Differences in worldviews between social workers and people of faith

Hodge, David R

Abstract

Worldview conflicts between social workers and clients are widely understood to inhibit the provision of client-centered services. One of the most influential theories that has been advanced for understanding conflicting worldviews in contemporary society is Hunter's (1991) epistemologically based distinction between progressive and orthodox worldviews. Based upon Hunter's work, two interrelated hypotheses are examined using nationally representative samples: first, that social workers (n = 145) affirm a progressive worldview and associated value positions and, second, that their value positions differ from those who affirm an orthodox worldview. Both hypotheses were supported. The implications are discussed regarding the academic literature, education, and service provision.

THEORY SUGGESTS THAT WORLDVIEW conflicts, in tandem with unequal power relations, foster discrimination (Hamilton & Sharma, 1997; Wambach & Van Soest, 1997). Value positions that are congruent with one's worldview tend to be implicitly affirmed while positions that are dissimilar are tacitly discounted. A power differential, such as occurs in academic and practice settings, facilitates the occurrence of discrimination. For example, Gilligan's (1993) feminist critique of Kohlberg's (1981) theory of moral development illustrated how a male-centered worldview and associated values biased Kohlberg's work against women. Similarly, a number of empirical studies (Dor-Shav, Friedman, & Tcherbonogura, 1978; Gartner, Harmatz, Hohmann, Larson, & Gartner, 1990; Neumann, Harvill, & Callahan, 1995; Neumann & Leppien, 1997) have indicated that a difference in value-based worldviews can foster inequitable outcomes.

In terms of conceptualizing conflicting worldviews, one of the more influential models has been advanced by Hunter (1991; 1994). Indeed, the perceived explanatory power of Hunter's framework is evidenced by the considerable amount of research and discussion it has inspired (Carroll & Marier, 1995; Hoffmann & Miller, 1998; Jensen, 1998; Sullins, 1999; Williams, 1997). Similarly, a number of social workers have used Hunter's framework as a model for understanding societal conflicts (Fellin, 2000; Hutchison, 1999; Parr, 1996; Ressler & Hodge, 2000; Van Soest, 1996).

At the most basic level, Hunter (1991) posits that contemporary society is animated by two discrete systems of moral understanding. More specifically, society is marked by two epistemologically-based worldviews, referred to by Hunter as orthodox and progressive, that derive their understanding of truth from different sources. For adherents of an orthodox worldview, moral truth is understood to emanate from an external, definable, transcendent source, such as the God posited by theistic faith traditions. Although there are many different orthodox worldviews, orthodox believers, or as they would tend to self-describe, people of faith (Reed, 1996; Wolfe, 1998), share the same epistemological understanding. At least in theory, moral values transcend time and culture.

Conversely, within the progressive worldview, moral truth is viewed as a continually unfolding reality informed by the ethos of the contemporary age (Hunter, 1991). While there are many progressive worldviews, they are unified in their shared, Enlightenment-based assumption that truth is an evolving entity. While progressives may be in conversation with particular religious traditions, ultimate moral authority is personally constructed within the parameters prescribed by current scientific discourse rationality and the contemporary ethos. Consequently, for these individuals, the moral positions of historic faiths are resymbolized to conform to the prevailing assumptions of societal elites.

Differing worldviews flow from these two epistemologically driven conceptualizations of moral truth. While there are points in common, on a wide variety of issues there are significant differences. On moral, or what are sometimes referred to as social issues, people of faith tend to affirm what Hunter (1991) calls culturally conservative views while progressives tend to hold culturally liberal views.

It is also important to note that Hunter's (1996) model follows in the sociological tradition of Durkheim as a macro-level theory. In place of a rigid polarization, contemporary society is characterized by "impulses" toward the two worldviews. The single largest group of individuals, Hunter suggests, are moderates who hold positions between both worldviews. Even among persons who largely affirm value positions drawn from one worldview, at the micro level, people can and do adopt individual value positions drawn from both worldviews.

Of particular interest to social workers is that Hunter (1991) singles out social work as a profession in which a progressive worldview is particularly salient. In other words, social workers, in aggregate, are believed to understand truth from within a progressive framework. As a result, workers are thought to affirm culturally liberal moral values that conflict with those held by people of faith.

The hypothesized divergence in moral visions between social workers and people of faith has important implications for the profession. Orthodox believers in the United States are disproportionately drawn from disadvantaged populations-African Americans, Hispanics, the working class, the poor and women (Davis & Robinson, 1997)-the very populations the profession has a particular ethical mandate to serve (National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 1999). Further, discrimination based upon epistemology or religious belief is repeatedly prohibited by the profession's code of ethics (NASW, 1999). Yet, as noted above, a difference in worldviews combined with a power differential, can foster various forms of discrimination, especially if the difference is unacknowledged (Wambach & Van Soest, 1997). Put differently, if the profession, in aggregate, affirms a progressive worldview, social workers may be inhibited in their ability to provide culturally sensitive, or even effective, services to people of faith.

Yet, even with wide use of Hunter's theory by social workers, no studies have tested his hypothesis that the profession is animated by a progressive epistemology, despite indications for service provision and the ethical ramifications. Indeed, there is a distinct lack of information about the moral positions that social workers in the United States affirm as a profession. As Gibelman and Schervish (1997) noted in their overview of the social work profession, while a certain degree of information is known about the National Association of Social Workers membership, essentially nothing is known about the national population of social workers in the United States.

