SUMMARY
Problem and
Purpose
My
first purpose in this study is
to examine female social work students’ ways of knowing and their
learning strategies from a feminist point of view.
The academic world with its structures, norms and
rituals, has for many
hundreds
of years (in Sweden c. 500 years) been
formed by men for the education and training of men.
Women were admitted to the universities around the end of the 19th
century. The admission of women
has not influenced the academic structures and rituals to any great
extent, in spite of the fact that female students have been in the
majority for
around two decades. My second purpose is to present a model of learning profiles which gives a varied picture of women's different approaches.
The
questions that guided the study are: What
is the approach to knowledge of the female social work students? What kind
of knowledge do they need according to their own opinion? How do they
perceive themselves as learners? What kind of learning strategies do they
use? How do they deal with difficulties in learning? How do they cope with
”the academic world”? How do they deal with the male character of the education? The question that underlies is: What are the consequences of a
convergence between a vocational education and an academic tradition of
education with reference to women's approaches to knowledge and learning
strategies?
Method
Interviews
The study is based on interviews
with twenty-seven female
social work students from three different centres of Social
Work education in Sweden during the
seventh and
final semester of the programme.
The method used for the interviews was "solidary
interviews"
(sv. "solidariska intervjuer"), the
purpose of which is to give the women time and space to speak, pursue
with follow-up questions and direct the
interpretations to help form
thoughts and experiences. Only a few of the women had previously reflected
on their experience of education and their learning in a serious way, so
many of the issues that were brought up were completely new to most of them.
Hermeneutic
Interpretation and Construction of Knowledge
The interviews, recorded and typed, were analysed and interpreted in
several steps by means of a hermeneutic method for interpretation. The
concept of the hermeneutic spiral, which involved many re-readings and new interpretations, governed the work of interpretation and analysis, categorising and development of concepts.
The
Plan of the Thesis
The thesis is divided into four
parts. Part I is
an overview of the history of Social Work education
in Sweden from a feminist point of view and an account of
studies of social work students in Sweden. Part II covers studies of women’s admission to the "academia" and the difficulties
involved and an extensive theoretical chapter where
international research on women’s ways of knowing is described. This chapter is concluded by a
section on "Feministic
pedagogy", where conscious
didactic approaches for women are presented and
discussed.
Part III consists
of two empirical chapters that account
for the social situation of the social work students, their background and
view on social work, and for their
encounter with what is ”male” within their training,
with a focus on their male fellow students, but also on lectures, lessons
and literature. The remaining four empirical chapters
present the dimensions that were developed from
the analysis of the interviews: Origins of
Knowledge, Directions of Knowledge, Orientation of Knowledge and
Pathways
to Knowledge (Learning Strategies).
Part IV
presents a model for the profiles
of thought and learning that is
developed from an analysis of the interviews, which in turn is studied from a feminist
view-point. Finally it suggests that Social Work education, with a gender conscious didactic,
should transcend destructive
and restraining
gender constructions with reference both to
the contents of education and
its implementation
in lecture halls, study groups
and in other educational contexts.
A
Historical and Feminist Perspective
Social
Work education in Sweden was
started in 1921. A little more
than 40 years later, 1964, it
was accepted at University College level (Högskola) and in 1977 it was integrated into the university organisation and the
first professor of social work was appointed.
When Social Work education was admitted to the academic
world two opposite cultures confronted each other; on the one hand, the vocational training with
its focus on social work practice, and on the other academic
traditions with its focus on the
training of theoretical, scholarly and critical thinking.
History shows that both women and men contributed to the development of this education
from the very beginning and that the target group for the education was
both women and men. It seemed, though, that women and men had different
tasks and different bases when developing the
education. Both women and men were interested in transforming
social work into a science and it´s development into a professional education for social workers. Women seem to have fought for both
course content and a
learning methodology which aimed at professionalising the social work
practice. This meant, among other things, that they wanted courses in social methodology, psychology and supervised vocational training practice to be part
of the education. The men, on the other hand, seem to have been more
interested in developing an education
for civil servants with the necessary academic
disciplines for this kind of work, e.g. political science, legal science
and especially
social policy. Both sexes were interested in turning social work education into a
scientific disciplin, but the men
seem to have been more interested to make
the education "academic"
which means adjusting it to and fitting
into the academic structures of disciplins
and a didactic
traditionally formed by men. These structures
are characterised as
hierarchal and competitive. Another
aspect is objectification of
knowledge and of people, and a "separated critical thinking". The
education as preparatory for research was gradually developed at the
expense of an emphasis on vocational training and preparation
for social work in practice.
