FEMALES IN SOCIAL WORK: THEIR DESCRIPTION OF CAREER ADVANCEMENT

BARRIERS

By

LAURIE LYNN CRANDLEMIRE

Integrated Studies Project

Submitted to DR. NANCI LANGFORD

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

MAY 2010

1

ABSTRACT

This is a qualitative exploratory research project on women in social work and their

description of career advancement barriers. It uses current research on barriers for women in

the corporate world as a starting point for discussion given that no literature exists on this topic

for women who serve their communities in a helping capacity. There is a participatory action

component to the study in that participants are involved in the formulation of the project and the

analysis of findings. Results are reported with a feminist lens in terms of the impact of social

systems and gender and power in the workplace. Findings are similar to those in the corporate

world. Barriers to career advancement exist for women even in fields where they are heavily

represented. These barriers are simply more subtle and structural in nature. The report

concludes with recommendations for future research direction.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 3: INTRODUCTION

Page 4: THE LITERATURE

Page 10: OBJECTIVES

Page 11: METHODS

Page 15: RESULTS

Page 21: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Page 23: RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

Page 25: FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Page 27: REFERENCES

Page 30: APPENDICES

3

INTRODUCTION

This research on barriers to female career advancement in social work arose from a

conversation with young women entering the field about their aspirations. Through the

discussion a theme began to emerge. There was a firm belief on the part of these women that

they would achieve any career goal they decided to pursue. This was most intriguing. Their

comments appeared to suggest a shift in attitude amongst professional women as compared to

my experiences at a similar age; and as compared to stories I have heard from older female

colleagues. The conversation with these students of social work was particularly curious. I

began to wonder if women have finally “made it”; finally shattered the glass ceiling; the invisible

barrier that has long been present in the career world of women.

In scanning the literature on women and careers I found that barriers have not been entirely

erased. In fact “gender discrimination$ is (often) so deeply embedded in organizational life as

to be virtually indiscernible” (Myerson and Fletcher, 2000, p.127). However, no research could

be found that focused on social work. Given my curiosity about barriers to career advancement,

my twenty year career in social work, and an absence of literature on this issue in the field; I

opted to research the following question: How do females in social work field describe

barriers to career advancement?

This qualitative exploratory research project emphasizes participant beliefs as evidenced by

the themes of their self-described career experiences. The study has a feminist approach in

that it arises from the researcher’s own experiences and expects a unique relationship between

4

the researcher and the women involved. It focuses on women’s experiences and on

determining if women perceive gender differences, as well as examining women’s power and

relative status in the workplace. The study is limited to colleagues and friends in social work and

focuses on understanding their particular experiences. There is also a participatory action

component as some of the participants were involved in both the formulation of the study and

reviewing the findings. It should be noted that some of the women do not have degrees in social

work. They come from various backgrounds and work in the field of social work generally. The

term “social worker” is a legally protected title and is for use only by those with the relevant

educational credentials.

THE LITERATURE

Significant thinking and research conducted to date on women and career advancement

has emerged from the United States and Europe, in that order. Most suggest that there have

been some improvements in opportunity for women in the workplace. Myerson and Fletcher

have commented that “the new millennium provides an occasion to celebrate the remarkable

progress made by women$.But the truth is, women at the highest levels of business are still

rare “ (2000, p.127). Women hold only 15 percent of top corporate positions in the United

States, a country known for leading the way in the business world (Bertrand and Hallock, 2001,

p.3).

The following represents an overview of significant themes found in the present research on

women and careers. The main themes are grouped as follows: social systems and their

influence on the world of work, gender and power, social capital, tokenism, the glass ceiling

effect, the interaction between individual agency and social systems in the workplace, and

5

finally suggestions for change. Each of these areas is not mutually exclusive. There are points

of overlap and mutual influence. They are separated below simply to highlight the key areas

one must appreciate when studying women’s career challenges.

To understand women’s career issues one must first understand the society within which

both are situated. It has been said that “the oppression of women involves their relative position

within a society” (Alcoff, 1988, p.434). Our social system has long been patriarchal in nature

and women have struggled for respect and recognition in virtually every arena. It is therefore not

surprising that barriers are experienced in the workplace. Examination of the problem from a

social systems viewpoint suggests that environmental influences impact the individual and her

chances for success. Gender in this context is conceptualized not in terms of biology, but as a

social structure within which inequality is produced and reproduced (Risman, 2004, p.437;

Fletcher, 2004, Alvesson, 1998). Alcoff confirms the social constructivist approach and clarifies

that women are not merely passive recipients that are simply acted upon. Women are able to

contribute to the “context within which (their) position can be delineated” (1988, p.434). In this

way the lines of gender can be redrawn and social status impacted (Meyerson and Fletcher,

2000). The achievements of new forms of work organization including flexible work hours, and

policies which emphasize the equal treatment of women are two indicators of the changing

social structure in the Western world (Smith, 1997, p.334).

Nevertheless issues continue to surface. Many women feel that they have two jobs; one in

the workplace and one at home. Hochschild “employs the metaphor of the second shift to refer

to the housework, child care and household management tasks that must be accomplished

before and after one’s paid work” (Wharton, 1994, p.197). Redefining what is expected of the

“modern” woman is still in process. In many ways women still lack social power. They may

have advanced in the workforce. However, they have not been able to redefine their duties in

the family setting.

6

An excellent example of gender and power-based challenges in the workplace is found in the

successful discrimination suit, Dukes V. Wal-Mart, Inc., a case where more than 1.5 million

female employees of Wal-Mart sued for unfair employment policies and practices (Monahan,

Walker and Mitchell, 2008, p.1715). A crucial piece of evidence in the case came from a “social

framework analysis” performed by sociologist, Dr. William Bielby in which he linked Wal-Mart

practices to “social science research on factors that create and sustain bias“(Monahan et. al.,

2008, p.1715). There are increasing numbers of discrimination suits in the United States based

on this type of analysis, revealing ongoing disparities of power and prejudicial employment

practices (Monahan et.al., 2008, pp.1716-1717). Barriers to the acquisition of power at work fall

into two categories according to Oakley: discriminatory corporate practices and

behavioral/cultural causes (2000, p.322). Dukes V. Wal-Mart, Inc. illustrates the former.