Accordingly, the aim of this paper is two-fold: to increase our knowledge base concerning the total population of social workers and to test Hunter's theory as it intersects the social work profession. Based upon Hunter's work, two interrelated hypotheses are posited: first, that social workers, in aggregate, affirm a progressive worldview and associated value positions; second, that the worldview and associated value positions affirmed by social workers differ from the worldview and associated values affirmed by people of faith.

Method

To test these propositions, the General Social Surveys (GSS) 1972-1998 cumulative file was used. The GSS is conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago and is representative of the entire noninstitutionalized English-speaking adult household population in the contiguous United States (Davis, Smith, & Marsden, 1998).

In successive years, interviewers ask a core set of questions whose wording is exactly the same so that responses can be pooled across years. A second set of questions is employed either in 2 out of every 3 years (until 1987), or in two-thirds of cases in subsequent years (Davis et al., 1998). Occasionally new questions are added and old ones dropped as conditions warrant.

As delineated by Smith (1990), the GSS uses denominational status to classify respondents into a three-category continuum: conservative, moderate, and liberal. While denominational status is an imperfect measure of epistemology (Hunter, 1991), it is often used as a proxy for individuals' worldviews (Hoffmann & Miller, 1998; Smith, 2000). While conservative denominations generally affirm an orthodox understanding of truth, liberal denominations have tended to reconceptualize their positions on moral issues to conform to a progressive view of truth (Hunter, 1991; Smith, 1990). Indeed, the properties used to place denominations at the conservative and liberal ends of the continuum (Smith, 1990) are similar to the traits listed by Hunter (1991) that characterize orthodox and progressive worldviews. Thus, if social work is characterized by a progressive worldview, the responses of social workers on moral issues should be similar to those held by liberal denominational members and dissimilar to those held by conservative members.

Of the 38,116 individuals contained in the GSS, approximately 30% (n = 11,626) were affiliated with conservative denomi-nations while just under a quarter (23%, n = 8,790) were affiliated with liberal denominations. These two groups were sectioned out to compare their responses on moral issues to those of self-identified professional social workers.

The GSS polled 92 social workers with bachelor degrees and 53 with graduate degrees. As researchers using similar methodologies have noted, the representative nature of the GSS provides two distinct advantages (Matthews & Weaver, 1989; Schwartz-Barcott & Schwartz, 1988; Schwartz-Barcott & Schwartz, 1990). First, a relatively small subgroup, graduate and bachelor-level social workers, can be compared with two much larger subgroups, members of conservative and liberal denominations. Second, the responses of the social workers can be generalized to the total social work population in the continental United States.

As a further precaution to ensure the generalization of the sample, two other benchmarks were vised for comparison. First, the ratio of bachelor-level to graduate-level social workers in the GSS (1.74) was compared to the ratio obtained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in their 1994 national survey of all social workers in the United States (1.65), the first year that the BLS compiled information on degree status (Gibelman & Schervish, 1997).

Second, the 53 graduate social workers in the GSS were compared with the 1988 NASW membership, which represents approximately 75% of graduate-level social workers in the nation (Gibelman & Schervish, 1997). Although NASW membership demographics have remained relatively constant over the 1972-1998 time span covered by the GSS, to minimize possible cohort effects, the 53 graduate social workers were compared with the 1988 NASW data, rather than more recent information. This comparison revealed a high degree of similarity in gender (75% female vs. 76%), race (88% White vs. 85%), age (a median of 41-45 yrs vs. a mean of 43 yrs) and employment status (75% full-time vs. 79%) (Gibelman & Schervish, 1997). As mentioned above, compatibility with BLS data and the NASW membership demographics, two known markers, further enhances confidence in the generalizabilty of the results.

Cramer's V statistical test was used to seek statistically significant differences between categorical variables. This chi-square-based measure is designed to allow for tables of varying sample sizes and dimensions. Consistent with other researchers who have employed this methodology, only differences that approached 10% at levels of significance greater than 0.01 were considered to be substantively meaningful (Schwartz-Barcott & Schwartz, 1988). Variables were recoded to eliminate "Don't know" and "no answer" response categories except when these were deemed to comprise a significant percentage of respondents (i.e., approximately 5% or more). This simplifies reporting of categorical variables and allows Likert-type variables to be treated continuously for statistical analysis with one-way ANOVA.

Three areas in the orthodox and progressive worldviews tend to differ greatly: abortion and euthanasia, family structure and child rearing, and sexual issues (Hunter, 1991). In addition to a broad measure of conservative/liberal beliefs, the GSS gathered responses about various perceptions in these three areas. As mentioned above, the hypothesis under investigation is that social workers affirm value positions that are generally congruent with those held by members of liberal denominations in all three areas.

Results

Survey results for the three worldview groups (social workers, conservative denomination members, and liberal denomination members) were examined to see if significant differences existed among key demographic variables. More specifically, responses were examined for differences in the areas of age, race, and gender.

