were placed into one category. Then all pieces of data that fit under a

particular theme were typed into a word processor. This categorized data was also read

multiple times. At this stage of the analysis, I asked myself questions such as, bWhat do I


see going on here [in a given category]?Q (Lofland & Lofland, 1995:186). Based on this

type of analysis, I developed propositions about the social environment of the classroom.

In comparing the data, I looked for significant similarities, differences, and emergent

themes in the professional training experiences of lawyers and social workers.

3.4. Limitations

Several factors limited the design of this study. As classes continued at their usual pace

while I took notes, it is possible that I missed some important information while writing. It

is likely that another researcher would have chosen to record different pieces of information

than I did. In future observational studies, it would be ideal to have a team of observers take

and compare notes to address these limitations in the method. Though I made efforts to

approach both social work and law classes as an outsider, as a social work student, it is

inevitable that my perspective was influenced by my own professional identity. Due to time

and budget constraints, I was unable to observe classes in more than one school, or to

observe more classes, so it is possible that the classes or schools I observed were atypical.

As with any observational research, there is a possibility that participants behaved

differently because they were being observed, so that is also a limitation of the study.

Finally, because this study did not include surveys or interviews, I cannot comment on what

kind of students are drawn to law and social work. It is likely that the individuals in a given

profession have some common characteristics that contribute to the group’s culture.

4. Findings

The findings on the education of lawyers and social workers are reported in five areas:

1) classroom environment; 2) student–professor interactions; 3) educational techniques; 4)

explicit references to the group process; and 5) response to my presence as an observer.

Before describing differences in law and social work education, two similarities should be

noted. First, the dress was casual in both law and social work classes. Second, students in

both disciplines appeared to be focused on the material being presented, and most students

took notes and/or participated in discussion when appropriate. Only a few students in each

of the classes appeared to be engaging in sidebar conversations or unrelated activities.

4.1. Classroom environment

The social work classes selected for this study were both first-year practice classes, each

with an enrollment of approximately 25 students. One of the courses was for students

specializing in child welfare. Both of these classes were held in one-level seminar rooms

with moveable desks and chairs. During my observations, both of these classes had their

desks and chairs arranged in a semi-circle. In one of the classes, there was an outer and

inner ring of chairs. Chairs were moved to establish a scene for a role play in one of the

classes. In both classes, the professor alternated between standing at the front of the room,

sometimes writing at the chalkboard, and at other times sitting in the semi-circle at the same

kind of desk occupied by the students. Seats were not assigned in either social work class.


One of the law classes was a practice seminar for second- and third-year students

specializing in family law. This seminar had about 25 students, and was also held in a

one-level seminar room. However, the desks and chairs were fixed, so the room was

permanently arranged in a semi-circle containing two rows. The professor in this

seminar class either stood at the chalkboard or sat at an instructor’s desk. The other law

class was a lecture with approximately 75 first-year students. This classroom included

about fifteen rows arranged into three sections, and the classroom was multi-level, like a

theater. The professor stood on an elevated platform and alternated between standing at

the chalkboard and at a podium. Seats were assigned in the law lecture class, but not in

the seminar.

4.2. Student–professor interactions in social work classes

In the social work classes I observed, students and the professor divided air time

roughly equally. The typical professor’s response to a student question or comment was a

paraphrase of the remark and a clarifying or information-gathering question to the specific

student or the group. For example, when a student described the assessment tools used at

her field placement, the professor responded by asking the student how the use of those

tools impacted her work with clients. Following that exchange, other students were

encouraged to share their experiences with similar assessment tools. All participants

waited for one another to finish speaking before beginning to speak. Students were not

called upon unless they signaled a desire to speak. The exception was a role play exercise

in which too few students volunteered to participate, and the professor assigned roles.

Humorous comments resulting in group laughter were more equally initiated by

professors and students in social work classes than in law classes. The humorous

comments would have been understandable to an outsider, were lacking in sarcasm, and

seemed intended to ease anxiety. For example, a social work professor attempted to

decrease apprehension about an upcoming assignment by joking about it. Another

occurrence of group laughter took place during a role play when students used the words

bhippieQ and bcommuneQ in a cliched manner.

