17
This article was downloaded by: [Chinese University of Hong Kong] On: 20 December 2014, At: 01:02 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Social Work with Groups Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswg20 The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work Maxine Jacobson a a PRAXIS-Building Knowledge for Action , Missoula, Montana, USA Published online: 06 Jul 2009. To cite this article: Maxine Jacobson (2009) The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work, Social Work with Groups, 32:3, 177-192, DOI: 10.1080/01609510802527417 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01609510802527417 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

  • Upload
    maxine

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

This article was downloaded by: [Chinese University of Hong Kong]On: 20 December 2014, At: 01:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social Work with GroupsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswg20

The Faculty Meeting: Practicing SocialJustice-Oriented Group WorkMaxine Jacobson aa PRAXIS-Building Knowledge for Action , Missoula, Montana, USAPublished online: 06 Jul 2009.

To cite this article: Maxine Jacobson (2009) The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-OrientedGroup Work, Social Work with Groups, 32:3, 177-192, DOI: 10.1080/01609510802527417

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01609510802527417

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

177

Social Work with Groups, 32:177–192, 2009 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0160-9513 print/1540-9481 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01609510802527417

WSWG0160-95131540-9481Social Work with Groups, Vol. 32, No. 3, May 2009: pp. 1–23Social Work with Groups

The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

Faculty MeetingM. Jacobson

MAXINE JACOBSONPRAXIS-Building Knowledge for Action, Missoula, Montana, USA

Social group work scholars and practitioners have begun to locateand recognize important sites for thinking about and practicingsocial group work as increasing evidence demonstrates its dimin-ishing importance. This article identifies faculty meetings as a sig-nificant site for integrating social group work more fully intodepartments and schools of social work and helping to achieve theprofession’s social justice mission. Challenging the meaning of thefaculty meeting and thinking of it as a faculty group is a necessaryprerequisite to realize this goal. A set of principles is presented andnext steps explored to reclaim and reinsert the value of socialgroup work for the profession today.

KEYWORDS faculty meetings, social group work, social justice,social work mission, work groups, social justice-oriented groupwork

During the past three decades scholars have labored to reclaim and reinsertthe importance of social group work as mounting evidence supports itsmarginalization (Kurland & Salmon, 2006; Kurland et al., 2004; Middleman,1990). Proponents of social group work fear the stakes are high: “In today’stroubled world, real group work is needed more than ever” (Kurland & Salmon,2006, p. 13). However, its survival appears tenuous. The alarm bells havesounded for sage social group work leaders (see Kurland et al., 2004). Today,fewer schools of social work offer a concentration in group work (Mayadas,Smith, & Elliott, 2001), and many provide no more than an introductory

Received September 8, 2008; accepted September 24, 2008.Address correspondence to Maxine Jacobson, PhD, Director, PRAXIS-Building Knowledge

for Action, 521 Hartman St. #11, Missoula, MT 59802. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 3: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

178 M. Jacobson

course (Andrews, 2001) whose primary focus is on individual need and self-development (Mayadas, Smith, & Elliott, 2004).

Some group workers are responding to the call to action best articu-lated by Kurland and Salmon (2006) by recognizing the many and variedsites for thinking about and locating social group work theory and prac-tice (Aronoff & Bailey, 2005; Burford & Pennell, 2004; Finn, Jacobson, &Dean Campana, 2004; Graham, 2002; Jacobson, Pruitt-Chapin, & Rugeley,2009; Jacobson & Rugeley, 2007; Schulz, Israel, & Lantz, 2004). They tiegroup work to progressive education, to participatory research, and topolitical activism and community change. Illustrating where social groupwork theory can be applied to inform and guide practice and naming it assuch are critical steps toward reinvigorating social group work and creat-ing innovative, social justice–oriented approaches to social work practicetoday.

Faculty meetings as work groups have received little attention in the lit-erature. Thinking of them as a combination of work group, mutual aidgroup, and a site for translating social justice into departmental policies andprocedures is essential to breathing new life into social group work andadvancing the social work mission. With the exception of a few articlesdirected at elementary and secondary schoolteachers (Herbert, 1999; Hoerr,2005; Kohm, 2002), little is written about the faculty meeting in academicjournals. Even less is it thought about it as a site for incubating social justiceprocesses and practices. Negligible as the existing literature may be, it pro-vides a springboard from which to reflect upon faculty meetings and tograsp their importance from a social group work orientation.