Sample Characteristics

One-way ANOVA indicated significant differences in age between the three groups (F = 6.452, p = .002). Tukey's post hoc test indicated that social workers were significantly younger (M= 40.20) than members of conservative (M = 45.28) and liberal denominations (M = 45.49).

Significant differences in race were found between members of liberal denominations and both social workers and members of conservative denominations (Cramer's V = .177, p

Significant differences were found in gender as well (Cramer's V = .072, p

Differences in Worldviews

As mentioned above, the GSS polled responses about a number of items relating to differences in which orthodox and progressive worldviews: specifically, 12 items related to abortion and euthanasia, 12 regarding views of family structure and child rearing, and 7 items concerning sexual issues and divorce. In addition, the GSS contains a general measure of beliefs, which was examined first.

Respondents were asked to rate themselves on a seven-point scale ranging from "extremely liberal" = 1, to "extremely conservative" = 7. One-way ANOVA indicated significant differences between the three groups (F = 218.985, p

Abortion/Euthanasia

Seven questions in GSS asked if it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion in the following situations: "If the woman's own health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy," "If she becomes pregnant as a result of rape," "If there is a strong chance of serious defect in the baby," "If the family has a very low income and cannot afford any more children," "If she is married and does not want any more children," "If she is not married and does not want to marry the man," and "The woman wants it for any reason."

The views of social workers on abortion were highly congruent with those held by liberal denomination members, but were dissimilar to those held by members of conservative denominations (Table 1). While there is a general pro-choice consensus concerning the overriding importance of health, rape, and serious defects, a sharp divergence appears in the remaining areas with social workers being roughly 2 to 3 times more likely to affirm a pro-choice position than individuals affiliated with conservative denominations. For instance, while 91% of social workers hold pro-choice positions in cases when the family has a low income, 65% of members of conservative denominations affirm a pro-life position.

Five questions assessed attitudes regarding right-to-die/euthanasia issues. Individuals were asked if they thought a person has a right to end his or her own life in the following four situations. The person has "an incurable disease," "gone bankrupt," "dishonored his or her family," and "is tired of living and ready to die." An additional question asked, "When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient's life by some painless means if the patient and his family request it?"

As reported in Table 1, the views of social workers were again highly similar to those held by members of liberal denominations. As was the case with abortion, in many cases social workers held liberal positions to the left of those affirmed by individuals affiliated with liberal denominations and in no instance were the views of workers closer to conservative than to liberal perspectives on any question.

Family Relations and Child Rearing

Individuals were presented with four statements concerning the family and were asked to express their opinion (on a four-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" = 1 to "strongly disagree" = 4): "A working mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work," "A preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works," "It is much better for everyone if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family," and "It is more important for a wife to help her husband's career than to have one for herself.

The mean and standard deviations for these items are reported in Table 2 along with the F-score from the one-way ANOVA procedure. As for responses to the statement that working does not affect a mother's ability to establish a secure attachment with her child, Tukey's post hoc test indicated that social workers expressed significantly higher levels of agreement than did both liberal and conservative denomination members. Similarly, social workers were significantly less likely than individuals affiliated with conservative denominations to believe that preschool children suffer if the mother works. Both social workers and members of liberal denominations were significantly less likely than members of conservative denominations to report that it is better for everyone if the man is the achiever outside the home while the woman focuses on the home and family. Similarly, both social workers and members of liberal denominations expressed significantly less support for the concept of putting the husband's career first.

In short, these responses seem to indicate that members of conservative denominations are more likely than social workers to feel that the mother-child bond suffers if the mother works and are consequently more willing to affirm complementary role distinctions in the family unit. Conversely, social workers, and to a large extent individuals affiliated with liberal denominations, are much less likely to believe that attachment suffers if mothers work and, correspondingly, affirm more egalitarian roles.

Respondents were also presented with five value statements and asked to prioritize them based upon which values were most important for a child to learn to prepare for life. The value statements were: "to obey," "to think for himself or herself," "to help others when they need help," "to be well-liked or popular," and "to work hard." While no significant differences emerged regarding the relative order of the last two value statements, Tukey's post hoc test revealed significant differences on the first three statements. Individuals affiliated with conservative denominations rated obedience to be a more important life skill than members of liberal denominations, who in turn, rated it more important than social workers.

Conversely, social workers rated the ability to think independently significantly higher than did members of liberal denominations who rated it higher than did members of conservative denominations. Finally, social workers, perhaps reflecting the heart of their profession, placed a greater emphasis upon helping others than did both groups. In sum, people of faith, who understand obedience to God to be instrumental to one's success in life, may value obedience more highly than progressives who, with their emphasis upon individual rationality, value independent thought more highly.

When asked to name the ideal number of children for a family to have, members of conservative denominations favored significantly larger families than did social workers and members of liberal denominations (see Table 2). When asked if a spanking is sometimes necessary as a disciplinary measure, members of conservative denominations reported significantly higher levels of agreement than did members of liberal denominations who, in turn, reported significantly higher levels of agreement than social workers.

When asked to express their opinion (on a four-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" = 1 to "strongly disagree" = 4) whether methods of birth control should be available to teenagers between the ages of 14 and 16 if their parents do not approve, members of conservative denominations were significantly more likely to disagree than both social workers and members of liberal denominations. In other words, social workers and individuals affiliated with liberal denominations were more likely to support providing methods of birth control to young adolescents over their parents' objections than members of conservative denominations.