4.3. Student–professor interactions in law classes

In law classes, the professor used the majority of the air time. The typical professor

response to a student question or comment was a bYes, but. . .Q An example of this was

when a student summarized a case, and the professor said, bYes, correct, you said almost

everything there is to say about this case, but let me add. . .Q Participants occasionally

interrupted one another’s speech in law classes, and students were regularly called on

without having volunteered.

The humorous comments resulting in group laughter were most often initiated by the

professor and frequently included content specific to legal concepts. These jokes often

contained some elements of sarcasm. One example of a law school joke was when a

professor commented onwhether or not a question about a case was a fact of law or a de novo

review. A second example of law school humor was a professor-initiated joke about the

dissolution of an unmarried, cohabitating couple: bThey lived, the loved, they left; that’s itQ.


Fig. 1 summarizes these differences in professor–student interactions in law and social

work classes.

4.4. Educational techniques in social work classes

In social work classes, the main educational process was a highly interactive discussion

facilitated by professor. In one social work class observed, role play was also incorporated

into the educational process. Personal field experiences of both professors and students

were intertwined with reading material and professor-generated factual content. For

example, the professor in one class encouraged students to buse one anotherQ as resourcesin gathering information about social work groups. Students were encouraged to share

Law Social Work

Division of “air time” between professor and students

Professor spoke for majority of class.

Students and professor appeared to be sharing air time roughly equally.

Most frequent manner of interaction

Professor called on students who did not volunteer to participate and paused lecture to take questions.

Majority of class time was spent in discussion in which professor acted as facilitator of dialogue.

Most frequent content of interaction Factual question or comment

Comments and questions about current and past field experiences as related to topic of discussion.

Does professor call on students who do not volunteer?

Yes, in all classes observed. Yes, in one class meeting observed, for a role play.

Do speakers interrupt one another while speaking?

Occasional interruptions wereobserved.

No interruptions were observed.

Most frequent professor response to student comment or question

“Yes, but...”

Paraphrase of student question or comment, then additional question to individual student or class intended to elicit further information.

Most frequent initiator of group laughter

Professor Fairly evenly divided between professor and student

Most frequent content of humor

Professional jokes featuring references difficult for outsider to understand. Some sarcastic comments.

Situational humor (i.e. awkwardness of doing a role play) & sharing of humorous personal experiences.

Fig. 1. Student–professor interaction in law and social work classes.


their experiences as leaders of groups. Students were asked to describe personal responses

to and feelings about material being presented. The professor invited to talk about how

they felt about using various assessment tools or assuming a part in a role play. In the

social work classes observed, there was no written or oral testing of students’ completion

of reading assignments.

4.5. Educational techniques in law classes

The main educational process in large and small law classes was lecture by the

professor. While the seminar featured more interactive discussion than the law lecture, the

professor still spoke more often than students, and there was less discussion than in either

of the social work classes observed. Another classroom technique was the professor’s

calling upon students to summarize readings or cases, then asking follow-up questions

focused on facts of the case or bwhat ifQ scenarios. There was little emphasis on personal

reactions to material, and there was little emphasis on the inclusion of personal experience.

For example, when a professor began to tell a personal story related to the class discussion,

he corrected himself by saying, bI digress. . .Q When the professor called on students to

summarize a case, they were implicitly tested or assessed in terms of how well they had

completed the reading assignment.

Fig. 2 summarizes the differences in educational techniques in law and social work

classes.

4.6. Explicit references to group process

In social work, explicit references to the group process seemed intended to facilitate

group cohesion and student buy-in, whereas comments about group process in law classes

tended to emphasize the professor’s role as an authority figure. Fig. 3 provides some

examples of explicit references to group process in law and social work classes.

Law Social Work

Lecture

Summarization of cases Role play

Little intertwining of personal experiences with material.

Intertwining of personal experiences with material was emphasized.