This article examines the faculty meeting as yet another robust site forlearning about and practicing social group work, ripe with implications forthe social work profession and its social justice mission. Located squarely inthe “control panel” of social work education where decisions are made, mis-sions and vision are created, and conflicts are resolved (or not), the facultymeeting is rarely a topic of academic writing. Nor is it viewed as a remark-ably rich source of information about organizational culture, group workdynamics, and the incongruencies between espoused social justice principlesand organizational practice. This examination is grounded in a historicalperspective that informs the identification of other sites where social justice-oriented group work can be named and claimed. The faculty meeting isadded to this mix and explored with an eye toward challenging its meaningand arguing that realizing the social justice mission of the profession beginswith the faculty group. A set of group work principles are proposed toenhance faculty meeting effectiveness and to serve as reminders of the cen-trality of group work to the profession’s social justice mission. Thinking ofthe faculty meeting as a “faculty group” is an important first step towardmoving social group work to center stage in the social work professiontoday.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 4: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

Faculty Meeting 179

RECLAIMING SOCIAL GROUP WORK

Searching for Prized Ideas

A historical perspective is a valuable tool of inquiry that creates linkagesacross time and inspires people to act (Finn & Jacobson, 2008). Under-standing group work’s history informs the present, not necessarily torepeat history, but to capture from it what Breton (2005, p. 108) referredto as “prized ideas.” Historically, social group work theory and practicewere grounded in the settlement house movement, in progressive educa-tion, and in the recreation movement (Addams, 1910; Andrews, 2001;Schwartz, 1986); in social investigation to address child labor and thedesperate living conditions of immigrant families forged by industrialcapitalism (Jacobson & Rugeley, 2007; Sibley, 1995); and in labor unionsand the rank-and-file movement to support and strengthen workers’rights (Ehrenreich, 1985; Lee, 1992). Social group work was a movementwell before it became a field of practice and one of social work’s coregeneric methods (Andrews, 2001). Its mission was to fulfill the dualfunctions of mutual aid and social action, to meet individual needs whilesimultaneously serving the collective good (Schwartz, 1986). Its strengthas a movement emanated from the collective insights and passion ofpeople who understood firsthand the degradation of social exclusionand the need to work together to create a strong, powerful base forsocial change.

Beginning in the 1940s, group work was gradually eclipsed withinthe social work profession. More than any other social work method ofthe time, it was hardest hit by the oppressive political climate brought onby the McCarthy era because it was the most democratic (Andrews, 2001).Words commonly associated with group work such as “progressive,”“discrimination,” “unions,” and “civil rights” were viewed as indicators ofcommunist leanings (Andrews & Reisch, 1997). Social group work soughtsafety from its more public persona and retreated to more cloisteredwork with individuals and families, thus shoring up its growing alle-giance with the people-changing and intra-psychically focused professionof psychology.

Although certainly a leap from group work’s earlier concentration onsocial and political ills as major determinants of individual troubles, focus-ing on individual issues was far less fraught with political danger and pro-fessional risk. Social group work fully merged with the social workprofession in the mid-1950s with its mounting interest in professionaliza-tion. Throughout the last five decades, “Group work as a strategy for partic-ipatory knowledge development, community building, and social changereceded into the background as social work claimed an identity premisedon professional helping and the ‘depoliticizing’ of practice” (Finn et al.,2004, p. 332).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 5: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

180 M. Jacobson

Sites for Thinking about and Repoliticizing Social Group Work

Historical, theoretical, and practice linkages to social group work are importantto consider for two significant reasons: What appears to be the diminishingimportance of group work may simply be the profession’s failure to recog-nize and to credit the various sites inside and outside the profession wheresocial justice–oriented group work processes are occurring today (McNicoll,2003). Furthermore, social group work can be strengthened by ferreting outand calling attention to these present-day modes and models of socialgroup work practice. Drawing on social work’s rich group work tradition,social group workers are breathing new life into prized ideas. Graham(2002), for example, envisioned the classroom as a dynamic group andteaching as a group work process. She outlined an approach based on aconstructivist paradigm that addresses the incongruencies between “how weteach what we teach in social work education” (p. 85) and builds on stu-dents’ strengths, responds to the needs of diverse student populations, andforegrounds issues of social and economic justice by making group processskills central to class discussion. Taking social group work to the classroombrings with it a philosophy rooted in collectivism that challenges, albeitimplicitly, individual educational achievement and effort as the sole markerof intellectual development. Group work processes that honor people’sstrengths, view them as experts in their own learning, and help them con-nect with and learn from their peers guide practice in this context.