Sexual Issues and Divorce Laws

A four-point rating scale, ranging from "always wrong" = 1 to "not wrong at all" = 4, was used to assess the morality of sexual relations in four different contexts: teens 14 to 16 years old outside of marriage, adults outside of marriage, married person with an individual other than the marriage partner, and two adults of the same sex. These variables were treated continuously and the means and standard deviations are listed on Table 2.

Tukey's post hoc test indicated that members of conservative denominations assessed teenage sexual activity and premarital sexual relations to be significantly more wrong than social workers and members of liberal denominations. Similarly, members of conservative denominations rated extramarital and same sex relations to be more wrong than members of liberal denominations who, in turn, assessed sexual activity in these two areas to be more wrong than social workers.

Individuals were presented with four statements about pornography, which was defined as "books, movies, magazines, and photographs that show or describe sex activities," and asked if looking at or reading sexual materials do or do not have the stated effect: "provide information about sex," "provide an outlet for bottled-up impulses," "lead to the breakdown of morals," and "lead people to commit rape." Table 3 lists the affirmative responses to these four statements.

As is apparent, all three groups generally affirmed that pornography provides information about sex and provides an outlet for impulses. However, members of conservative denominations were significantly more likely to believe that pornography fosters the breakdown of morality and leads to rape. For example, while only 22% of social workers and 49% of members of liberal denominations believed there is an association between pornography and sexual assault, 69% of members of conservative denominations felt such a link existed. This concern may explain the greater level of support for laws restricting the distribution of pornography among members of conservative denominations, as profiled in Table 3.

Finally, respondents were asked if divorce in this country should be easier or more difficult to obtain than it is now. While social workers and members of liberal denominations held roughly the same views, members of conservative denominations tilted toward making divorce more difficult to obtain.

Discussion

This is the first study to provide information on the moral values of the total population of social workers in the contiguous United States (Gibelman & Schervish, 1997). Based upon Hunter's theory, two hypotheses were tested. First, that social workers would affirm a progressive worldview as indicated by their affirmation of liberal value positions; and second, that the value positions, and by extension the worldview, affirmed by social workers would differ from the value positions and associated worldview affirmed by people of faith. Both hypotheses were supported. In other words, this study found that social workers endorsed culturally liberal values that flow from a progressive worldview.

It is also important to note where the views of social workers fall on the societal continuum. In many instances, the value positions taken by social workers were to the left of those taken by members of liberal denominations. As expected, supplementary analysis indicated that members of moderate denominations held positions between those affirmed by members of conservative and liberal members. Consequently, social workers held positions on a number of items that place them to the left of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Put differently, the values affirmed by social workers differed dramatically from those held by individuals affiliated with conservative denominations.

As mentioned in the introduction, it is widely acknowledged that differences in worldviews can inhibit the provision of client-centered services (Hamilton & Sharma, 1997; Wambach & Van Soest, 1997). Risk is increased by the fact that people of faith are disproportionately drawn from disadvantaged populations that have less access to power (Davis & Robinson, 1997). Clashes in worldviews, in conjunction with a power differential, are widely recognized to foster a number of forms of bias including unbalanced depictions that only present one perspective, the exclusion of alternative narratives, stereotyping, linguistic bias, etc.

Consequently, the findings presented in this paper have significant ramifications for clients and particularly populations that derive their values from orthodox worldviews. The ways in which the differences in worldviews may affect the academic literature, education and service provision are discussed below.

Academic Literature

Academic literature plays a vital role in equipping the profession to work with various client populations (McMahon & Allen-Meares, 1992). Publication gives voice to various populations, highlights important issues for consideration, and models how social workers should think about particular groups (Cnaan, 1999). Indeed, the importance of facilitating a diversity of perspectives is evidenced by the fact that social work journals state that they welcome controversial articles that challenge the conventional wisdom (Witkin, 1998).

However, as noted above, worldview conflicts in tandem with a power differential often result in the exclusion of perspectives that differ from the dominant worldview. For instance, Neumann, Thompson, and Woolley's (1992) study found that social workers (N = 131) discriminated against publication abstracts with orthodox value statements (e.g., Christ as the one and only son of God) as compared with identical abstracts with liberal value statements (e.g., Christ as an excellent teacher and example). The authors concluded by noting that people of faith may encounter significant barriers in publication and research.

Indeed, Cnaan (1999) examined Social Work Abstracts, widely used social work textbooks, model course outlines, Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Annual Program Meeting (APM) papers, Social Work Yearbooks, and encyclopedias of social work. In every content area, analysis revealed that the extensive efforts of people of faith to help build a better, more socially just society were essentially excluded from the knowledge base. Similarly, Hodge's (2002) review of four leading, opinion-forming social work journals found that none had published any articles depicting an Evangelical Christian construction of reality, the largest discrete orthodox population in the United States (Green, Guth, Smidt, & Kellstedt, 1996; Hutchison, 1999), over the 10-year period surveyed. In short, the conflict in worldviews may incline the profession toward discriminating against the publication of narratives that depict the realities of people of faith.