Examples of the latter include stereotyping and tokenism (discussed later). These issues are

much more challenging to overcome. Women find themselves in a behavioral double bind, a

“no win situation” where they have to behave in a certain way to succeed and when they do so,

they are negatively labeled and often called bitches (Oakley, 2000, p.324). Ragins and

Sundstrom add to Oakley’s work on barriers. They indicate that there are four levels of analysis

of gender differences in power: social systems, organizational, interpersonal relationships and

individual actions (Ragins and Sundstrom, 1989, p.53). “The social systems level focuses on

the society at large and on roles and $expectations$. The organizational level$focuses on

practices related to selection and promotion. The interpersonal level$focuses on the

relationships among individuals within the context of their positions$. (Finally) the individual

level of analysis focuses upon the sources of power the individual brings to a position in an

organization” (Ragins and Sundstrom, 1989, p.53).

The path to power and success for a woman resembles an obstacle course (Ragins and

Sundstrom, 1989, p.51). Power may be defined as the “influence by one person over others,

stemming from a position in an organization, from an interpersonal relationship, or from an

7

individual characteristic” (Ragins and Sundstrom, 1989, p.51). Power can be objective or

perceived. Both are necessary for success. The development of power occurs over time and

grows “out of an accumulation of resources during a person’s career” (Ragins and Sundstrom,

1989, p.52). There is an incremental component to its accumulation. Experiences and how they

are navigated are critical points in career development. How a woman is able to progress

through transition points is generally indicative of how successful she will be; how much power

others perceive she has (Ragins and Sundstrom, 1989, p.81).

The accumulation of power is linked to the development of social capital. “Using social

connections and social relations is essential in achieving (career) goals” (Cohen, Prusack and

Lin as quoted in Timberlake, 2005, p.35). Timberlake identifies two major differences for gender

differences in advancement: human capital (education, skill set, intelligence$) and social

capital (2005, p.37). An essential part of success in an organization is one’s belonging to social

networks (2005, p.38). Unfortunately the access to key organizational and social networks is not

always equitable. Timberlake believes that such inequity is rooted in the struggle for legitimacy.

“In any organization there is a group of insiders$typically white men who perceive anyone else

as outsiders” (Timberlake, 2005, p.40). Women struggle to make the social connections that

count. They are typically excluded unless they are able to align with the insiders for legitimacy.

Power gained in this manner is known as reflected power (Timberlake, 2005, p.40).

In the attempt to align, women’s desire for advancement can be exploited. They may

achieve the advancement they are seeking without developing their own power because they

are simply tokens; there for the appearance of equal treatment only. That is the essence of

Kanter’s original tokenism theory which has been later refined by Yoder and Zimmer. This

theory identifies common “negative consequences that could be barriers to $career success

and advancement” (Lyness and Thompson, 2000, p.87). Women may feel that they are not a

good fit with the male dominated culture. They are excluded from interactions where critical

8

information is shared. Due to women’s token status, they receive less mentoring and become

more dependent on formal organizational career management processes. Another

consequence of token status is missing out on “critical developmental assignments that are

needed for advancement” (Lyness and Thompson, 2000, p.88).

It is as if women are bumping up against a “glass ceiling”. This term has become a common

phrase for the invisible barriers that women face when seeking to climb “the corporate ladder” to

success. Cotter, Hermsen, Ovadia and Vanneman identify criteria that confirm the presence of

a glass ceiling (2001, pp.657-661). Gender or racial differences cannot be explained by other

job-relevant characteristics of an employee. In other words, the lack of advancement is not due

to poor work performance. Affected employees have fewer chances for advancement. They

lack the legitimacy or social capital that is needed to move up. Gender or racial differences are

greater at higher levels and increase over the course of a career (note that for purposes of this

project, racial differences have not been included in the research question).

Lyness and Thompson compared the career and work experiences of executive women and

men in comparable positions (1997). They found similarities in several areas, most notably

compensation structures which is quite encouraging. Less so is the finding that women had less

authority than their male counterparts. Even more disconcerting is the conclusion that “women

at the highest executive levels reported more obstacles than lower level women” (Lyness and

Thompson, 1997, p.359). This confirmed not only the presence of a glass ceiling, but suggests

that as women progress; they may come up against multiple ceilings. Reynolds studied women

in politics at approximately the same time period. Reynolds stressed the presence of

“sociocultural variables such as the acceptance of women in power in society” (1999, p.572). At

all levels women have encountered obstacles, from lower level positions to the highest politic

office appointments. While these studies are somewhat dated, Ryan and Haslam’s research is

more recent and reveals similar findings.

9

They confirmed that the upper echelons continue to be dominated by men and women

remain shut out except during times of crisis. When an organization is experiencing instability, it

is at that point that women are more likely to be given leadership roles. That may seem

promising. It is not. These women are often doomed to fail and are typically blamed for the

resultant disaster (Ryan and Haslam, 2005; Ryan and Haslam, 2007, Haslam and Ryan, 2008;

Ryan, Haslam and Postmes, 2007). This phenomenon has been termed the “glass cliff” (Ryan

and Haslam, 2005). By contrast, the corresponding phenomenon for men is the “glass elevator”

which accelerates them up the organizational hierarchy, “particularly in positions that are

female-dominated” (Williams as quoted in Ryan, Haslam and Postmes, 2007, p. 182). Perhaps

the glass elevator is present in social work organizations as well.

This is not encouraging news. Is the new millennium no more promising than the last? Lent

and Brown turned to Bandura’s work on social cognitive theory for some direction (2000, p.278).

They were curious about the “processes through which people form interests, make choices,

and achieve varying levels of success in educational and occupational pursuits” (Lent and

Brown, 2000, p.36). Bandura believes that “personal agency and social structure operate

interdependently” (2002, p.278). Lent and Brown concluded that there are specific barriers

involved in career advancement. Each has an interdependent quality and each must be

overcome to succeed. The first is interpersonal versus environmental factors. Events or

conditions within the person and/or her environment can affect progress. This is followed by

generalized versus task-specific variables. A glass ceiling could be termed a generalized

variable in that it has an elusive quality and is not anchored to any one event. Next is the

temporal dimension to barriers. Are they connected to the past, present or future events? This

is followed by the “prevalence and impact of barrier perceptions” (Lent and Brown, 2000, p.43).