Finn et al. (2004) described contributions to group work made by par-ticipatory research, popular education, and popular theater. They empha-sized stretching the limits of our imagination and appreciating the fundamentalgroup work processes at play in approaches to transformative communitychange. Linkages are made among the approaches and generative themesare identified “that speak to the mutually informing possibilities of participa-tory knowledge development, action, and group work” (p. 336). Thesethemes include recognition of structural forces that shape but never fullydetermine human behavior, dialogue as the seedbed for action,; creation ofa collective story based on the ongoing development of critical conscious-ness, the iterative process of action and reflection, and group processes thatmove beyond the familiar and push toward personal and social transformation.Social group work is pivotal to these themes.

Likewise, Jacobson and Rugeley (2007) and Schulz et al. (2004) identifiedthe importance of group work theory, knowledge, and skills specific toeffective partnerships for community-based participatory research. Jacobsonand Rugeley draw on the historical and epistemological connectionsbetween social group work and community-based participatory research.They emphasize the need for a social justice–oriented approach to groupwork that ties the profession’s core values to the theory and practice ofsocial work research. Through example they illustrate how the incorporation of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 6: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

Faculty Meeting 181

group work knowledge, values, and skills facilitates pregroup planning,helps in the identification and reduction of barriers to people’s participation,creates an inclusive space for teaching-learning, establishes an environmentof mutual support and expectation, and builds knowledge from people’slived experiences.

Schulz et al. (2004) explored the literature on group dynamics anddelineated the factors that contribute to the effective functioning of commu-nity research partnerships to address the adverse effects of social, political, andeconomic inequality. They pushed the envelope even farther concerningthe importance of group work to community-based research projects byclaiming the fundamental necessity of attention to group dynamics for real-izing a project’s potential and creating community change. They stressed theimportance of assessing group dynamics for continual improvement of theworking relationships that must be attended to for effective collaborationand, ultimately, for citizen-informed social policy change.

Chung (2003) explored the mutual aid potential of focus groups in herinvestigation of service needs and mental health issues among residents ofChinatown following the attacks on the World Trade Center in September2001. She applies group work theory and skills to focus groups thus shiftingtheir primary functionality from a strictly rigid research data collection tool,premised on the importance of researcher neutrality, to an opportunity toprovide healing and support as community residents collectively sharedtheir stories of emotional trauma. Jacobson et al. (2009) further advancedthe application of focus groups in a community-based participatory researchproject to address food insecurity. The project’s steering committee mem-bers who had firsthand experience of food insecurity engaged in grassrootsresearch design and facilitated focus groups with community residents whowere using services and people who were providing them. By relinquishingtheir roles as authority figures and shedding neutrality, they created opti-mum conditions for self-disclosure and connectivity and laid the ground-work for building bridges between both groups. Repoliticizing social groupwork means calling on social work’s rich history of prized ideas to influencecontemporary practice. It means bringing group work history and theory tothe foreground where it can influence and enhance additional sites for practiceto more fully realize the profession’s social justice mission.

THINKING ABOUT THE MEANING OF MEETING VERSUS GROUP

Faculty meetings are yet another untapped site for thinking about and learn-ing social group work theory, knowledge, and skills. However, challengingthe dominant meaning of meetings so prevalent in public discourse todaymust occur first before social work educators can fully comprehend theirsignificance to the profession and its social justice mission. Meetings are the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 7: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

182 M. Jacobson

brunt of many jokes: They provide ample fodder for stand-up comedians,comic strip characters, politicians, and playwrights. Everyone can relate to agood joke about bad meetings because bad meetings are a shared experience(Tropman, 1996). In his book Dave Barry Turns 50, comedic columnist DaveBarry (1998) commented, “If you had to identify, in one word, the reason whythe human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, thatword would be ‘meetings’” (p. 175). John Kenneth Galbraith, iconoclasticeconomist, teacher, and diplomat once remarked, “Meetings are indispensablewhen you don’t want to do anything” (Brainy Quote, n.d., n.p.). WilliamGoldman, novelist, playwright, and award-winning screen writer makes usthink and laugh with the following statement: “Whoever invented the meetingmust have had Hollywood in mind. I think they should consider giving Oscarsfor meetings: Best Meeting of the Year, Best Supporting Meeting, Best MeetingBased on Material from Another Meeting” (Think Exist, n.d., n.p.).