Little emphasis on personal reactions to material.

Personal reactions to material were emphasized.

Students were “tested” on materials by being asked to summarize cases assigned as reading.

Students were not asked to summarize or report on reading assignments.

Discussion

Fig. 2. Educational techniques in law and social work classes.

Law Social Work The professor called on a student bylooking at the seating chart, and when the student raised his hand, the professor said, “You’re in the wrong seat.”

Class began with discussion of an upcoming written assignment. This discussion lasted for twenty minutes. During this discussion, the instructor said the goal was for all students to “do okay.”

The professor told students that if they did not have the syllabus, they had “2 options: you can get it from the person on your right or the person on your left.” Then the professor said he would e-mail it to students who could not get it fromclassmates.

At one point, the instructor wanted to share a student field experience that the student and professor had discussed privatelyduring the instructor‘s office hours, and the professor asked the student’s permission first.

The professor commented, “We have three minutes left and that’s plenty of time to get through these [three] cases.” (And then he did get through the remainder of the outline - three cases were covered in the remaining time.)

The instructor took a vote at the beginning of the class to decide whether the class should break into small groups to discuss the readings. The majority voted no.

Fig. 3. Explicit references to group process in law and social work classes.


4.7. Response to my presence as an observer

In both social work classes, the professor requested that I describe the study, and gave

students some time to ask questions. In both classes, three to four students asked questions

about the courses being sampled and the meaning of bprofessional cultureQ. The tone of

these interactions was friendly and curious. Also in both social work classes, the

professors expressed a lot of interest in seeing the results of the study because it would

give them some insight into their group process.

In the large law lecture class, the professor introduced the study and paused only briefly

to determine if any students objected to my presence. In the law seminar, the professor

allowed the students to ask questions that were similar to those asked by social work

students, except that a few of the students also offered advice as to which classes I should

visit. While the tone of these interactions was also very friendly, it was interesting to note

that the law students provided advice, whereas none of social work students made such an

offer. Though the results of the study were made available to both law professors, they

indicated little interest in receiving them (in contrast to the enthusiastic interest of the

social work professors).

5. Discussion

The results suggest that social work and law classes have distinct educational

cultures, in which professors explicitly model a type of professional behavior to be

emulated in the students’ future practices. As mentioned in the Introduction, outsiders to

any group typically encounter the other group’s artifacts and espoused values first, and


misunderstandings often occur when outsiders misinterpret the meaning of another group’s

artifacts. Despite the study’s limitations, preliminary implications about law and social

work classroom culture can be drawn from the differences in the artifacts observed and

provide insight into how emerging professionals understand authority and collaboration

with others.

The social work classroom culture de-emphasizes the professor’s authority, whereas law

culture emphasizes it. This can be seen by the discussion-oriented nature of the social work

classroom and the lecture-oriented nature of the law classroom. The social work professor

emphasizes busing one anotherQ to elicit information while the law professor provides

information by him or herself. Similarly, the social work professor promotes the norm of

student involvement in decision-making (e.g. voting about whether or not to break into

small groups) while the law professor maintains more control over decision-making in law

classes (e.g. determining when and how cases will be discussed — three cases in 3 min).

The differences in the types of classroom environments are also notable. The social

work classrooms were generally smaller and included desks that could be arranged in a

variety of different ways. The law classrooms featured fixed furniture, and the lecture class

took place in a large, multi-level room. These classrooms appear to be designed or

equipped to enhance the socialization experience most appropriate to each profession.

Thus, social work classrooms can be used flexibly in order to facilitate interaction (i.e.

chairs can be moved to make room for a role play), as in many social work meetings and

case conferences. In contrast, law classrooms emphasize the professor’s role as lecturer

with all chairs permanently arranged to provide an audience, as in a courtroom.

The structure of authority relationships (student–professor) on campus can have major

implications for the structuring of inter-professional relationships in practice. If, through

the socialization experiences of the classroom, lawyers are oriented to the authority of

the judge and Socratic process, and social workers are oriented to the collective

authority of the group and the collaborative process, then it is not surprising to find them

in conflict with each other in the child dependency courtroom. The research on social

identity theory presented in the literature review suggests that these socialization

experiences are likely to influence the emerging professional’s development and his or

her adoption of group norms.