Assuming that people perceive barriers, the authors wonder about the extent to which

perceptions impact their choices. One’s overall affect or disposition is another component. The

10

degree of a person’s negative or positive nature impacts how events turn out. Last is outcome

expectations (Lent and Brown, 2000, pp.36-49). What a person expects to happen impacts what

does happen to some degree. Building on that notion one can infer that there is some degree of

optimism possible for females who aspire to advance their careers. As has been suggested

earlier, they can have an impact and are not helpless. The degree to which they can succeed is

complicated by many social variables.

Meyerson and Fletcher identify ways for women to impact their career development. They

suggest the implementation of “small wins strategies” (Meyerson and Fletcher, 2000, pp.126-

136). Women leaders must be “thoughtful architects” of their progress (Meyerson and Fletcher,

2000, p. 136). Through diagnosis, dialogue and experimentation we chip away at the challenge

and succeed by taking on small problems, one at a time. The choice of which “battle” to wage

must be carefully selected. This requires a woman to be acutely aware of herself and her

surroundings and plan and act in a calculated fashion. Just how do we develop this skill?

Smith tells us that “we need$to learn how to treat one another as the authoritative speakers of

our own experience and concerns” (1987, p.34). Women’s thinking is not to be taken for

granted. Nor does it need to be “authorized by an external source of authority” (Smith, 1987, p.

34). It is through exploring everyday life from the point of women that we learn about their

struggles and their successes and we can build on the latter.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this research was to provide an enhanced understanding of the overall

career experiences of women in social work who aspire to advance. I set out to capture their

perceptions of issues, challenges and barriers related to career growth and gain insight into how

11

they have navigated through same. It was important to appreciate their unique strengths and

abilities and how they applied them to their work life. I wondered how their expectations and

goals matched with their lived experience. Comparison of their stories to those reflected in the

current literature was essential to beginning an understanding of the organizational life of

women in social work. The relationship of age to their experiences and perceptions was a

curiosity. In essence I sought to determine if the process would confirm that younger women do

tell a different story than older ones. I further set out to canvass the women on their

recommendations or suggestions for organizational change. My intention was to present their

collective voices through mine and speak out for them while also offering ideas on future

research.

METHODS

There were two distinct “stages” to the research process. The first stage involved

development of the interview process for the final research participants. To do so, two women

were interviewed to identify key concerns to explore further with the larger sample of six other

women. From this first stage, the intent was to develop interview questions to be administered

orally to the remaining study participants. The information collected about the experiences of

these initial participants was not used as part of the study results. This was purely an

exploratory process to ensure an appropriate understanding of what to ask and how to ask it in

a way that was comfortable and respectful of those interviewed. Following the development of

specific questions the plan was to test run the questions with the initial participants and further

refine as needed before proceeding to stage two: the interviews that would form the basis for

analysis.

The two women are both colleagues from a former place of work. In selecting participants,

there were a couple of variables to consider. Availability was one concern and the importance

12

of creating a safe environment that assured anonymity and comfort another. If the two women

were interviewed jointly, the worry was that they might not feel free to speak frankly despite the

fact that they know each other. A consequence of this choice is that this first stage is not as

conducive to brainstorming as a joint session might be.

The women were contacted by telephone and provided a brief synopsis of the project.

Verbal agreement to proceed was obtained. Each was provided a project information sheet and

consent form at the interview. An opportunity to ask additional questions and to withdraw if

desired was provided followed by a short verbal overview of the project goals and desired

outcomes. When agreement to proceed was confirmed both verbally and in writing, the

conversations were audio-taped. Interviews were subsequently transcribed into text format and

recordings destroyed. Text files were password protected and stored on a password protected

computer.

Upon reflection as to how best to proceed, it was decided that a very structured interview

would not be conducive to this project as it might limit the participants’ responses thereby risking

the failure to collect valuable information that could assist in the formulation of the next stage.

The interviews began with an open-ended format prompting the participants to describe their

own career experiences to date; and concluded with a request to offer ideas and suggestions

about what questions to include in the next set of interviews and on how best to structure them.

In the event that the participants were unable to generate material with minimal prompting; a

more structured format was available in the form of a set of questions that would provide a brief

overview of the literature review and prompt specific responses. It was not necessary to use the

structured format given that sufficient information was gathered with an informal approach.

Both women suggested that the next stage of the project take on a similar format. They

did not feel that specific questions would be informative or helpful. Instead they stated that such

13

a format would be limiting and uncomfortable. One felt that there would be potential pressure to

provide an appropriate response to a pointed question. In doing so, this could also inhibit a

person from speaking about areas that she feels important or relevant. They both noted that

future participants may have information about topic areas that did not arise from our

exploratory conversations. They both suggested that I conduct interviews much like they

experienced by injecting a comment, asking for clarification and expressing curiosity as to a

certain point as was appropriate at the moment. In this manner, they felt that the discussion

could be extended or clarified as required. They felt that the collegial nature of the

researcher/participant relationship would be conducive to such a process. Each woman felt that

the necessary information would arise from each person’s individual story without being forced.

At the conclusion of each interview, the issue of consent was revisited and confirmed.

The second stage of the research involved interviewing six women. A collegial relationship

also exists with these women. This process represents convenience sampling. This non-

random sampling technique was selected partly due to time and resource constraints and partly

due to a belief amongst feminist researchers about the importance of having a rapport with

participants. It is felt that a more random method would produce equally varied or similar

results. Sample size is relatively small but is believed to be adequate for the purposes of initial

exploration into an underexplored area of inquiry. Seven women were approached regarding

interest in participating. One withdrew prior to being interviewed noting that she upon reflection

she would prefer not to be part of the research at this time. Interviews were conducted at a

location and time selected by the participant. All of the interviews were approximately one hour

in length at maximum.