Pointing specifically to faculty meetings is Ms. Mentor, columnist forthe Chronicle of Higher Education. She gives advice to Betsy, a new facultymember at Hearty Heartland University, who feels “overwhelmingly bored”at faculty meetings and blames herself. Ms. Mentor explains:

Many experienced board and panel members have perfected the art of“meeting sleeping,” a quiet five minutes or so of inconspicuous dozing,from which they emerge perky and bright-eyed. But if you can’t do that,Ms. Mentor prescribes large doses of caffeine. Once you resolve to bealert, few faculty meetings are actually dull, because almost all have hid-den agendas. . . . In short, Ms. Mentor urges you to think of departmentmeetings not as attempts to engineer small changes, or puff up tiny egosby allowing them to strut and fret. Rather try to figure out who reallywants what, and why they can’t just say so. (“Bored with DepartmentMeetings,” 2005, pp. 2–3)

Although the current discourse on meetings provides comic relief, it isthe antithesis of how meetings could be perceived. As a result, it obscurespotential opportunities for how meetings can be sites for teaching andlearning about social group work. In essence, faculty meetings are facultygroups. They are reoccurring work groups composed of educators whoshare a common purpose: Their primary aim is not to change the attitudes orbehaviors of their members but rather “to generate some external product,develop policies, or participate in decision making processes” (Ephross &Vassil, 2005, p. 1). Departments and schools of social work and social workfaculty educate, influence, and shape the next generation of social workpractitioners. Within the organizational structures of departments andschools of social work, the faculty’s collective vision materializes in the practicephilosophy and actions of their students as they carry forth the profession’smission, values, and knowledge base.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 8: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

Faculty Meeting 183

Almost three decades ago, Ephross (1981) elaborated on the neglect ofworking groups in social work education and practice even though meth-ods for addressing community change happened almost entirely within agroup work context. Pointing to the 1960s and ’1970s, group work was“overlooked in favor of grand strategies, forgetting that these strategiesdemanded highly sophisticated group task-accomplishment or they wouldbecome empty rhetoric” (p. 110). Ephross recommended that greater attentionought to be drawn to the work group as an important site for redefiningsocial group work practice. Schulz et al. (2004) pointed to a growing bodyof evidence emerging from research on successful community groups, col-laborations, and coalitions indicating that “their potential to work effectivelyfor change rests on the dynamics that emerge among group members” (p. 321).What this all boils down to is that realizing the social justice mission of theprofession and of many schools and departments of social work is predicatedon the successful, effective functioning of the faculty group.

THE FACULTY GROUP AND SOCIAL JUSTICE-ORIENTED GROUP WORK PRINCIPLES

Kohm (2002) shared insights about restructuring faculty meetings, developingparticipatory planning processes, and creating study groups to challengeassumptions about teaching practice. Although group work literature is notcited in the discussion, the approach is distinctly informed by best practicesin social group work. Recommended evaluative criteria to assess the effec-tiveness of meetings includes ample opportunity for participants to expressthemselves and receive feedback from colleagues, sufficient time for dis-cussing topics related to faculty’s work and program vision, adequate struc-tures in place to allow everyone to voice ideas and opinions, and respectfuldisagreement encouraged rather than ignored. Creating a culture changearound meetings consists of redefining their intent—from disseminating dis-connected announcements and enduring the rapid fire of abbreviated dis-cussions to promoting meaningful dialogue and creating an energizingenvironment for the didactic interplay of teaching and learning (Herbert,1999; Hoerr, 2005; Kohm, 2002). Building a good educational program meansbuilding a positive faculty community (Herbert, 1999). Achieving this goalrequires ongoing, vigilant attention to group work processes and dynamics.

Drawing from a number of group work sources, a set of principles arehighlighted here to guide effective faculty group work processes, to helpredefine the nature of meetings, and to more fully incorporate the social jus-tice mission into the foundation of the department or school’s organizationaland administrative structure. Although the principles presented are not anexhaustive list nor mutually exclusive, their primary purpose is to open upthe conversation among social work educators and administrators about the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 9: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

184 M. Jacobson

centrality of group work to the social work profession. Achieving the socialjustice aims of the profession begins here.

Attending to Pregroup Planning as a Participatory Process

Making the transition from a meeting as a perfunctory exchange of informa-tion to a group as a space for dialogue and transformation takes considerablepregroup planning. Kurland (2005) addressed the neglect of this fundamentalprocess in group work and posed a number of questions to consider whenthinking about starting a group. These address need, purpose, composition,structure, content, and pregroup contact. Translating these pregroup planningcomponents into the initiation of the faculty group, while simultaneouslyholding on to the profession’s social justice mission, means that all facultymust be involved in the planning process. Diaz (1997) outlined eight“moments” of a participatory planning model that has broad applicability andcan easily be adapted to planning a faculty group. The process walks a groupthrough “what is” to “what could be” and the steps necessary for achieving itsgoals. It provides an opportunity for building collective capacity and supportsthe development of critical consciousness and ownership in the process.

