Elevated or Erased? A Content Analysis of the Portrayal of Men in Introduction to Social Work Textbooks

Abstract

As conveyors of knowledge, beliefs, and skills of the profession, textbooks play an instrumental role in educating soon-to-be-practicing students. A content analysis of references to men and women in seven Introduction to Social Work textbooks was conducted to determine how male social work students might perceive the role of men in the profession. A manifest content analysis counted the number and types of social work provider and client references. A latent content analysis noted misrepresentations, oversimplifications, and omissions in the texts. Findings indicated that although men and women were represented equally in the texts, biases existed that marginalized the male social worker presence. Implications for social work educators and textbook authors are included.

Keywords

content analysis men male social worker

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agger

(1989). Do books write authors? A study of disciplinary hegemony. Teaching Sociology, 17, 365-369.

Apple

Christian-Smith

(1991). The politics of the textbook. New York, NY: Routledge.

Babbie

(1998). The practice of social research (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Busha

Harter

(1980). Research methods in librarianship: Techniques and interpretation. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Elo

Kyngas

(2007). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107-115.

Ferree

Hall

(1996). Rethinking stratification from a feminist perspective: Gender, race, and class in mainstream textbooks. American Sociological Review, 61, 929-951.

Giesler

(2013). The problem of privilege: Male social work students’ pre-service experiences. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 7, 204-214.

Kearns-Goodwin

(1994). No ordinary time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The home front in World War II. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Kramer

Pacourek

Hovland-Scafe

(2003). Analysis of end-of-life content in social work textbooks. Journal of Social Work Education, 39, 299-319.

10.

LeCroy

Stinson

(2004). The public’s perception of social work: Is it what we think it is? Social Work, 49, 164-174.

11.

McGinnis

Cohen

Wing

Whitaker

Weismiller

(2006). Licensed social workers in the United States, 2004—Supplement. Washington, DC: Center for Health Workforce Studies and NASW Center for Workforce Studies.

12.

Peterson

Kroner

(1992). Gender biases in textbooks for introductory psychology and human development. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 17-36.

13.

Sandelowski

(1995). Qualitative analysis: What it is and how to begin? Research in Nursing & Health, 18, 371-375.

14.

Schilling

Morrish

Liu

(2008). Demographic trends in social work over a quarter century in an increasingly female profession. Social Work, 53, 103-114.

15.

Sleeter

Grant

(1991). Race, class, gender, and disability in current textbooks. In Apple

Christian-Smith

(Eds.), The politics of the textbook (pp. 122-154). New York, NY: Routledge.

16.

Wachholz

Mullaly

(2000). The politics of the textbook: A content analysis of the coverage and treatment of feminist, radical, and anti-racist social work scholarship in American introductory social work textbooks published between 1988 and 1997. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 11, 51-75.

17.

Williams

(1995). Still a man’s world: Men who do “women’s work.” Berkeley: University of California Press.