The same process was followed as with the first stage. The women were contacted by

telephone and provided a brief synopsis of the project. Verbal agreement to proceed was

obtained. Each was provided a project information sheet and consent form at the interview. An

14

opportunity to ask additional questions and to withdraw if desired was provided followed by a

short verbal overview of the project goals and desired outcomes. When agreement to proceed

was confirmed both verbally and in writing, the conversations were audio-taped. Interviews

were subsequently transcribed into text format and recordings destroyed. Text files were

password protected and stored on a password protected computer. One woman was particularly

concerned with ensuring that her confidentiality would be respected. In that instance, she was

shown a transcript of her interview and again asked to indicate her position on consent; which

she confirmed.

A feminist approach was used through the capture of participant knowledge and experiences

in their own words related to those parts of their career that they deemed relevant to share.

Each interview began with a standard set of questions on their age group, their educational

background and details on the number of employers and positions held. Rapport building

occurred relatively quickly given the prior history with each of these women. It was important to

pay attention subtleties to speech such as hesitancies and digressions in order to understand

what they were trying to communicate. Sometimes what is not said is more relevant than what

is. A focus on understanding and not just completing the interview is what sets feminist

interviews apart from others. The women were simply asked to describe their careers with a

view to expounding on the organizational component versus the clients. Reflection of their

phrasing was used to confirm understanding and probing, open ended statements such as “tell

me more” or “I am curious about$” were injected at appropriate points.

The information was screened for common themes and collated in a concept and evidence

format which follows. A draft copy of this report was provided to interested participants (of

which there were four). They were asked to provide feedback on the results.

15

RESULTS

Results are sorted and analyzed via the themes revealed by the literature review: social

systems and their influence on the world of work, gender and power, social capital, tokenism,

the glass ceiling effect, the interaction between individual agency and social systems in the

workplace, as well as suggestions for change. Comments regarding an additional finding are

added as a way to capture some key information not specifically sought at the outset, but

considered relevant. Within these categories, references are made regarding the age group of

the participants. The four women who reviewed a draft document of the findings all commented

that the report accurately reflected their perceptions and experiences. They did not request any

revisions or adjustments to the findings.

Prior to outlining the findings, descriptions of the participants in both the first and second

stages of the research are required. There are some interesting facts to note regarding the

participants in stage one. One woman was under the age of thirty five and one over. This

allowed for the voices of both younger and older groups to be represented in the development

stage. The older participant’s interview lasted close to two hours in direct contrast to the

younger one’s one hour session. Both women had bachelor’s degrees with additional

coursework and professional development. The older person had fewer employers and

positions over a three decade career span than the younger one had in one decade. Finally,

one person asked to have the interview in her home as that was where she felt most at ease.

The other asked to have hers in a locked conference room at her place of work. She had the

permission of her employer and was able to count the time as part of her work day. In this way

she stated that she could avoid lost time with her family during her “second shift” after hours.

It is interesting to note that the themes discussed were quite similar in both interviews. Both

women talked about the influence of social systems particular to their own experiences. There

16

were themes of gender and power although the examples were quite different. Tokenism was

prevalent in both cases as was a focus on personal agency. One theme much stronger in the

older woman’s interview was the glass ceiling and cliff; as well as what she termed an “old girl’s

network” which was likened to the “old boy’s network” often referred to in literature about the

corporate world.

In stage two of the research, three of the women interviewed were under the age of thirty five

and three were over. They work in a variety of settings and have a variety of educational

backgrounds. Some of the women have college diplomas and some have university degrees.

They have all worked for a variety of employers in the field and held multiple positions which is

different from the women in stage one. The “under thirty five” group each have less than ten

years work history. The older group each have more than ten years, with one person having

over thirty years experience upon which to draw.

Social systems and their broad influence on the work world were evident in all six interviews.

There was no age distinction noted. Comments related to barriers or inequalities created by

the larger society within which we operate were evident throughout. One specific structural

barrier was noted by four of the six women. It was the education system that grants their

credentials. Said one woman, “I could not advance myself without a degree$a diploma was not

enough$no consideration is given to life experience or work history, of which I have lots”. A

woman who has worked in both this country and abroad noted that in other countries “skills and

experience are recognized whereas here the focus is more on educational credentials”. “Talk

about barriers”, said yet another, “I could not do what I got my education for$they said I needed

more$I put in my resignation after three years” of doing the same thing.

Also along the systemic line were comments about the “recreation of old fashioned

patriarchal structures that are not spoken about”. The reference here was to the traditional path

17

to success of devoting oneself entirely to the company. “I cannot devote endless hours...which

are required to be in management$no one sees the quality of client interactions, what matters

is the paperwork and how good your files are”. Another said, “I do my role and some of what

my superiors are supposed to do”. “Workplace is the second institution”, commented one. “For

me it is all about surviving institutions$first marriage and then the workplace”. “Employers

create the same social structures that we rebel against (in social work). They mirror the larger

society and repeat (the same) discriminatory practices”.

On the topic of gender and power, there were a variety of diverse comments from all

participants. These did not necessarily pertain to men having any more power than women in

the field. In fact only one woman mentioned gender specifically. She felt strongly that “when

men get into this profession it is just standard that they get management roles if they want

them$because so few men enter the field”. Most of the interviews reflected a struggle for

legitimacy.

One woman who has been in the field for decades identified multiple overlapping barriers.

She said, “There are so many struggles I have gone through as a female (and as an)

immigrant$so many barriers$I had to work (very) hard. Age is a discriminating factor (too). It is

obvious when you see that some individuals are picked and they have less experience and

fewer skills”. The issue of age was mentioned by another older woman. She talked about the

“life cycle of an employee”. “Employers look at (your age) and see what they can get out of you.

They don’t disclose that of course. That is part of management secrets”.

There was a strong theme by all of the participants of needing to follow the status quo to

succeed. “If you come from a submissive background and are a pleaser, you will do better. If

you are not submissive you will not move up. Status quo people get ahead more”. Another

18

woman added, “I had to prove myself quite a bit. The boss interpreted my questioning of

things$which is my way of understanding$as a lack of support, as (insubordination)”.