6. Implications for teaching, practice, and research

6.1. Teaching

As noted in the Introduction, when professionals of various disciplines understand their

differences in professional culture, they may work together more harmoniously

(Meyerson, 1994; Russell, 1988). As students are trained in working with people from

various ethnic, racial, and cultural groups, they should also be trained on working with

professionals from other disciplines. Madden (2003) presents an excellent model for

training social workers in key knowledge and skill areas necessary for collaborating with

legal professionals. An understanding of socialization experiences of lawyers and social

workers could complement Madden’s recommended curriculum.


To bring the findings of this study more directly into the classroom, law and social

work students could observe one another’s classes using the log provided in the Appendix

to document their findings. This would provide an opportunity to reflect on professional

culture and strengthen critical thinking skills as students compare what they found with

one another’s observations and the material presented here. Students can also be trained to

observe professional culture in case conferences, courtrooms, or other inter-disciplinary

meetings, using a version of the observation log adapted for these settings.

6.2. Practice

The findings of this study are relevant for professionals working in child dependency as

well as other practice areas characterized by frequent inter-professional collaboration

including domestic violence, immigration, substance abuse, and family. Lawyers and

social workers have been required to work together more frequently in these and other

areas of practice due to case complexity and a policy environment that emphasizes inter-

disciplinary collaboration (Madden, 2003).

This study has been presented at several inter-disciplinary conferences in California,

partially through the support of the Bay Area Academy, a child welfare training institute.

At most of these conferences, the study has been used as an bicebreakerQ to help lawyers

and social workers who may be experiencing inter-professional conflicts to reflect on their

difficulties in collaboration. Conference participants seem to find the observations about

their own socialization experiences humorous (as evidenced by the laughter that erupts

during the presentation of this study), while gaining insight into the occasionally

confounding behaviors exhibited by members of the other discipline. After the

presentation, conference participants convene in small groups to discuss the findings

and how they view differences in professional culture as contributing to difficulties in

collaboration.

6.3. Research

As described in the Methods section, this study had a number of limitations. Future

studies should include additional observations in more classes and schools, as well as

an inter-disciplinary team of researchers to conduct observations. Research on

combined M.S.W.–J.D. programs could provide a rich perspective on the socialization

experiences of students who choose this specialized training. There is also a need for

research on what precedes and evolves from these different classroom cultures: What

are the characteristics of students who choose law or social work? How does classroom

culture influence the professional culture created by lawyers and social workers in the

workplace?

In addition to research on professional culture, more scholarship on inter-disciplinary

collaboration would make a significant contribution to the literature. What problems do

lawyers and social workers encounter in collaboration? How do difficulties in

collaboration influence client satisfaction, case outcomes, or worker retention? Given

the increase in inter-disciplinary collaboration, and the limited literature available about

this topic, it is an essential area of focus for researchers, practitioners, and instructors.


Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to Amy D’Andrade, for assisting me in developing

this research project, and to Michael J. Austin for his extensive editing of the manuscript.

Appendix A. Observation recording instrument

Note: in order to conserve paper, this is a condensed version of the log. It does not

include the large blank spaces I used to record observations.

Name of school being observed:

Title of course:

Date:

Time class is scheduled to begin:

Actual start time:

Time of instructor’s arrival:

Length of class:

Scheduled end of class:

Actual end of class:

# of times per week this class meets:

Number of students present:

Number of students enrolled:

# of students arriving after class begins:

Title of person leading the class:

Degree held by person leading the class:

Gender of person leading the class:

Degrees, title, and gender of additional instructors, if applicable:

Describe student response to my presence:

I. School qualities:

A. Appearance of building where class is held including number of stories, landscaping around building, and

availability of parking near building:

B. Location of building on campus including proximity to center of campus:

II. Classroom qualities:

A. Layout of room:

Diagram including X to indicate student seating and Y to indicate professor’s location:

Written description of room’s layout and seating chart:

B. Are seats assigned?

C. Type of lighting — note brightness, type of lighting, whether or not there is natural lighting, size of windows

and view through them.