Fostering Mutual Aid and Promoting Social Inclusion

Paramount among the group processes necessary to achieve the profession’ssocial justice goal is fostering mutual aid, and in so doing, promoting socialinclusion. Moyse-Steinberg (2003) spoke of mutual aid and social justiceas “two sides of one coin” (p. 92), mutually informing and intimately joinedtogether. Creating a mutual aid system necessitates “real talk,” what Moyse-Steinberg referred to as a search for common ground and the advancement ofsocial justice. “Real talk” promotes social inclusion, which can only beachieved through “real listening”—the act of being present, holding one’sbiases and judgments at bay, and trying to understand the world throughsomeone else’s experience. The skills and practice of mutual aid as describedby Schwartz (1986) form the basis for generating support among colleagues,engaging in collective problem solving and problem posing, and movingtoward action. They help create an atmosphere where feelings of distrust andambivalence are expected and honored and where commonalities are soughtand differences are addressed. New faculty members learn about the history ofthe group within the organization, its purpose, its challenges, and successes.

Engaging with Questions of Power, Difference, and Inequality

One of the key characteristics of social justice–oriented group work is itsfocus on power, difference, and inequality. Jacobson and Rugeley (2007)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 10: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

Faculty Meeting 185

pointed out that engaging with these issues begins with the preplanningstage and requires critical reflection on positionality or the multiple identitiesthat shape a person’s worldview. It requires examining issues from multipleperspectives and learning to challenge long-held assumptions about howthe world works. And it necessitates talking directly about power and howit often plays out in organizations to maintain discriminatory practices and tosupport social exclusion and relations of inequality. A framework for initiatingand structuring the discussion is through intergroup dialogue. Intergroupdialogue provides a safe space in which difficult issues such as power, dif-ference, and inequality can be dealt with constructively (Dessell, Rogge, &Garlington, 2006, p. 303). Increasingly this approach is being adopted andadapted by social group workers. The process is designed to engage groupsin a discussion of societal views and structures that are often ignored or area source of conflict and dispute (Dessel et al., 2006; Rodenborg & Huynh,2006).

Addressing Taboo Subjects—Setting the Elephants Free

The expression “the elephant in the room” refers to a large, looming unspo-ken issue in a group that takes up considerable psychic space but which,nonetheless, no one addresses. Shulman (2002) referred to this as the invis-ible wall posted with potentially sensitive topics such as race, class, sexualorientation, sexism, death, mental illness, or anger toward a coworker thatcould, if discussed, “make the work of the group real but also painful andfrightening for the members and the leader(s)” (p. 138). Scapegoating orchanneling and deflecting group tensions on one group member can oftenbe a way groups surface their taboo concerns (Shulman, 2002). Learninghow to address taboo subjects and setting the elephants free is difficultwork because it challenges existing group norms about what is and what isnot a talkable subject within a group. Shulman framed it as a lifelong pro-fessional challenge; one in which becoming comfortable with making mis-takes and “catching mistakes” is a prerequisite. Fundamental to a socialjustice approach to group work is creating a process for discussing taboosubjects, one that provides space for safety and risk or mutual aid andmutual demand and expectation.

Honoring and Addressing Conflict

Conflict is a natural by-product of social justice–oriented group work—infact, it is an expectation. It can be a source of constraint and possibilityalthough it generally carries strictly negative connotations in U.S. culture.Even the dictionary defines conflict in terms that imply doing battle—fighting,struggling, quarreling (Finn & Jacobson, 2008, p. 349). Conflict can createpolarities in a group that can result in subgrouping, when communication is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 11: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

186 M. Jacobson

siphoned away from the group and moved to isolated, private sanctumswhere people talk about and not with other group members. Speakingbehind closed doors sets the stage for secrecy and indirect communication, theformation of subordinate positions, and the reproduction of hierarchicalarrangements that are often at odds with the social justice mission of the pro-fession. Commenting on this topic, Kohm (2002), a school administrator stated,

Convincing everyone to bring school issues to the table rather than dis-cussing them only with me or with like-minded colleagues wasn’t easy.Many faculties don’t operate this way. Our natural instincts for agree-ment and safety make us shy away from conversations that openly dealwith different points of view. Talking to like-minded colleagues pro-vides only short-term safety, however. In the long run, a climate of suchlimited conversations encourages cliques, develops a we/they mentality,and results in less effective decision making. (p. 32)

Conflict, if addressed appropriately, is an opportunity for teaching andlearning about difference. It signifies that different perspectives are beingshared. Honoring and addressing conflict are vital to social justice-orientedgroup work.