On the topic of social capital and belongingness to social networks, there were strong

feelings and comments by all participants. “I was (definitely) not in the in-group”, said one

person. “At one place (of employment) I stayed at the same level$and was not able to

advance. Others who came later (moved up) quicker. I think (it is because) I don’t socialize

with others after work”. Said another, “I am not sure what it takes to be in the in-group$I just

know that I don’t have it”. A third woman commented, “I am surprised I got promoted at all. My

boldness can be a liability. I don’t always (fit in). My perception is that the boss (and others)

didn’t really like me”. She went on to say that “in a female dominated culture (social

work)$there is a lot of gossiping$and word gets out (about you)”. “It seems as if there are the

‘old girls’ and the ‘new girls”. It is very hard to break into that “good ol’buddy buddy group”.

There was one woman who had a particularly poignant and sad story to tell related to

belonging. When discussing membership in the in-group, she said that it was very difficult to

get the opportunities that she wanted. She went on to disclose a very sensitive matter

regarding her upbringing which she felt was necessary to divulge as it could impact her work. In

doing so she felt that she was “further victimized by her employer”. She was most upset about

what she perceived as a real double standard. “Social workers are supposed to be

understanding and empowering. I have (not had) this experience”.

Moving to the concept of tokenism, it is much more difficult to “tease out” this theme from

the interviews. That may be due in part to the heavy concentration of women in the field.

Tokenism as traditionally viewed may be less prevalent or it may be experienced differently.

Only one woman made a comment that was fairly closely related to the idea that men and

women are not treated equally. Her comment was in a broad social context. She said that

19

“women are still treated as less than men in this country, not just in social work$I have

experienced this in other areas$such as when I go out to (buy something). I can get taken

advantage of$a salesperson will often talk (to the man) unless he thinks he will get the sale if

he (addresses me).

Very interesting experiences were shared by women in both age groups on the topic of glass

ceilings. However they connect more to the related concept of the glass cliff identified by Ryan

and Haslam. One person mentioned that “there is a glass ceiling between the old girls and the

new girls”. “With respect to those who are making the decisions, a lot of them are the older

generation social workers who continue to oppress and have a male-oriented way of thinking”.

Said another woman, “I did take a supervisory role that I didn’t really want at the time. I felt

pressured to apply and thought I might lose out on other opportunities I really wanted if I didn’t

accept it$and then I had to do a lot of the big boss’s ‘dirty work’. I had to fire people that the

boss wanted ‘out the door’. I felt hated by (my staff) and was not happy there”. Another

participant was upset that her “position was destined to fail from the get go”. There was “no

vision for my role$expectations was not clear$and then expectations increased more without

additional supports. I was supposed to do the same things in a program double the size and

was overwhelmed. I survived out of sheer determination”. She added, “Many nights I cried

because I was taken advantage of to some degree. They were desperate to have someone in

the role and I was (eager to move up)”.

Turning to the matter of personal agency or the degree to which someone can influence their

particular situation, there was a clear theme of pure determination and tenacity by all six

women. Their body language and posturing was more observable than in any of the other parts

of the interview. They sat forward and gestured frequently with their hands. They spoke with

determination. Said one, “I was taught to work and work hard$do what it takes to get things

done$those values come from my parents”. Said another, “I am very forgiving and I think as

20

women we have to be creative in how we achieve our goals. It is sometimes not an easy route.

But we have the instinct to work hard to get what we want”.

Another comment related to what might be called an “aha moment” when the participant

learned a valuable lesson about self and others. “I took a workshop on how to work with difficult

people$and the interesting thing I learned was how I approach things and what I am thinking at

the time$affects how many interactions go. That was a breakthrough (moment). After that, so

many more doors opened for me”.

When asked about how they felt things needed to change in the work place, everyone was

very clear that “we combat things by not standing for it, taking ownership and not putting up with

it$you have to answer to yourself at the end of the day”. “Change happens a little bit at a time”.

“I would definitely structure things differently if I have the chance. I would ensure that there is

enough support and opportunities for new people to learn their jobs well”. “I would like to see

changes from the top$from management$structural changes in (how the organization

functions). We have to develop new ways of thinking”.

On that note, there was one theme that was not sought actively through the research but

emerged nonetheless. It relates to the definition of advancement. Even at the stage of

selecting participants, uniqueness came through. Several people said, “I would love to

participate in your study$but I don’t necessarily want to move up”. One person said, “I define

advancement or success differently. I just want to keep learning and broadening my skills. That

is advancement to me”. Thus it was necessary to open up the definition of advancement to a

different way of thinking about the term. Advancement had to be defined according to how the

participants saw it, which was not necessarily hierarchical, but sometimes horizontal.

21

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This was truly an enriching research experience. So much was learned from the women and

although not mentioned above in the findings, it was truly pleasurable to hear them talk about

how passionate they are about their clients and their absolute commitment to helping them

succeed. One clear result of this research is that comments were similar despite membership in

the older or younger age group with one exception; that of the age barriers. It seems logical that

younger women would not experience this form of discriminatory practice.

So what can be made of the conclusion that both younger and older women tell a similar

story? This stands in direct contrast to the conversation with social work students who believed

that “the sky is the limit” that formed the impetus for this study. Perhaps the students have not

yet had enough exposure to the work place to color their perceptions. The women interviewed

do experience barriers. The work place is not yet evolved to an environment where women do

not have to struggle for respect and recognition, even in a field heavily populated by women

themselves.

Women enter social work to make a difference and what ends up happening is that in our

organizations we recreate what we know; traditional social structures and expectations that

restrict us. This is evident from the educational barriers mentioned to the need to work endless

hours to get ahead. It is also evident in the comments on the glass ceiling and cliff that some of

the participants described. Our own careers are not discussed often if at all. We tend to focus

on the clients and their success perhaps at the expense of our own. It may be that the altruism

and commitment to the clients helping others is what gets us through the day. However it is also

part of our undoing.