Education

A critical component of social work education is to equip students to understand the various groups they will encounter in practice settings (Wambach & Van Soest, 1997). Ideally, the educational process should challenge students' assumptions and foster a shift in worldviews that enables students to see reality through the eyes of others. This requires that students be exposed to these views and should be challenged to assimilate the worldviews of people of faith. However, students read literature written by members of the dominant group that often reflect the biases and stereotypes of the dominant worldview, rather than that written by people of faith (Bergin, Payne, & Richards, 1996; Ginsberg, 1999; Wambach & Van Soest, 1997).

Unfortunately, the social work literature contains numerous examples of progressive stereotypes regarding people of faith (Hodge, Baughman, & Cummings, 2002) in spite of clear ethical injunctions prohibiting such portrayals (NASW Code of Ethics, 1999; Sec. 1.12). For instance, in the area of abortion, right-to-life organizations are framed as a reaction to "the gains of the civil rights movement" (Whitaker & Federico, 1990, p. 176). Similarly, the pro-life movement is associated with the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, and armed militias preparing for violent insurrection (Van Wormer, 1997, p. 507) while readers are informed that the movement's "zealous core" has been "rocked" by "scandals" (DiNitto, 1995, p. 27).

Similar phrasing is used concerning value differences in the area of family and children. The concept of a transcendent God who ordains role distinctions in marriage is depicted as "wildly anachronistic" and worthy of "ridicule" (Fabricant & Burghardt, 1998, p. 55). Evangelicals are purported to be against "women's rights" (Hutchison, 1999, p. 241) and their beliefs are associated with the promotion of "violence against women and children" (Longres, 1995, p. 83). The Vatican is depicted as an outpost of "modern religious fanaticism" that opposes "women's reproductive rights," while the "moral agenda" of Middle Eastern Muslim countries "is the complete enslavement of women" (Van Wormer, 1997, pp. 507, 511). Hindus who desire to have a son perform the sacred rites prescribed by the transcendent dharma are motivated by "prejudice" (Almeida, 1996, p. 403).

As those who have engaged in respectful dialogue with Catholics, Evangelicals, Hindus, Muslims and other people of faith are aware, these populations do not frame themselves or their values in such terms any more than would progressive populations associate their value positions with Anarchists, National Socialists, Nihilists, Stalinists, Ted Kaczynski, Jessie Dirkshising, etc. Indeed, the profession's educational material often reduces complex, multifaceted issues to simplistic stereotypes. Progressives and their value positions tend to be depicted as reasonable, liberating, and moral, while people of faith and their value positions are framed as irrational, oppressive, and reactionary. Discourse is selectively constructed to reinforce progressive values.

For example, DiNitto (1995, p. 27) questions Christian advocacy on behalf of the unborn by noting that "public opinion polls show that most Americans favor access to abortion on some level." Since most members of conservative denominations also support access to abortion on some level, this observation sheds little light on the issue. The selective reporting of polling data does serve, however, to reinforce progressive views on abortion by depicting pro-life advocates as reactionary extremists who are out-of-step with the American mainstream. The text neglects to mention that most Americans desire more restrictions on abortion. The feminist Center for Gender Equality (1999), for instance, found that 53% of women are pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and 70% of women favor more restrictions on abortion.

Similarly, research that supports an orthodox worldview and might assist readers in interpreting the value positions held by people of faith is frequently excluded from the profession's textbooks (Hodge, Boughman, & Cummings, 2002). Students rarely, if ever, are informed that (a) frequency of church attendance is inversely related with domestic violence for both men and women (Ellison, Bartkowski, & Anderson, 1999), (b) conservative Protestant males are more emotionally engaged with their wives (Wilcox, unpublished dissertation), (c) conservative Protestant women experience higher levels of sexual satisfaction (Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, & Kolata, 1994), (d) conservative Protestant parents are less likely to yell at their children (Bartkowski & Wilcox, 2000) and more likely to praise and hug their children (Wilcox, 1998), and (e) combining spanking reduces levels of disruptive behavior (Larzelere, Sather, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, 1998). Likewise, it might also help social workers to understand an orthodox worldview by highlighting the importance of a secure mother-child attachment (Feeney & Noller, 1996; Feeney, 1999), the detrimental effects of day care (Hamzic, 2001; NICHD early child care research network, 1999), the positive benefits of marriage and the negative effects of divorce, particularly on women and children (Stanton, 1997; Waite, 1995), the association between no-fault divorce laws and increased levels of divorce (Nakonezny, Shull, & Rodgers, 1995), and the link between pornography and rape and misogyny (Russell, 1998; Russell, 2000).

The exclusion of empirical strengths in tandem with deficit-oriented depictions result in students who are ill-equipped to provide effective services to people of faith. Social workers are left without an understanding of the reality constructions of people of faith. In short, the worldview conflict documented in this paper suggests that social work education may tend to engender a biased, unrealistic understanding of people of faith that leaves students with little comprehension of how these populations perceive themselves or others. Instead of fostering understanding of diverse populations, in many cases the profession's literature is doing exactly the opposite.

Service Provision

Research suggests that differences in worldviews and associated values can bias professional judgment in practice settings (Richards, Rector, & Tjeltveit, 1999; Tjeltveit, 1986; Truax, 1966). For example, studies employing vignettes have demonstrated that both psychologists (Gartner, 1986; Neumann, Thompson, & Woolley, 1991) and social workers (Neumann et al., 1992) discriminate against Evangelicals in their professional decisions. Further, some research suggests that a more pronounced difference in worldviews leads to more negative assessments of people of faith in clinical settings (Gartner et al., 1990).