The
struggle between
the "advocates for practice" and the "advocates for theory" has gone in waves and manifested itself in different ways during
the roughly eight decades that this education has existed. The advocates
for theory seem to have been mainly
men, with a main interest in research with roots in other disciplines, e.g.
sociology, psychology and
political science. The advocates for practice seem to
have been mainly women with experience from social
work
practice. When Social Work was
established as an academic discipline in 1977, an antagonism between "vocational training" and
"education preparatory for research" was built into the
discipline. The research arenas
within Social Work have
gradually been made more and more masculine. The upper level officials within academia,
professors, research fellows and senior lecturers, are
mainly men, in spite of the
fact that women have an absolute majority in practical social work (82%)
as well as in the undergraduate programmes (82%).
Today the advocates for theory have once again gained ground as
social work as an academic discipline has been
given more space within the educational programme
for social work, at the same time as the amount of supervised practical social work has
decreased substantially.
"Women's
Ways of Knowing" - A Theoretical Approach
An american study, carried out by Mary Belenky, Blythe
Clinchy, Nancy Goldberger and Jill Tarule, "Women's
Ways of Knowing" (1986) (WWK) has been my source of inspiration
and the starting-point for this study. The researchers found that the
women they studied had different approaches to
knowledge and used different ways of learning. The principal approaches that the researchers found were, on the
one hand, those who were categorised as "Received Knowers", to
whom knowledge existed outside
themselves and was picked-up
and memorised. On the other hand,
a large group were categorised as "Subjective Knowers". Their own inner knowledge came
mainly from experience of life and an "inner
voice". The researchers categorised another three groups of women, namely "Silent", "Procedural Knowing" and "Constructive
Knowing”, but these groups were fairly
insignificant. Several
important concepts and perspectives in my study
have been taken from or been inspired by WWK,
especially
the concepts "connected" and "separated
knowing".
The american researchers were in turn inspired by William
Perry’s study from the 1970 on Harvard
students, who appeared only to be men.
"The Perry Study" describes how students' conceptions of the
nature
and origins of
knowledge evolve and how their understanding of themselves as knowers changes over time, while WWK focused on the origins of knowledge and epistemological orientation. Peter
Elbow’s (1973, 1986) research on seminar cultures and communication,
and his concepts "the Believing
Game" and
"the Doubting Game",
have also been a source of great inspiration.
WWK has inspired many researchers around the world, e.g. Marcia Baxter
Magolda (1992) who has carried out comparative studies of the differences
between women’s and men’s learning and, in addition to that, presented
a developmental
theory about learning.
Female
Social Work Students' Ways of Knowing and Learning
Who are the Students?
Almost half of the 27 students are working class women, a little less than half of them are middle class women and two
come from farmers’ families.
They are 29 years of age on average when
they graduate. Most of them are married or cohabit and a third of them (30%) have one or more children,
which is more than the average university
student in Sweden (20%). Only
five of them
have previously studied at university.
For several of them this education involves something of a "class
journey". They are the first member of their family to study at a
university. Several of them have a vocational education and have been
working in various spheres of activity.
A very
large part of the middle class women have personal experience of violence, abuse through alcohol, sexual violations or other psychosocial
problems in their childhood; only one of the
working class women had similar experiences. Several of them had taken
psychotherapy or attended therapy groups to work with their experiences. These women would like Social Work education to provide therapy groups or psychotherapy
within the formal education, as they have realised
that experiences from childhood which
have not been dealt-with might
obstruct the social work with vulnerable clients.
Women
Encounter the Male Academic World
The 27 students that were interviewed showed various degrees of awareness of gender. Most of them noted and experienced differences
between themselves and the male students, but only a small group described
themselves as feminists. These women were angry and disappointed and
wanted and often fought for change, in lecture halls, in study groups and
in their private lives. These women were mainly from the working class and
they were also somewhat older than the average student in the social work
education. A very large group noted and experienced differences between
the sexes, but they did not think much about it and did not state any
demand for change. Another group, almost as large, had observed certain differences but did not think about them until they were interviewed.