22

None of the women interviewed specifically said whether their expectations met their lived

experiences. The overall content of their interviews suggests that they did not. If this question

was asked directly they often laughed and took the conversation in a different direction or

remained in silent reflection. In this case I believe what was not said is as important as what

was. The “answer” seemed to be definitely not, which is not entirely surprising. Reality often

has a sober quality.

Gender as a factor in terms of barriers is more about power relations, the acquisition of

power and the ability to get in with the right crowd than it is about whether one is born a man or

a woman in the social work field. This is distinct from the corporate sector where the literature

suggests that birth gender is also a consideration. Women are left out by men in corporate

inner circles. In social work, some women perceive that women are excluding other women.

They feel that the old boys’ network of big business has become the old girls’ network of social

work.

Small wins strategies identified in the literature were reflected in this research. The women

talked about determination and creativity and simply not giving up at the first sign of defeat.

There was a real sense of meeting challenges head on with personal determination. The

difference with women in social work is that they take individual ownership for “spearheading”

the strategies. This was also evident when asking them how things should change or where the

research should go from here. Most of the women talked about what the will do, how they will

tackle obstacles and did not make requests of their employers. The small wins in the literature

is a broader concept that incorporates what employers and employees can do to impact

changes at work.

As noted earlier, career advancement itself has been defined differently; as much if not more

in terms of broadening of skills as upward advancement. That was a real eye opener and so

23

different from the corporate sector. This discovery is quite freeing really and one of the more

exciting findings. It is a very creative way of charting a career path and one that has so many

more options than simply upward. The sense of accomplishment can be much stronger and the

sense of failure much smaller if there are multiple options.

When all is done, it can be concluded that barriers still exist at work even in a female

dominated field. They are just more subtle than in the corporate world; perhaps even less

visible. There is a clear theme about elusive barriers that are hard to observe or name. The

struggle for legitimacy is big. In some ways it mirrors the struggle for legitimacy that the field of

social work is presently undergoing given its relative newness in the long list of age old

professions. Medicine and law and other careers have a much longer legacy upon which to

draw.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

Conclusions drawn from this research are based on a small sample size; six women from the

second stage of the study. The research was conducted in only one Canadian city and the study

was carried out during a period of economic recession. All but the last item could be defined as

both strengths and limitations. From a social economic perspective, it could be argued that the

responses of participants might have been impacted by the effects of organizational cost

containments during fiscally barren times. None of the participants mentioned that as a factor;

however a broad examination of the project from macro to micro levels does suggest that the

state of the global economy should be remembered.

From a strength-based viewpoint it can be argued that a small sample of participants well

known to the researcher, and from a geographically finite area are elements of a small but

elegantly designed project. It is an error to assume that large elaborately designed and

24

executed studies are better, more reliable or valid. If not cautious, they expose themselves to

the potential of increased errors. Nonetheless, this study is small, quite possibly extremely so. It

might be argued that the findings cannot be generalized beyond those interviewed. Given that

this study is exploratory in nature, it is only after more research is done on the female

description of career experiences in social work; or at the very least in careers other than those

captured by the corporate sector that it will be possible to reflect in a more informed fashion.

It should be mentioned that this study did not focus on other overlapping variables such as

age, ethnicity or sexual orientation and marital status when examining barriers. This was

purposeful given time, resources and the exploratory nature of the study. However it is obvious

that they ought to be considered in future work. A woman is more than just that. She may be a

young Caucasian woman who is heterosexual and has children; or an Indian woman who is in

mid-life and has determined that she is a lesbian; or an Asian woman about to retire who is

divorced and so on. The point is that there are many layers and complexities to identity.

Finally, men in social work were not interviewed for this research. Some might argue that it

is not truly possible to make “accurate” statements about barriers to career advancement for

females in social work without also interviewing males for comparison. The point of this

research was not about comparison, but simply to hear women’s perspectives on social work as

a career choice.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

As mentioned, more research is clearly needed. More stories from women about their career

challenges and successes are desperately important. It is through a careful collection of stories

about women by women that we will begin to build a narrative history upon which to reflect.

This history will be told from a feminine point of view. From that reflection, considered

25

responses can be launched to the heretofore patriarchal social structures within which we have

eked out our existence.

It might be useful to draw upon larger sample sizes and across larger geographic

boundaries. The more important point is to do research, regardless of size. Given that

perceptions are a very personal thing and at some level, unique to their owners, one may not

ever be able to draw absolute conclusions. Even if that could happen, history is always

changing and so too are women’s experiences. Therefore continual exploration is prudent.

I am most curious about further information on how women in social work accumulate power

over their career history; particularly at transition points. The work of Ragins and Sundstrom on

power in the workplace suggests a link between career development and how critical

experiences are navigated (1981). Each career transition “involves opportunities and obstacles”

to power (Ragins and Sundstrom, 1981, p.52). Similarly “each phase of a career presents

opportunities for the accumulation or attenuation of resources for power. As a result, the path to

power consists of many small steps” (Ragins and Sundstrom, 1981, p.52). Future research

should examine this specifically. This exploratory study was general in nature and did not

explore experiences at specific points.

A stronger understanding should be sought of the “old girls’ network” mentioned by several of

the participants of this study. What exactly is that? How can it be recognized? How can it be

influenced? Why does it exist in the first place? There are so many things I wonder about on

this issue and want to understand better.

Clearly future studies should factor in variables such as age, ethnicity, sexual orientation and

marital status. There are many ways to approach multiple variables. It is suggested that

researchers use a similar participatory action approach as used in this study. Doing so will help

in identifying which additional variables are perceived as critical to the participants.

26

One other area for exploration should be how women define advancement or success. This

study suggests that at least for some, advancement need not necessarily be hierarchical in

nature. Information on this matter could be particularly useful to organizations looking to

improve morale or strengthen staff retention. In social work, this would be quite productive.

There is a relatively high burnout rate in the field. Employers are continually trying to find ways

to combat the issue.

There clearly seem to be as many questions arising from this study as “answers”. At first this

was disconcerting. Upon further reflection I reminded myself that this is exactly what research,

particularly feminist research is supposed to do: push us further, expand our understanding and

hopefully improve human circumstance. I invite others to take up this challenge of building a

stronger future for our young female leaders through better understanding the perceptions and

experiences of those who have gone before.