Ressler and Hodge (1999) explored the incidence of religious discrimination among a national sample of social workers (N = 222). These authors found that 44% of respondents knew of clients that had experienced religious discrimination at the hands of social work colleagues. Interestingly, while orthodox social workers were significantly more likely to personally experience religious discrimination in social work settings, no significant difference in perceptions between orthodox and progressive respondents existed concerning clients. In other words, more than 40% of both orthodox and progressive respondents knew of clients that had experienced religious discrimination in social work settings.

There is some evidence that clients are aware of the divide in moral visions and are cognizant of bias in social work settings (Lyles, 1992; Pellebon, 2000; Furman, Perry, & Goldale, 1996). For instance, Furman, Perry and Goldale's (1996) study of Midwestern Evangelicals (N = 76), found that Evangelicals perceived there to be a "profound difference" between the values they affirmed and those held by social workers, who were viewed as having values that were "considerably more liberal than their own" (Furman et al., 1996, p. 8). Consequently, these Christians were generally quite hesitant to receive services from social workers, particularly when sexual issues were involved (Furman et al., 1996). An even greater degree of concern was expressed when the services involved female adolescent sexuality. Given that this study found that social workers were significantly more likely to provide birth control to 14- to 16-year-old adolescents against their parents' wishes, these concerns were well-grounded, at least from the perspective of the parents who felt they could not trust social workers with their children.

Although more research is needed, the extant literature would seem to suggest that the difference in worldviews between social work and people faith is affecting services to Evangelicals and other people of faith. Culturally competent practice is predicated upon developing an awareness of the worldviews involved in practice settings (McPhatter, 1997). To develop the necessary empathic understanding of faith-based worldviews, social workers must be exposed to the stories and cultural narratives affirmed by people of faith (Wambach & Van Soest, 1997). Based upon an awareness of how they understand reality and a realization of the population's strengths, workers can then tailor interventions that are congruent with the clients' beliefs, values, and practices. Yet, if the knowledge base lacks such narratives and serves to reinforce progressive stereotypes concerning people of faith, it is to be expected that the difference in worldviews will make it difficult for practitioners to effectively serve people of faith in a culturally competent manner.

Limitations

Perhaps the most prominent limitation of this study is the relatively small number of social workers contained in the data set, a problem that is especially acute on rotated and recently added questions. However, the fact that the results conform to theory, and that demographics of the GSS social workers closely approximate both the NASW membership and the BLS data would seem to alleviate concerns in this area.

As implied above, other factors in addition to respondents' epistemological worldview, such as age, race, and gender, may shape perceptions on the items examined. As was the case with other researchers who used this methodology, no attempt was made to control for these variables due to the small number (Matthews & Weaver, 1989; Schwartz-Barcott & Schwartz, 1988). Because there was a disproportionately high number of women among social workers, it was decided that all categorical variables should be examined for gender effects (although it is unlikely that the relatively minor differences in the areas of age and race had substantial effects on the results). Analysis indicated that epistemological status was a significant predictor of liberal value positions independent of gender.

As is the case with any methodological approach, there are limitations associated with the method employed. While pooled data offers the advantage of being able to investigate perceptions across years, and thus limit bias due to historically unique periods that may unduly shape perceptions in a given year, conversely disadvantages are that pooled data may mask cohort effects and long-term secular period effects. Two categorical variables were examined for period and cohort effects: (a) Should a legal abortion be available if the woman wants one for any reason? and (b) When a person has an incurable disease, should euthanasia be an option if requested by the patient and family? Views on abortion remained relatively constant. Thirty-eight percent of respondents were pro-choice in 1977, the first year the question was asked, and 41% were pro-choice in 1998, with some fluctuation both up and down over the intervening years. However, a slight up-trend in the euthanasia item was evident (62% in 1977 to 72% in 1998).

While age, period, and cohort effects are interrelated, which makes controlling for these factors difficult, it is commonly assumed that societal attitudes have grown more liberal over the time period covered by the GSS due to the increasing dominance of the progressive worldview (Petersen & Donnenwerth, 1998). This trend does not affect this paper's findings as the focus of this study was the contrast in value positions between social workers and members of conservative and liberal denominations. It does, however, affect the meaning attached to the reported percentages and means. Since aggregated data does not reflect current perceptions, readers should not place a high degree of value upon the reported percentages and means.

Conclusion

Consistent with other research (Hodge, 2002), this paper suggests that social workers and people of faith understand reality through two different worldviews. Unless steps are taken in the academic literature and educational forums to acquaint social workers with how people of faith construct their reality, service efficacy may be hindered. To provide culturally competent services, social workers must have some understanding of the lenses through which people of faith view reality.

The recent decision by the Counsel of Social Work Education to create a new spirituality symposium at its annual program meeting, which is staffed by individuals committed to presenting diverse perspectives, is a positive step that may help facilitate the profession's understanding of diverse constructions of reality. Similarly, social work's growing recognition of spiritual diversity is helpful (Canda & Furman, 1999). If the profession is to remain faithful to its ethical mandates and offer culturally competent services to all populations, these initial steps must be built upon.