The main
differences that the women had observed and accounted for were about goal
and purpose for studies (men were more career oriented), space in the
lecture room (men spoke much more in spite of the fact that they were very
few), ways of discussing and debating in lecture rooms and groups (men
seemed to be more matter of fact about criticism and did not take it
personally, as opposed to women, who often reacted personally to criticism; men seemed more oriented towards facts and achievement, whereas women seemed more concentrated on
processes and interactions), about
ways of studying (men seemed to take studies, pressure of examinations, and projects more
lightly than women), about relations to teachers (men seemed to relate to
teachers, "have coffee” with them, identify with them, while women
to a larger extent seemed to need teachers for support
and confirmation of themselves and their learning) and
about language, course content and about
"the academic" (women felt that men seemed to understand and
take in the academic language and adjust to studies and methods more
easily than themselves). The women also described strategies for
resistance and counter-power that they
used when they found lectures and literature
too abstract, too difficult
or irrelevant and pointless: they asked fellow students,
friends and family; they talked in study groups and with fellow
students; they developed strategies to get through: "I'll give them what they want", "I'll study, take examinations and forget" and the
like. Some described subtle strategies for resistance
like, "Well, I won’t take any notes". One woman
found a female "ally" and together found the strength to fight for her perspectives and
view points in lecture rooms and study groups.
The
Four Dimensions of Knowledge
The analysis of the interviews with the women led to a categorisation of approaches to knowledge and learning into four dimensions of
knowledge.
I.
Origins of Knowledge
Most of the women interviewed
found that their main origin of knowledge
was life experience. They reported events and experiences that had proved important knowledge
to them – experiences from work,
from activities in clubs and during spare-time
and, above all, from family and friends. Many of them had had an easy time
at school, but they still did not
mention school as an origin of knowledge. Some of them described mass media,
television and newspapers, as important origins of knowledge. A few of them considered formal education,
school, teachers, course literature etc. to have been
important to them. Several of them were young and had little or no work
experience. To many of these women the most important purpose of school was
to confirm and "give words" to life experiences.
Formal
education will, at best, provide new perspectives and new
understanding. The women’s criticism about formal education is
mainly that the knowledge conveyed is not meaningful and relevant, that it is often
too abstract and too difficult and that
knowledge is presented in a language which is unnecessarily complicated and difficult. Course literature is so
extensive that you don’t have enough time to
read it, and even less time to enter deeply
into it.
It is often considered to be without
meaning and relevance as an origin of
knowledge for social work
II. Direction of Knowledge
The issue about theory and practice
turned out to be the main concern for this
dimension of knowledge. Most of the women were critical of the contents of
the theoretical lessons and the theoretical literature, which was often
considered to be too
abstract and they did not think that it sufficiently supported social work practice. They also criticised the teachers for being "too theoretical", having no basis in or
experience from social work in real life. Most of them wanted the
supervised vocational training practice to play a more important role and
have greater
significance within the
formal education. It was during the work
experience semesters
they learned what knowledge
they needed and had been confirmed in the belief that they already possessed important
knowledge. A few of them found that they learned to value theoretical knowledge during the course of education. This was
often a consequence of good teaching, "good teachers"
and "good literature" that
had helped them to understand.
III. Orientation of Knowledge
Inspired by the research of Blythe Clinchy, Peter Elbow and Marcia Baxter
Magolda, the
focus of the third dimension of knowledge became the issue of "connected" and "separated
knowing". The women were asked to take a stand on a few statements of attitudes that threw light upon the two different approaches
of knowledge. A majority of qualified
social work
students remain "connected"
in their learning, both in
terms of other people and
knowledge. They find it extremely difficult to deal with and feel
resistance to learning
strategies which are based on
"separated knowing" such as "the Doubting Game" (Elbow), critical thinking, objective standpoints,
debates and argumentation. They do not feel accepted. They feel attacked
and criticised in
situations like that. They feel they are in a
hostile place. Some of them feel that
these kinds of approaches are important
to know, "but still it is
difficult". Some try to learn. Others refrain from trying as they do
not find these kinds of approaches
important.