Serving a Collaborative Purpose

Unanimously, the literature on faculty meetings suggests that using preciousfaculty meeting time to catch everyone up on announcements or to conducta 45-minute, how-to session on using the departmental credit card are soulkillers for faculty members and certain death experiences for meetings ingeneral (Herbert, 1999; Hoerr, 2005; Kohm, 2002). Thinking precisely oftime together as serving a collaborative purpose is one way to help reposi-tion and prioritize topics appropriate for faculty groups. Moving away fromannouncements to inviting dialogue on important issues that profit fromsharing multiple perspectives promotes the teaching-learning process.Herbert (1999) suggested using meeting time “for refining and reinforcingour understanding of and commitment to the kind of positive faculty com-munity that is required of a good school” (p. 219). Topics could include theinfluences of globalization on educational institutions and the departmentsand schools within them and the resultant effects on faculty workload, howto create an inclusive environment for new faculty, teaching for social justicework, and social work’s group work tradition, and new ways to capitalizeon prized ideas. Alternative communication strategies for making announce-ments and providing faculty training on new intradepartmental procedurescould be devised that make use of current technological communicationtools and save faculty meetings for topics that clarify, unite, and build astronger, more congruent educational organization.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 12: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

Faculty Meeting 187

Developing and Using a Process for Participatory Decision Making

Shifting from announcements to meeting topics provides opportunities forrethinking existing organizational policies and procedures and creating newones. Developing decision-making processes that include the participationof all faculty members is more difficult to enact than it sounds. Most groupsconsider a problem solved “as soon as the fastest thinkers [and most articu-late speakers] have reached an answer” (Kaner, Lind, Toldi, Fisk, & Berger,2007, p. xv). A group that adheres to a democratic, participatory process fordecision making considers a problem solved only after everyone gets achance to weigh in on the issue. Kaner et al. (2007) recommended a varietyof tools, techniques, and approaches for decision making that promotesmutual understanding, inclusive solutions, and shared responsibility. Theyaim to create active participation, not an audience, as is often the case withmost meeting formats. They present numerous tools for promoting insteadof squelching diverse perspectives. A group’s successful integration ofdiverse points of view based on the full range of experience and skills thatreside in it membership (p. xvii) has the most potential for solving the com-plex issues faced by departments and schools of social work today.

Planning with the People Most Affected by the Decision Making

Although most social work faculty understand and teach their students theimportance of including those most affected by organizational policies andpractices in planning and decision-making processes, students are often leftout when it comes to being viable players in influencing and shapingdepartments and schools of social work. Plans and decisions that deeplyaffect the quality of their education and their lives are made for students,not with them. Inclusive planning takes letting go of power and challengingstandard notions of students as empty vessels to be filled and understandingthem instead as essential partners with rich and vast storehouses of knowl-edge ready and willing to contribute. Inclusive planning can take variousshapes and forms and methods can be devised collaboratively that meet theneeds of both faculty and students.

Addressing Incongruencies Between Social Justice Mission and Organizational Practice

Negotiating the problematic terrain of conflicting discourses and practice ispar for the course as people strive to make sense of themselves and theworld around them (Ortner, 1989). Disconnects, divides, and disjuncturesbetween what people say and what they do are ;commonplace and oughtto be recognized as pots of gold from which remarkable learning can beextracted. The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) set standards to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 13: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

188 M. Jacobson

promote and strengthen the quality of social work education and to ensurethat educational programs and educators will advance the profession’s mis-sion “to effect social and economic justice worldwide” (CSWE, 2004, p. 2).Furthermore, departments and schools of social work develop and adopttheir own missions, and more often than not these are imbued with claimsabout working to eliminate poverty, discrimination, and oppression and tosupport the profession’s historic commitment to social justice and equality.Addressing how social justice works on and plays through all levels of theacademic organization and identifying contradictory nexus points needs tobe an ongoing discussion topic for the faculty group. “Social work shouldnot be hesitant to follow its own principles; in so doing it can serve as aleader for organizational change” (Brashears, 1995, p. 697).

Reflecting on and Evaluating Group Work Processes

Shifting from the faculty meeting to a faculty group is a process that requirescontinual reflection and evaluation. Recording the lessons learned and usingthe challenges identified to forge new knowledge to modify the process iskey (Finn & Jacobson, 2008). Questions to consider include the following:Where are we now given our original mission and purpose? Do our prac-tices and procedures reflect a commitment to social justice? Are the voicesof everyone included? Is the decision-making process collaborative? Aresocial justice principles practiced? Sharing successes and celebrating thelearning are additional key aspects of the evaluation that promote iterativereadjustments to the faculty group as the reflection-evaluation process sug-gests. Instituting a procedure whereby each meeting is assessed by a set ofcriteria that evaluates collaborative group dynamics is essential (see Schulzet al., 2004). Reflection and evaluation are benchmarks in a change effortthat create “stopping-off places” where participants can reflect on cumula-tive change, make comparisons to other checkpoints, and appreciate thedistance covered in understanding and altering attitudes and events (Finn &Jacobson, 2008, p. 378).