27

REFERENCES

Alcoff, Linda. (Spring, 1988). Cultural Feminism versus Post-Structuralism: The Identity Crisis in Feminist Theory. Signs, 13(3), 405-436. Retrieved January 22, 2010 from Stable URL:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174166.

Alvesson, Mats. (1998). Gender relations and identity at work: A case study of masculinities and femininities in an advertising agency. Human Relations, 51(8), 969-1005. Retrieved December 16, 2009 from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 32636182).

Bandura, A. (2002). Social Cognitive Theory in Cultural Context. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 51(2), 269. Retrieved December 16, 2009 from Business Source

Complete Database.

Berg, Bruce L. (1989). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (5 ‘th ed.).Pearson

Education, Inc.: Boston.

Bertrand, M. and Hallock, K. (Oct. 2001). The Gender Gap in Top Corporate Jobs. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(1), 3-21. Retrieved July 19, 2009 from Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696183 Bierema, L. (Winter 2001). Women, Work, and Learning. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, Retrieved June 11, 2009 from Professional Development Collection Database. Cotter, D., Hermsen, J., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001, December). The Glass Ceiling Effect. Social Forces, 80(2), 655-681. Retrieved July 18, 2009 from SPORT Discus with Full Text database.

Fletcher, Joyce K. (October 2004). The paradox of post heroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), October 2004, 647- 661, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.07.004. Haslam, S. Alexander and Ryan, M. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 530 – 546, doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.011.

http://www.ifsw.org/f38000138.html Hoobler, J., Wayne, S. and Lemmon, G. (2009). Bosses’ Perceptions of Family-Work Conflict and Women’s Promotability: Glass Ceiling Effects. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 939-957. Retrieved December 16, 2009 from Business Source Complete Database. Kirsch, Gesa E. (1999). Ethical dilemmas in feminist research: The politics of location, Interpretation and publication. Albany: State University of New York Press. Lent, R. and Brown, S. (2000). Contextual Supports and Barriers to Career Choice: A Social Cognitive Analysis. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 47(1), 36-49. Retrieved June 12, 2009 from the World Wide Web.

28

Lyness, K. and Thompson, D. (1997, June). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 359-375. Retrieved June 11, 2009, doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.359. Lyness, K., & Thompson, D. (2000, February). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female

male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 86-101. Retrieved July 18, 2009, doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.86.

Metz, Isabelle and Tharenou, Phyllis. (2001). Women's career advancement: The relative contribution of human and social capital. Group & Organization Management, 26(3), 312- 342. Retrieved December 18, 2009 from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 80899045).

Meyerson, D. and Fletcher, J. (2000, January). A Modest Manifesto for Shattering the Glass Ceiling. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 126-136. Retrieved June 11, 2009 from Business Source Complete Database. Monahan, J., Walker, L., and Mitchell, G. (2008). CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION: THE ASCENDANCE OF "SOCIAL FRAMEWORKS". (pp. 1715-1749). Virginia Law Review Association. Retrieved June 11, 2009 from Business Source Complete Database.

Oakley, Judith, G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 2 27(4), 321-334. Retrieved July 18, 2009 from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 61916589). Palys, Ted and Atchison, Chris. (2003). Research Decisions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives (4’th ed.). United States: Nelson. Ragins, B. and Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and Power in Organizations: A Longitudinal Perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 51 – 88. Retrieved September 13, 2009 from the World Wide Web. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Risman, Barbara J. (August 2004). Gender As a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism. Gender and Society, (18), 429 - 450. Retrieved July 19, 2009 from the World Wide Web.

Reynolds, A. (July, 1999). Women in the Legislatures and Executives of the World: Knocking at the Highest Glass Ceiling. World Politics, 51(4), 547-572. Retrieved July 19, 2009 from Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25054094. Ryan, M., & Haslam, S. (2005). The Glass Cliff: Evidence that Women are Over-Represented in Precarious Leadership Positions. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 81-90. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x. Ryan, M., and Haslam, S. (2007). The Glass Cliff: Exploring the Dynamics Surrounding the Appointment of Women to Precarious Leadership Positions. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 549-572. Retrieved December 20, 2009 from Business Source Complete Database.

29

Ryan, Michelle K., Haslam S. and Postmes, T. (2007). Reactions to the glass cliff: Gender differences in the explanations for the precariousness of women’s leadership positions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(2), 182-197, doi:10.1108/09534810710724748. Rogier, S. and Padgett, M. (Spring 2004). The Impact of Utilizing a Flexible Work Schedule on the Perceived Career Advancement Potential of Women. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 89-106. Retrieved June 10, 2009 from Business Source Complete Database. Schwandt, Thomas A. (2007). The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry (3’rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. Smith, Dorothy E. (1987). The Everyday World as Problematic, A Feminist Sociology. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Smith, V. (1997). New Forms of Work Organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 315.

Retrieved December 19, 2009 from Business Source Complete database.

Timberlake, Sharon. (2005). Social capital and gender in the workplace. The Journal of Management Development, 24(1/2), 34-44. Retrieved December 19, 2009 from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 808448341).

The Personal Narratives Group, ed. (1989). Interpreting Women’s Lives, Feminist Theory and Personal Narratives. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Wharton, Carol S. (June 1994). Finding Time for the Second Shift: The Impact of Flexible Work

Schedules on Women's Double Days. Gender and Society, 10(2), 189-206. Retrieved

December 20, 2009 from JSTOR.

Wodak, Ruth and Meyer, M. (eds.) (2002). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

30

APPENDICES

Appendix A (Funding Acknowledgement)

Completion of this paper was made possible in part by assistance from the Athabasca

University Graduate Student Research Fund for the purchase of digital voice recorder and

microphone used in the recording of participant interviews. Thank you to the committee who

reviewed and approved the proposal. Thank you to Dr. Nanci Langford for her letter of support

regarding this application.

Appendix B (Acknowledgement of Support)

Completion of this research could not have been achieved without the support of my family,

friends and colleagues to whom I am most grateful.