"Connected knowers" prefer "the Believing Game", co-construction of knowledge, "protective thinking",
"real" talk, subjective understanding of others’ perspectives and good, close relationships to fellow students and to other
people. Argumentation and criticism are a threat to these good relationships. Only a few of the interviewed women valued the "separated"
approach. In
close and lasting relationships some of
the women dared to try a more separated way of arguing.
IV.
Pathways to Knowledge:
Ways of Learning or Learning
Strategies
The women interviewed mainly used a listening
strategy in their learning in public
situations, in lecture halls and in seminars. In the smaller study groups
the women were, however, very active. The dialogues in the smaller groups
was the most valued form of studying and strategy for learning and most of them described a very great need to speak to others, to fellow
students, to family and friends about what
they have heard and learnt. They do not want debate filled with
conflicts. They want a respectful,
confident, trusting, connected dialogue and
conversation based on mutual listening and speaking.
The
lecture as a pathway to knowledge has a very low priority among most of
the students interviewed. If the
lecturer is enthusiastic and shows understanding and respect for the
students’ difficulties and has knowledge of and experience of the subject area, the lecture might be an interesting
didactic method. If this is not the case, most of the women interviewed
prefer to use the time for self-tuition and dialogues in study groups. They also prefer to work with tasks and problems that are
relevant and adequate for social work. Most of them would prefer to have
supervisors and tutors available for the study groups. The groups are often superficial and
paralysed by relational problems and conflicts, which they would like to be helped in
solving. Some suggest that the study
group should be used educationally/didactically, as social work is
often carried out in groups and social workers need these abilities and skills. In the group
one can practise leadership under
supervision, perceive and handle group processes, relational problems, problem solving etc.
Many of
the students claim that they like very much to read, but they find the
course literature too extensive and often too difficult, too heavy or
irrelevant and pointless. Many of them would prefer to choose their own
literature based
on their needs and interests. Many of them had experiences from courses
and work with papers and projects where they chose their own literature and other sources of knowledge which
they valued highly. In such a case
one could "read as much as one
liked". In these cases literature was an important pathway to
knowledge. In other cases "one studied for the examination".
Many of them were also critical of the amount of English literature, which took time and energy to
understand and made
deepening of the studies
more difficult. "Is it psychology or is it english we are supposed to learn?"
The
Learning Profile
By means of the four dimensions of
knowledge and their eight extremes, a model
of
learning profiles was created with
whose help one ought to be able to analyse both women’s and men’s present approaches to knowledge and
learning and then any future changes which will occur. There is, however, no theory for development built into the model. This
will be a future area for research.
The extremes I chose from the analysis of the women’s Origins of knowledge for my
model of learning profiles were on the one hand
life experiences
and on the other hand formal education.
Direction of knowledge
was either theory or practice, meaning that the women maintained either that the purpose of teaching and learning was
theoretical understanding and explanation ("know why"
knowledge) or need for knowledge
was for social work practice ("know
how" knowledge).
When it
came to
Orientation of knowledge the extremes were "connected"
("near") and "separated" ("distant")
knowing. The extremes of Pathways to
knowledge were "inner" and "outer”
pathways of knowing and learning.
The
combining of these eight extremes in all possible combinations led to a system of sixteen
different profiles of learning (see appendix 9). As
such a varied system is difficult to use, a four-cell table based on the
dimensions was developed from it, each cell containing four learning
profiles. The four main learning profiles in the four-cell table were
named "Connected practitioner", "Connected
theorist", "Separated practitioner" and "Separated theorist". Nine of the twenty-seven women
were categorised as connected practitioners, seven as connected theorists, one as a
separated practitioner and three as separated theorists.
Seven of
the women were impossible to fit into any of the profiles. They
represented what came to be known as "Integrated
knowers" in one or more dimensions of knowledge. Both positions
of a dimension were perceivable in the women’s approaches and
strategies but neither dimension seemed to dominate to any great extent. Rather, there
seemed to be an interplay between the positions.