TAKING THE NEXT STEP TOWARD RECONCEPTUALIZING THE FACULTY MEETING

As dominant social, political, and economic forces within and outside thesocial work profession push toward more individualized and individualizingapproaches to practice, one question looms large: What effect will this shifthave on the fundamental and historically grounded principles of participatorydemocracy, mutual aid, and social justice outlined above and so inherently apart of social group work’s philosophy and practice? Although there is consid-erable commitment to social justice as one of the core guiding principles of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 14: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

Faculty Meeting 189

social work profession, the diminishing use of social group work speaks other-wise. Truly embracing social justice means truly embracing social group work.

The faculty meeting locates social group work where the rubber oughtto meet the road—where group work theory, knowledge, and skills canplay out at a premium; where administrators and faculty could apply thevalues, skills, and knowledge base of social group work to inform a morecoherent and congruent social work practice for faculty meetings; andwhere social work academics responsible for transmitting knowledge to stu-dents could play a vital role in reenergizing social group work today.

So what is the next step? How do we eliminate the false dichotomybetween faculty meetings as somehow separate and distinct from other sitescompatible for the application of social work practice external to depart-ments and schools of social work? How do we move from a faculty meetingunderwritten with values based on a more bureaucratic, corporate adminis-trative model, one more apt to reproduce discourses of oppression and ine-quality, to one engaged firmly and boldly with the values, knowledge base,and skills of a social justice–oriented approach to social work practice—onethat fits with the social justice mission of the profession and of many depart-ments and schools of social work? How do we begin to apply the knowl-edge and modes of practice on ourselves that we know and articulate sowell and that resonate historically, and successfully apply as practitionersoutside our roles as teachers and administrators?

Redefining the faculty meeting to a faculty group is the first step and itbegins by posing these questions and entering into dialogue with our col-leagues in an effort to challenge our certainties and take the risks necessary toexpose our own contradictions between practice and rhetoric. Doing thismeans that administrators and faculty need to give up some of their power tothe group and trust in the group’s capacity to generate knowledge and makeeffective decisions informed by the dialectical process that our group workforemothers and forefathers realized as a foundational element for creating amutual aid system. Drawing on social work’s history of prized ideas, we mustbe willing to redefine the work unit as a mutual aid group and our meetingsas social work practice. Our willingness to experiment, to take risks, and touse the history, knowledge, and group work skills that have so profoundlyshaped social work practices and principles is all that stands between envi-sioning and realizing a new day for social group work, one integrated into theprofession at the very core of its most fundamental decision-making body.

REFERENCES

Addams, J. (1910). Twenty years at Hull House. New York: Crowell/Macmillan.Andrews, J. (2001). Group work’s place in social work: A historical analysis. Journal

of Sociology and Social Welfare, 28(4), 45–65.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 15: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

190 M. Jacobson

Andrews, J., & Reisch, M. (1997). Social work and anti-communism: A historical anal-ysis of the McCarthy era. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 8(2), 29–49.

Aronoff, N., & Bailey, D. (2005). Partnered practice: Building on our small grouptradition. Social Work with Groups, 28(1), 23–39.

Barry, D. (1998). Dave Barry turns 50. New York: Ballentine.Bored with department meetings? (2005, September 23). Chronicle of Higher Education,

52(5), pp. 2–3.Brainy Quote. (n.d.). John Kenneth Galbraith Quotes. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from

www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_kenneth_galbraith.htmlBrashears, F. (1995). Supervision as social work practice: A reconceptualization.

Social Work, 40(5), 692–699.Breton, M. (2005). Learning from social group work traditions. Social Work with

Groups, 28(3/4), 107–119.Burford, G., & Pennell, G. (2004). From agency client to community-based con-

sumer: The family group conference as a consumer-led group in child welfare.In C. Garvin, L. Gutierrez, & M. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of social work withgroups (pp. 415–431). New York: Guilford.

Chung, I. (2003). Creative use of focus groups: Providing healing and support toNYC Chinatown residents after the 9/11 attacks. Social Work with Groups,26(4), 3–19.

Council on Social Work Education. (2004). Educational policy and accreditationstandards. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Dessel, A., Rogge, M., & Garlington, S. (2006). Using intergroup dialogue to promotesocial justice and change. Social Work, 51(4), 303–315.

Diaz, C. (1997). Planificación participativa [Participatory planning]. San Jose, CostaRica: Alforja.

Ehrenreich, J. (1985). The altruistic imagination: A history of social work and socialpolicy in the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Ephross, P. (1981). Group work with work groups: A case of arrested development.Social Work with Groups, 4(1/2), 105–119.