D. Other notable aspects of the classroom including type of floor, color of walls, presence of any posters or

artwork, and subjective experience of the classroom:

III. Student qualities:

A. Approximate age of students including presence of individuals who appear to be much older or younger

than most other students:

B. Approximate female-to-male ratio:

C. Formality of dress of students, including presence of students whose appearance is significantly more or less

formal than most other students:

D. Subjective feeling about student group:

IV. Classroom norms:

A. If the class was over 1 h long, did the class take a break?

B. Scheduled length of break:

C. Actual length of break:

D. Describe break activity including whether or not students interact with one another, whether or not most

students leave the room, whether or not students continue working during break, and whether or not students

use cell phones during break.

E. Describe type of instruction — lecture, discussion, role-play, small group discussion, etc.

F. Do students raise their hands to answer or ask questions? If not, is there another way in which students

initiate participation?

G. Does the instructor call on students who do not volunteer to participate?

H. How does the instructor address students?

I. Describe the behavior of the majority of the students including note-taking, engagement in activities not

directly related to the classroom activity such as working in planners or reading non-course-related material,

any disruptive behavior, apparent attention to the instructor, and eating or drinking in class.

J. Does the instructor comment on any student behavior?

K. Overall, to what degree are students responsive and cooperative? How competitive does the classroom

seem?

L. Humor — record incidences of group laughter, including humorous content, initiator(s) of group laughter,

and tone of group laughter

V. Content:

A. What is the general topic of the class?

B. Describe any references made to bthe professionQ and professional expectations:

VI. Other subjective impressions not noted elsewhere:


References

Brennan, W., & Khinduka, S. (1971). Role expectations of social workers and lawyers in juvenile court. Crime

and Delinquency, 17, 191–201.

Carnochan, S., Taylor, S., Abramson, A., Han, M., Maney, J., Rashid, S., et al. (2002). Child welfare and the

courts: An exploratory study of the relationship between two complex systems. Unpublished manuscript,

Berkeley, CA.

Fogelson, F. B. (1970). How social workers perceive lawyers. Social Casework, 51, 95–101.

Gummer, B. (1998). In the eye of the beholder: The meaning of dress in an organizational context. Administration

in Social Work, 22, 75–90.

Herring, D. (1993). Legal representation for the state child welfare agency in civil child protection proceedings: A

comparative study. University of Toledo Law Review, 24, 603–687.

Hogg, M., & Terry, D. (2001). Social identity theory and organizational processes. In M. Hogg, & D. Terry (Eds.),

Social identity processes in organizational contexts. Philadelphia7 Psychology Press.

Johnson, P., & Cahn, K. (1992). Improving child welfare practice through improvements in attorney social worker

relationships. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 54, 229–238.

Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis.

Belmont, CA7 Wadsworth.

Madden, R. (2003). Legal content in social work education: Preparing students for interprofessional practice.

Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 20(1/2), 3–17.

Meyerson, D. E. (1994). Interpretations of stress in institutions: The cultural production of ambiguity and burnout.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 628–654.

Russell, R. (1988). Role perception of attorneys and caseworkers in child abuse cases in juvenile court. Child

Welfare, 67, 205–216.

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco7 Jossey-Bass.

Sloane, H. (1967). Relationship of law and social work. Social Work, 12, 86–92.


Smith, A. (1970). The social worker in the legal setting: A study of interprofessional relationships. Social Service

Review, 44, 155–161.

Weil, M. (1982). Research on issues in collaboration between social workers and lawyers. Social Service Review,

56, 400–403.

Weinstein, J. (1997). And never the twain shall meet: The best interests of children and the adversary system.

University of Miami Law Review, 52, 79–175.

Documents

Educating future practitioners of social work and law: Exploring the origins of inter-professional misunderstanding