Feminist Perspectives of the Profile
When critically studying the dimensions of knowledge
and the learning profiles from a
feminist perspective, it is obvious that these are constructed in a male
hierarchical context of education, where women’s experiences and
conceptions are not highly
valued and where women’s voices are often not heard or silenced. As long as school and formal education do not make
visible, name, make scientific and support the reality, the
self apprehension and life experiences of women (or any
other group which
is oppressed), then life experience will probably remain the primary origin of knowledge for
women even in the future. Furthermore, since women choose silence and use
listening learning
strategies, there is a great danger
that knowledge remains unreflected and "private", and is
consequently classified as "tacit
knowledge". The epistemological alternative seems to be that the core
of education is
small study and work groups who seek and
develop knowledge by themselves, assisted by tutors and supervisors.
A change
of the competitive
hierarchic structures, norms and
rituals would, from the point of view of women’s approaches to
knowledge and learning strategies, mean a formal education that
is mainly "connected" in a hospitable
environment. Co-operation, generosity,
consideration, care, empathy and democracy should permeate the educational
context. The foundation-stone of didactic should
be the dialogue
and protective and connected critical thinking. A formal education with
such characteristics would be able
to provide greater opportunities to develop into adequate and relevant
origins of knowledge even for women. This would also be valid for the interaction between theory and practice. If theories
were to describe, explain, understand, make visible and
support women’s lives and experiences, they might more
readily be considered as useful tools for thought and work for
the lives of women and for social work in practice. Feminist inspired didactic might form and stimulate a generic
theory of education based on all the lives and experiences of all the
categories of students.
The
present study supports many other studies of women’s orientation of
knowledge or approaches to knowledge. Women seem to be mainly "connected"
in their approaches to
other people, to knowledge and learning. Separated
teaching and learning contexts create difficult obstacles for many women during the learning
process. As a separated approach is of great importance both in the
scientific search for knowledge, in
knowledge development and in practical social work, this dissociation and the inability of a separated approach is a
problem, a didactic problem. Formal education should give women the
opportunity to train "separatedness" in a "connected" way, e.g. by "the Believing Game", by creating a hospitable
space and context and by conscious didactic and training of separated skills,
through protective critical thinking and connected arguing etc.
An
"isomorphic" education, i.e. a context of education which in
many respects is based on the same ideas and the same didactic as social work in the field might provide a useful didactic base for connected teaching and
learning. These are, however, empirical matters that need to be explored.
The
conclusions drawn from female social work students’ ways of knowing and
learning seem to be completely in line with more and more explicit
demands for a paradigmatic shift within higher education, often
described as the transition from teaching to learning.
Social Work Education as Gender Transcendent
This study, as well as the research of others,
shows how formal education continues
to construct and preserve traditional
gender constructions. Women are still to a large extent disciplined into
silence and listening
and into "cue-seeking" strategies, i.e. finding out what they need to know to "pass the examination", even
if the moulding
mechanisms often are subtle or invisible
("the hidden curriculum") and usually unconscious.
It is a democratic right for women to be
included in higher education. The first purpose of Social Work education is to train academically students
to be professional social workers
(even if some of them end up doing research). Social workers tend to, usually unconsciously, construct traditional gender patterns with clients
and patients unless a change takes place. A consequence of this study is
to
maintain the possibility of a Social Work
education as a transcendent factor in gender (class, race etc.) constructions. This means that education on all levels, in all
courses and projects
emphasise, make visible, make aware, question
and analyse discrimination and
oppression on all levels and in all situations in society, and thereafter
submit them to analysis, questioning, discussion and processing within education. It also means, and this is the main point,
that the didactic of
education should be modelled to traverse borders,
to be transcendent. Ideas and methods from feminist and other liberating pedagogic can contribute with ideas for the use in lecture rooms, seminar rooms and other contexts
within education with the purpose of
consciousness-raising and even
transcendence. Sexist, racist, and class prejudices, values and behaviour in the study context
should be made visible, questioned, analysed and discussed with the purpose of
transcending the prevailing traditional gender patterns, gender games,
gender roles and gender constructions. The aim of and the focus of Social Work education must be consciousness-raising, liberating and
transcending in order to educate women and men for social work who will be
able in turn to empower and liberate clients and patients to
transcend their often poor or destructive living conditions.
|