31

Appendix C (Consent Forms)

For Two Initial Interviews

Females in Social Work: Their Description of Career Advancement Barriers

Researcher: Laurie Crandlemire * [Athabasca University: Master of Arts Integrated Studies Program]

What is this project about? This is a qualitative exploratory study utilizing one or more interviews. It

incorporates participatory action research, as participants are involved in the formulation of questions and the analysis of findings. The research question is: How do females in social work describe barriers to career advancement? Why is this project being done? The project is being conducted as part of the researcher’s master’s level studies at Athabasca University in the areas of work, organization and leadership.

How will the information be used? The information from the focus group will be used for the purposes of developing questions to be administered to six individual participants. The existence of the research will be listed as an abstract, available online through the Athabasca University Digital Thesis and Project Room (DTPR), and the final research paper will be publicly available. Names and personal identifying data of participants will not be contained in the final report. Full confidentiality will be respected. What will happen if I decide to participate? The researcher will determine a mutually agreeable time and location to meet with the focus group participants. The focus group should take approximately 90 minutes.

Will there be any costs or payments? There is no cost to participate. There are no payments to

participants.

How will you protect my privacy? Your name or identifying information will NOT appear anywhere in the completed document. No one will be informed of your voluntary participation unless you choose to inform them. Hardcopy documents will be stored in a locked cabinet and electronic data in a password protected computer at the researcher’s home office. The hardcopy documents will be destroyed by shredding and electronic files will be erased in JUNE 2011.

What are the benefits of participating? You will have the opportunity to contribute to social research in

the area of women and social work: barriers to career advancement (a research area which is largely

underrepresented).

What are the risks of participating? There is the possibility that the focus group activity will elicit

uncomfortable feelings or memories. You will have the option of discontinuing the group activity and

opting out of the study.

. Your data will be deleted from the researcher’s computer and any related hardcopy documents will be

shredded immediately. None of your information will be included in the final research report.

32

How will I find out what happens with this project? You will be provided a copy of the final report if you wish.

Who can I talk to if I have questions or problems?

You may contact the researcher, Laurie Crandlemire at 403-680-4156 or mrsee@shaw.ca

If your concerns cannot be resolved at the researcher level you may contact the project supervisor:

Dr. Nanci Langford: nancil@athabascau.ca

The ATHABASCA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD has reviewed this research study and

may be reached by emailing rebsec@athabascau.ca or calling 1-780-675-6718 if you have

questions or comments about your treatment as a participant.

CONSENT

I agree to participate in the project as described in the information sheet. I have read or listened

to the information, I have asked any questions I had, and all my questions were answered. I

know that participating is my choice. I understand the potential risks of participating. I

understand that after I participate, I can withdraw my information at any time prior to the final

submission of the project.

Participant’s Name (Please Print) ___________________________

Participant’s Signature _____________________________________ Date _____________

Researcher’s Signature______________________________ Date_____________

I further consent to my interview being recorded/taped.

Participant’s Name (Please Print) ___________________________

Participant’s Signature _____________________________________ Date _____________

Researcher’s Signature______________________________ Date_____________

Copy given to participant: _____Yes ____No

33

For Six Individual Interviews

Females in Social Work: Their Description of Career Advancement Barriers

Researcher: Laurie Crandlemire * [Athabasca University: Master of Arts Integrated Studies Program]

What is this project about? This is a qualitative exploratory study utilizing one or more interviews. It

incorporates participatory action research, as participants are involved in the formulation of questions and the analysis of findings. The research question is: How do females in social work describe barriers to career advancement? Why is this project being done? The project is being conducted as part of the researcher’s master’s level studies at Athabasca University in the areas of work, organization and leadership.

How will the information be used? The information will be used for the purposes of project completion only. The existence of the research will be listed as an abstract, available online through the Athabasca University Digital Thesis and Project Room (DTPR), and the final research paper will be publicly available. Names and personal identifying data of participants will not be contained in the final report. Full confidentiality will be respected.

What will happen if I decide to participate? You and the researcher will determine a mutually agreeable time and location to meet. The interview should take approximately 45 minutes.

Will there be any costs or payments?

There is no cost to participate. There are no payments to participants.

How will you protect my privacy? Your name or identifying information will NOT appear anywhere in the completed document. No one will be informed of your voluntary participation unless you choose to inform them. Hardcopy documents will be stored in a locked cabinet and electronic data in a password protected computer at the researcher’s home office. The hardcopy documents will be destroyed by shredding and electronic files will be erased in JUNE 2011.

What are the benefits of participating? You will have the opportunity to contribute to social research in

the area of women and social work: barriers to career advancement (a research area which is largely

underrepresented).

What are the risks of participating? There is the possibility that the interview will elicit uncomfortable

feelings or memories. You will have the option of discontinuing the interview and opting out of the study

Can I change my mind after participating? Yes, you can opt out at any time prior to project completion.

Your data will be deleted from the researcher’s computer and any related hardcopy documents will be

shredded immediately. None of your information will be included in the final research report.

How will I find out what happens with this project? You will be provided a copy of the final report if you wish.

34

Who can I talk to if I have questions or problems?

You may contact the researcher, Laurie Crandlemire at 403-680-4156 or mrsee@shaw.ca

If your concerns cannot be resolved at the researcher level you may contact the project supervisor:

Dr. Nanci Langford: nancil@athabascau.ca

The ATHABASCA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD has reviewed this research study and

may be reached by emailing rebsec@athabascau.ca or calling 1-780-675-6718 if you have

questions or comments about your treatment as a participant.

CONSENT

I agree to participate in the project as described in the information sheet. I have read or listened

to the information, I have asked any questions I had, and all my questions were answered. I

know that participating is my choice. I understand the potential risks of participating. I

understand that after I participate, I can withdraw my information at any time prior to the final

submission of the project.

Participant’s Name (Please Print) ___________________________

Participant’s Signature _____________________________________ Date _____________

Researcher’s Signature______________________________ Date_____________

I further consent to my interview being recorded/taped.

Participant’s Name (Please Print) ___________________________

Participant’s Signature _____________________________________ Date _____________

Researcher’s Signature______________________________ Date_____________

Copy given to participant: _____Yes ____No