References

Almeida, R. (1996). Hindu, Christian and Muslim families. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & J. K. Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp. 395-423). New York: Guilford.

Bartkowski, J., P., & Wilcox, W. B. (2000). Conservative Protestant child discipline: The case of parental yelling. Social Forces, 79(1), 265-290.

Bergin, A. E., Payne, I. R., & Richards, P. S. (1996). Values in psychotherapy. In E. P. Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 297-325). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Canda, E. R., & Furman, L. D. (1999). Spiritual diversity in social work practice. New York: The Free Press.

Carroll, J. W., & Marler, P. L. (1995). Culture wars? Insights from ethnographies of two Protestant seminaries. Sociology of Religion, 56(1), 1-20.

Center for Gender Equality. (1999). The impact of religious organizations on gender equality.

Retrieved April 5, 1999, from http://bcn.boulder.co.us/community/aauw/aauwb_center_for_gender_equality.html

Cnaan, R. A. (1999). The newer deal. New York: Columbia University Press.

Davis, J. A., Smith, T. W., & Marsden, P. V. (1998). General social surveys, 1972-1998: Cumulative codebook. Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.

Davis, N. J., & Robinson, R. V. (1997). A war for America's soul? The American religious landscape. In R. H. Williams (Ed.), Cultural wars in American politics (p. 3961). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

DiNitto, D. M. (1995). Social Welfare (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dor-Shav, N. K., Friedman, B., & Tcherbonogura, R. (1978). Identification, prejudice and aggression. The Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 217-222.

Ellison, C. G., Bartkowski, J. P., & Anderson, K. L. (1999). Are there religious variations in domestic violence? Journal of Family Issues, 20(1), 87-113.

Fabricant, M., & Burghardt, S. (1998). Rising from the ashes of cutback, political warfare and degraded services: Strategic considerations for community building: An editorial essay. Journal of Community Practice, 5(4), 53-65.

Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult romantic attachment and couple relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (pp. 355-377). New York: Guilford.

Feeney, J., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fellin, P. (2000). Revisiting multiculturalism in social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(2), 261-278.

Furman, L. D., Perry, D., & Goldale, T. (1996). Interaction of Evangelical Christians and social workers in the rural environment. Human Services in the Rural Environment, 19(3), 5-8.

Gartner, J. D. (1986). Antireligious prejudice in admissions to doctoral programs in clinical psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17(5), 473-475.

Gartner, J., Harmatz, M., Hohmann, A., Larson, D., & Gartner, A. F. (1990). The effects of patient and clinician ideology on clinical judgment: A study of ideological countertransference. Psychotherapy, 27(1), 98-106.

Gibelman, M., & Schervish, P. H. (1997). Who we are. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Ginsberg, L. (1999). Reviewers, orthodoxy, and the passion to publish. Research on Social Work Practice, 9(1), 100-103.

Green, J. C., Guth, J., L., Smidt, C. E., & Kellstedt. (1996). Religion and the culture wars. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hamilton, T., & Sharma, S. (1997). The violence and oppression of power relations. Peace Review, 9(4), 555-561.

Hamzic, E. (2001, 22 April). Daycare children 'more aggressive,' London Times, Home news section.

Hodge, D. R. (2002). Does social work oppress Evangelical Christians? A new class analysis of society and social work. Social Work, 47(4), 379-387.

Hodge, D. R. (2002). Equally devout, but do they speak the same language? Comparing the religious beliefs and practices of social workers and the general public. Families in Society, 83(5/6), 573-584.

Hodge, D. R., Baughman, L. M., & Cummings, J. A. (2002, February). Moving toward spiritual competency: Deconstructing religious stereotypes and spiritual prejudices in social work literature. Paper presented at the 48th annual program meeting, Council on Social Work Education, Nashville, TN.

Hoffmann, J. P., & Miller, A. S. (1998). Denominational influences on socially divisive issues: Polarization or continuity? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(3), 528-546.

Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture Wars. New York: BasicBooks.

Hunter, J. D. (1994). Before the shooting starts. New York: The Free Press.

Hunter, J. D. (1996). Response to Davis and Robinson: Remembering Durkheim. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35(3), 246-248.

Hutchison, E. D. (1999). Dimensions of human behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.

Jensen, L. A. (1998). Moral divisions within countries between orthodoxy and progrcssivism: India and the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(1), 90-107.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Larzelere, R. E., Sather, P. R., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L. (1998). Punishment enhances reasoning's effectiveness as a disciplinary response to toddlers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(2), 388-403.

Longres, J. F. (1995). Human behavior in the social environment (2). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

Lyles, M. R. (1992). Mental health perceptions of Black pastors: Implications for psychotherapy with Black patients. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11(4), 368-377.

Matthews, M. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1989). What college professors want from a job. Psychological Reports, 65, 792-794.

McMahon, A., & Allen-Meares, P. (1992), Is social work racist? A content analysis of recent literature. Social Work, 37(6), 533-539.

McPhatter, A. R. (1997). Cultural competency in child welfare: What is it? How do we achieve it? What happens without it? Child Welfare, 76(1), 255-278.