Ephross, P., & Vassil, T. (2005). Groups that work: Structure and process. New York:Columbia University Press.

Finn, J., & Jacobson, M. (2008). Just practice: A social justice approach to social work(2nd ed.). Peosta, IA: Eddie Bowers.

Finn, J., Jacobson, M., & Dean Campana, J. (2004). Participatory research, populareducation, and popular theater. In C. Garvin, L. Gutierrez, & M. Galinsky(Eds.), Handbook of social work with groups (pp. 326–343). New York:Guilford.

Graham, M. (2002). Teaching as groupwork. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work,8(1), 83–95.

Herbert, E. (1999). Rugtime for teachers: Reinventing the faculty meeting. Phi DeltaKappan, 81(3), 219.

Hoerr, T. (2005). Faculty meetings can be worthwhile. Educational Leadership,63(2), 87–89.

Jacobson, M., Pruitt-Chapin, K., & Rugeley, C. (2009). Reconstructing povertyknowledge: Addressing food insecurity through grassroots research design andimplementation. Journal of Poverty Research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 16: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

Faculty Meeting 191

Jacobson, M., & Rugeley, C. (2007). Community-based participatory research: Groupwork for social justice and community change. Social Work with Groups, 30(4),21–39.

Kaner, S., Lind, J., Toldi, C., Fisk, S., & Berger, D. (2007). Facilitator’s guide toparticipatory decision-making (2nd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons/Jossey-Bass.

Kohm, B. (2002). Improving faculty conversations. Educational Leadership, 59(8),31–33.

Kurland, R. (2005). Planning: The neglected component of group development.Social Work with Groups, 28(3/4), 9–16.

Kurland, R., & Salmon, R. (2006). Making joyful noise: Presenting, promoting, andportraying group work to and for the profession. Social Work with Groups,29(2/3), 1–15.

Kurland, R., Salmon, R., Bitel, M., Goodman, H., Ludwig, K., Wolff Newmann, W.,et al. (2004). The survival of social group work: A call to action. Social Workwith Groups, 27(1), 3–16.

Lee, J. (1992). Jane Addams in Boston: Intersecting time and space. In J. Garland(Ed.), Group work reaching out: People, places and power (pp. 7–31). NewYork: Haworth Press.

Mayadas, N.S., Smith, R., & Elliott, D. (2001). Social group work in doctoral pro-grams: Implications for social work practice and education. Journal of Teachingin Social Work, 21(1/2), 175–194.

Mayadas, N. S., Smith, R., & Elliott, D. (2004). Social group work in a global con-text. In C. Garvin, L. Gutiérrez, & M. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of social workwith groups (pp. 45–57). New York: Guilford Press.

McNicoll, P. (2003). Current innovations in social work with groups to addressissues of social justice. In N. Sullivan, E. Mesbur, N. Lang, D. Goodman, &L. Mitchell (Eds.), Social work with groups: Social justice through personal,community, and societal change (pp. 35–50). New York: Haworth.

Middleman, R. (1990). Group work and the Heimlich maneuver: Unchoking socialwork education. In D. Fike & B. Rittner (Eds.), Working from strengths: The essenceof group work (pp. 16–40). Miami Shores, FL: Center for Group Work Studies.

Moyse-Steinberg, D. (2003). Social work with groups, mutual aid, and social justice.In N. Sullivan, E. Mesbur, N. Lang, D. Goodman, & L. Mitchell (Eds.), Socialwork with groups: Social justice through personal, community, and societalchange (pp. 91–100). New York: Haworth Press.

Ortner, S. (1989). High religion: A cultural and political history of Sherpa Buddhism.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rodenborg, N., & Huynh, N. (2006). On overcoming segregation: Social work andintergroup dialogue. Social Work with Groups, 29(1), 27–44.

Schulz, A., Israel, B., & Lantz, P. (2004). Instrument for evaluating dimensions ofgroup dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships.Evaluation and Program Planning, 26(3), 249–262.

Schwartz, W. (1986). The group work tradition and social work practice. SocialWork with Groups, 8(4), 7–27.

Shulman, L. (2002). Learning to talk about taboo subjects: A lifelong professionalchallenge. Social Work with Groups, 25(1/2), 137–148.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 17: The Faculty Meeting: Practicing Social Justice-Oriented Group Work

192 M. Jacobson

Sibley, D. (1995). Women’s research on Chicago in the early 20th century. Womenand Environment, 14(2), 6–9.

Think Exist. (n.d.). William Goldman Quotes. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://thinkexist.com/quotes/william_goldman/

Tropman, J. (1996). Making meetings work: Achieving high quality group decisions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 01:

02 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014