Michael, R. T., Gagnon, J. H., Laumann, E. O., & Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.

Nakonezny, P. A., Shull, R. D., & Rodgers, J. L. (1995). The effects of no-fault divorce law on the divorce rate across the 50 states and its relation to income, education, and religiosity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(2), 477-488.

National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved January 20, 2000, from http://www.naswdc.org/Code/ethics.htm

Neumann, J. K., Harvill, L. M., & Callahan, M. (1995). Impact of humanistic, liberal Christian, and Evangelical Christian values on the self-reported opinions of radiologists and psychiatrists. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 23(3), 198-207.

Neumann, J. K., & Leppien, F. V. (1997). Impact of religious values and medical specialty on professional inservice decisions. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25(4), 437-448.

Neumann, J. K., Thompson, W., & Woolley, T. W. (1991). Christianity versus Humanism: The influence of values on the nonclinical professional decisions of Veterans Administration psychologists. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19(2), 166-177.

Neumann, J. K., Thompson, W., & Woolley, T. W. (1992). Evangelical vs. liberal Christianity: The influence of values on the nonclinical professional decisions of social workers. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11(1), 57-67.

NICHD early child care research network. (1999). Child care and mother-child interaction in the first three years of life, developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1399-1413.

Parr, R. G. (1996). Should CSWE allow social work programs in religious institutions an exemption from the accreditation nondiscrimination standard related to sexual orientation? Yes! Journal of Social Work Education, 32(3), 297-301, 311-313.

Pellebon, D. A. (2000). Perceptions of conflict between Christianity and social work: A preliminary study. Social Work and Christianity, 27(1), 30-39.

Petersen, L. R., & Donnenwerth, G. V. (1998). Religion and declining support for traditional beliefs about gender roles and homosexual rights. Sociology of Religion, 59(4), 353-371.

Reed, R. (1996). Active Faith. New York: The Free Press.

Ressler, L. E., & Hodge, D. R. (1999, March 10-13). Religious discrimination in social work: An exploratory study. Paper presented at 45th annual program meeting. Council on Social Work Education, San Francisco, CA.

Ressler, L. E., & Hodge, D. R. (2000). Religious discrimination in social work: An international survey of Christian social workers. Social Work and Christianity, 27(1), 49-70.

Richards, P. S., Rector, J. M., & Tjeltveit, A. C. (1999). Values, spirituality, and psychotherapy. In W. R. Miller (Ed.), Integrating spirituality into treatment (pp. 133-160). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Russell, D. E. H. (1998). Dangerous relationships: Pornography, misogyny, and rape. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Russell, D. E. H. (2000). Pornography and rape: A causal model. In D. Cornell (Ed.), feminism and pornography (pp. 48-93). New York: Oxford University Press.

Schwartz-Barcott, D., & Schwanz, T. P. (1988). How nurses vote. American Journal of Nursing, 88(9), 1191-1193.

Schwartz-Barcott, D., & Schwartz, T. P. (1990). Are nurses healthier and happier than the general public? Nursing Forum, 25(4), 19-24, 34.

Smith, C. (2000). Christian America? Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Smith, T. W. (1990). Classifying Protestant denominations. Review of the Religious Research, 31(3), 225-245.

Stanton, G. T. (1997). Why marriage matters: Reasons to believe in marriage in postmodern society. Colorado Springs: Pinon.

Sullins, D. P. (1999). Catholic/Protestant trends on abortion: Convergence and polarity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38(3), 354-369.

Tjeltveit, A. C. (1986). The ethics of value conversion in psychotherapy: Appropriate and inappropriate therapist influence on client values. Clinical Psychology Review, 6(6), 515-537.

Truax, C. B. (1966). Reinforcement and nonreinforcemcnt in Rogerian psychotherapy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71(1), 1-9.

Van Soest, D. (1996). The influence of competing ideologies about homosexuality on nondiscrimination policy: Implications for social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 32(1), 53-64.

Van Wormer, K. (1997). Social welfare. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Waite, L. J. (1995). Does marriage matter? Demography, 32(4), 483-507.

Wambach, K. G., & Van Soest, D. (1997). Oppression. In 1997 supplement. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., pp. 243-252). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Whitaker, W. H., & Federico, R. C. (1990). Welfare in today's world (2). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wilcox, W. B. (1998). Conservative Protestant child rearing: Authoritarian or authoritative? American Sociological Review, 63, 796-809.

Wilcox, W. B. (unpublished dissertation). Godly men: Religious affiliation, gender role attitudes, and male family involvement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton University: Princeton, N.J.

Williams, R. H. (Editor). (1997). Culture wars in American politics. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Witkin, S. L. (1998). "Greetings." Social Work, 43(2), 101-103.

Wolfe, A. (1998). One nation, after all. New York: Viking.

David R. Hodge, PhD, is a post-doctoral fellow, Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society, University of Pennsylvania, Leadership Hall, 3814 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. He is the author of a forthcoming book chapter entitled Social Work Practice With Muslims in the United States, which will appear in Social Work, a Profession of Many Faces (10th ed.), edited by A. T. Morales (Allyn Et Bacon).

Manuscript submitted: November 7, 2000

Accepted: May 21, 2001

Copyright Families in Society Apr-Jun 2003
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved