British Journal of Social Work (2001) 31, 1–13

Social Workers’ Use of the Language of

Social Justice
Linette Hawkins, Jan Fook and Martin Ryan
Linette Hawkins is Lecturer in the Department of Social Science and Planning, Royal Melbourne
Institute of Technology, Australia.
Jan Fook is Professor of Social Work at Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Martin Ryan is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Work and Social Policy, La Trobe
University, Melbourne, Australia.

Correspondence to Dr Martin Ryan, Department of Social Work and Social Policy, Faculty of Health
Sciences, La Trobe University, Victoria, 3086 Australia. E-mail: martin.ryan@latrobe.edu.au

Summary

This paper examines the use of social justice terminology by a number of beginning
and experienced social workers. Transcripts of interviews about social workers’ practice
from another of the authors’ studies (a qualitative study of social work knowledge and
skill development) are analysed for use of terminology consistent with social justice
ideals, and for other predominant themes. Findings indicate that social justice terms
are little used, even when discussing practice scenarios which might clearly suggest
issues of social justice. A significant proportion of workers’ language demonstrates an
awareness of social environmental factors, but a predominant language usage implies
approaches which could be seen as inconsistent with social justice individualistic focus
on the analysis of practice scenarios, and what we have termed a ‘professional’, that
is, ambivalent orientation towards social action. Implications of the study include the
need to question and/or reaffirm the social justice basis of social work, particularly
through the construction and use of relevant language to frame our practice.

If social work is a profession founded on principles of social justice, to what extent

do our practices match our principles? Does the way in which we talk about our
practice in the terminology we use actually reflect social justice ideals? In this paper
we take the view that it is important to frame our practice in a way which actually
supports the ideals we espouse. In a recent research study, we conducted interviews
with social workers about their practice, in order to trace broad patterns of know-
ledge and skill development. In this paper we focus on the type of language they
used, and compare it with language associated with a social justice framework. After
a broad review of the literature related to language use in social work, we briefly

 2001 British Association of Social Workers

2 Linette Hawkins, Jan Fook and Martin Ryan

describe our research study. The remainder of the paper consists of an analysis and
discussion of the participants’ use of language.

The significance of language use

The importance of meaningful communication through use of clear and direct lan-
guage may not be a hugely original idea in social work, but it is one which regularly
appears as a concern in social work literature (Vinson, 1986; Furlong, 1990). Fur-
thermore, most of us are familiar with criticisms of the use of jargon by professional
social workers. Over two decades ago, radical critiques of social work claimed that
professional jargon effectively distanced clients from workers, thereby preserving
existing power relations (Throssell, 1975), or, in some cases, further disempowering
people (Illich, 1977).
Some would argue that the way in which we talk about our practice is not integral
to the ways in which we think and act, and that changing the way we talk, does not
necessarily change the way we act. We would argue, however, that the way in which
we talk about our practice is actually part of our practice, since language is our main
vehicle for communicating about what we do and for doing much of it in social
work, as well as for making meaning of it interpersonally and socially. It is important
to remember as Fromkin et al. (1996) point out that differences in the way speakers
use the same language can vary according to ‘age, sex, state of health, size, personal-
ity, emotional state and personal idiosyncracies’ (p. 286). Taking that into account
and allowing for the fact that changing the way we talk might not necessarily change
the way we act, since other factors are also important, language is none the less one
part of our practice which is immediately accessible to change. We have only to
look to recent legislation regarding sexual harassment to know that what we say,
and the ways we choose to frame it, can be extremely important in changing or
maintaining discriminatory environments. Consequently, language in social work is
worthy of study in its own right.
In recent times, there have been a growing number of cogent arguments to sup-
port the view that the way we speak about our practice may hold the key to the
ineffectiveness of some of it. As far back as 1974, Argyris and Schon highlighted
in their now famous work, Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness
(1974), the often unconscious gaps between the theory and practice of professionals,
leading to gaps in effectiveness because professionals may enact practice quite dif-
ferent from their intended (espoused) theory. By examining the implicit assumptions
in practitioners’ verbal and written accounts of their practice, these authors showed
how practice often does not fit the intended theory, since other assumptions are often
in operation. In this sense, by examining closely the ways in which professionals
speak about their practice, they show that the language we use is an integral part of
our practice and that that practice embodies implicit assumptions about how our
world is ordered. In this sense, the language we use may very well also be integral
to the sorts of assumptions we make about how our world is to be changed. If our
 The Language of Social Justice 3

language does not fit with the theory we intend to enact, we may produce unwanted
outcomes.
More recent trends in social science thinking develop this theme by paying
increasing attention to the ways in which our use of language actually creates the
ways in which we see and understand our world (Hartman, 1991). Postman (1992)
casts language as a powerful ‘ideological instrument’ in that it carries our barely
conscious assumptions which shape and give coherence to our world. Not only does
it determine what is named and how, but it denotes structures and power relations
through assignation of subject/object status, activity and passivity (p. 123).
Post-structural theorists have developed these ideas in more detail, arguing that
we construct our reality by the way in which we talk, or ‘discourse’ about it (see,
for example, Rojek et al., 1988). Deriving their work from theorists such as Fou-
cault, attention has thus become focused on the power of discourses to shape ‘real-
ity’. Questions of which discourses are dominant, whose discourses they are, and
what power interests are maintained by these discourses (Weedon, 1987) are thereby
central to the debates about social work’s role in society, and about its ability to
fulfil its mission.
Feminist post-structural theorists have also drawn attention to the way in which
language supports and creates gender imbalances. In particular, the tendency to cat-
egorise terms into pairs (‘binaries’—’male’ and ‘female’) which are opposed
(‘oppositional’) results in a tendency to ‘privilege’ one item (usually the ‘male’) in
the binary pair above the other (usually the ‘female’) (Berlin, 1990; Sands and
Nuccio, 1992). Feminists also argue that there are often suppressed or marginal
perspectives (often the female) which are not heard or given prominence in many
accounts of discourses. In this way, a dominant perspective (usually patriarchal) may
come to be regarded as the only perspective, and thus a view of ‘reality’ is created
which appears to be universally accepted and applicable.
Therefore, being aware of the terminology we choose, and the way in which we
use it can be critical in determining whose view of ‘reality’ we are accepting, what
power relations we wish to reinforce, the sort of world view we wish to adopt, and
in identifying the type of social work we wish to create. Do we wish social work to
be about furthering social justice, and if so, do we use a discourse which is compat-
ible with the ideals of social justice?
Critics of social work, and of a post-structural perspective, might argue that we
already know that social work practice inhibits social justice. Whilst we would not
accept such a statement as conclusively proven, we do wish to examine the more
modest claim that the ways in which we talk about social work might be incom-
patible with social justice ideals. There may, of course, be more direct ways to
ascertain the political dimensions of practice, yet our experience, and much literat-
ure, suggests that the gap between our actual practice and the terms in which it is
described is a fruitful area of enquiry. We wish therefore, in this paper, to examine
the simple question of whether the language we use matches what we say we do—
do our terms fit our ideals—in the hope that some more specific identification of the
practice of social injustice in social work may set us on a clearer path to furthering
the ideals we espouse.
4 Linette Hawkins, Jan Fook and Martin Ryan

Research study method

Over the last five years we have undertaken two major qualitative studies designed to
trace knowledge and skill development in social work. One study was longitudinal,
following one cohort of 30 social workers for five years, from the beginning of their
two-year course of study (at one university in Melbourne) to the end of their third
year of practice. The other study involved 30 experienced social workers practising
in Melbourne. The main aim of both was to identify the types of knowledge and
skills used at different stages of development, right through from beginner to expert,
with the eventual aim of developing a theory of social work expertise. Some prelim-
inary results of these studies have been reported elsewhere (Ryan et al., 1995; Fook
et al., 1996). These studies have now been reported as a whole in a recent book by
the authors (Fook et al., 2000). The research reported in this paper concentrates on
the language used by participants in these studies.
Of the 30 experienced social workers, the majority (two-thirds) had experience
in direct practice (predominantly child/family public welfare settings). The most
common forms of current social work involvement at the time of the interviews
were predominantly middle management (13), and direct service positions (12).
Child/family welfare and health settings predominated. The remaining small number
worked in smaller community-oriented organizations. These 30 workers had studied
on a wide variety of courses (all within Australia).
The student participants were registered on a social work programme, which,
although not popularly known for its ‘social justice’ stance, nevertheless claimed
this in course materials and handbooks.
All participants were interviewed for one to two hours in a semi-structured fash-
ion. They were asked to respond to practice vignettes, as well as to choose and
describe incidents which they believed were critical to their practice. Transcripts
averaged about 350 words each for vignette analysis and description of critical incid-
ents. Nine stages of interviews were conducted with the longitudinal cohort, and one
stage with the experienced social workers. Interviews were recorded verbatim. For
the purposes of this study we chose to concentrate on some of the more critical
stages of the longitudinal study—specifically the first stage (beginning of study);
stage four (when a vignette revolving around the issue of racism towards overseas
students was provided, which might have more directly suggested a social justice
framework); stage six (the end of the first year of practice); and stage nine (the end
of the most recent year of practice). All the interview data from the experienced
social workers were analysed. Table 1 lists the actual interview content analysed for
the purposes of this particular study.
Interview records were analysed using thematic and content analysis (Kellehear,
1993). First, using social work literature (such as textbooks and course guides
espousing social justice) as a guide, terms and phrases consistent with a social justice
framework were identified. Transcripts were then analysed for their use of these
terms. The use of other terms was also noted, and compared with theoretical frame-
works outlined in literature on social work theory (Payne, 1991). In addition, the
broad themes implied by the terminology used by participants were noted, focusing
 The Language of Social Justice 5

Table 1: Interview content analysed for this study

Longitudinal study
1. Stage one 2 vignettes ‘marriage problem’ (Involving generational, inter-cultural
and professional issues. The woman appears depressed and
is worried about the possibility of her mother-in-law
coming to live in her household. There is no apparent viol-
ence involved.)
‘shoplifting’ (A 12-year old girl is caught shoplifting, and
after which other concerns emerge regarding her mother’s
work and living arrangements, and whether her mother
wishes the girl to remain living with her).
2. Stage four 1 vignette ‘racism’ (Involving a series of racist incidents, and com-
plaints of racism by students undergoing counselling, on a
university campus.)
1 critical incident Chosen from the participant’s experience of the social
work course.
3. Stage six 1 vignette ‘mens’ group’ (Involving inter-personal and potentially
political conflicts within a group for men dealing with
issues of maintenance and custody of children.)
1 critical incident Chosen from the participant’s field placement experience.
4. Stage nine 2 vignettes (Identical to stage one.)
Expert Study
2 vignettes (Identical to stages one and nine of the longitudinal study.)
1 critical incident Chosen from their work experience.

on the significance of more generalizable patterns rather than judgements on indi-

vidual participants’ responses. In this latter way, in particular, the meaning of spe-
cific terms was interpreted on the basis of the broader context of usage. All tran-
scripts were read and analysed by two of the researchers. Results were discussed
and adjusted to reflect consensus.

Language consistent with ‘social justice’

Given that there are varying definitions of ‘social justice’, and that we could in no
way conclusively determine exactly what each speaker meant when using particular
terminology, we decided, for the purposes of the study, to trace which terms, which
might be commonly associated with a ‘social justice’ framework, would suffice. It
should be noted that this latter need not be seen in opposition to other frameworks,
merely as a different type of discourse. We believed it was reasonable to assume
that certain words and phrases are associated with certain frameworks, as any study
of differing theoretical perspectives will show, and that usage of certain terms, espe-
cially if forming a pattern, might indicate familiarity, and perhaps adherence to, a
particular theoretical persuasion.
To develop a list of terms which might be said to be compatible with a ‘social
justice’ framework, we conducted a search of social work and related literature
which espoused social justice principles, in that the actual term ‘social justice’ was
used in some privileged way (for example, in the title, or stated as a guiding principle
of the document) (Benn, 1991; Saleebey, 1991; Tesoriero and Verity, 1993; Rose-
6 Linette Hawkins, Jan Fook and Martin Ryan

Table 2: Social justice terms

rights/duties/obligations
equity/equality
access
participation
contracts
social change/activism
empowerment
advocacy
disadvantaged
oppression
social critique/critical consciousness
community development/organisation/social development
politics
co-operation/co-ordination
feminist
action-based
policy
critique
disciminatory

Miller, 1994). A paper by Reeser and Leighninger (1990) about the establishment
of a social justice curriculum was particularly helpful in identifying these terms. We
also surveyed the recently released Australian Association of Social Workers
(AASW) Competency Standards document, the AASW Code of Ethics, and course
information leaflets from several social work and community development courses
for usage of the term ‘social justice’ and concomitant terminology. Identified terms
included those which implied the recognition of power injustices and the need to
change these. Table 2 lists these terms.
We were aware that it is often assumed that ‘structural’, ‘radical’ or ‘feminist’
approaches to social work are congruent with a social justice framework, but we did
not include terms like these unless they were explicitly used in the documents them-
selves. We also refrained from including other terms which we assumed might be
seen as synonymous with ‘social justice’ unless they were used within the actual
documents themselves.

Social workers’ use of social justice language

Extent of usage

Our analysis suggests that, in speaking about a range of practice situations, the social
workers we surveyed used very little social justice terminology. Not only do social
workers use few social justice terms, but it also appears that few social workers use
social justice terminology. Of our thirty experienced social workers, only two used
more than two social justice terms, and eighteen used no social justice words at all.
Of the people involved in our longitudinal study, social justice terms were used only
three times by two students in stage one. Although, by stage nine, usage had
 The Language of Social Justice 7

increased to over twenty instances by eight students, only two of these people used
more than one social justice term. In general terms it seems that usage is more likely
to be by a small number of participants who use multiple terms, rather than a larger
number of participants using a small number of terms each. In this sense, it appears
that not only is social justice terminology used sparingly by any workers, it is used
by a minority of workers. We reached the conclusion that the use of social justice
language in social work is not widespread.
The extent of usage of social justice terminology also appears related to the type
of work or situation about which the worker is talking. For instance, usage of social
justice terminology markedly increased when responding to the vignettes at stages
four and six, the ‘racism’ and ‘mens’ group’ situations. The ‘racist’ vignette involves
a social worker employed in a student services position in a large university. Part of
her/his job is to assist students from non-English speaking backgrounds. Several
students being counselled by the worker complain of racist remarks from fellow
college residents, and imply that academic staff are also involved. College tutors are
also concerned about racist feelings on campus, as is the head of one of the colleges.
Racist graffiti has appeared on campus.
The ‘mens’ group’ vignette involves a community health social worker running
a group for men dealing with issues of child maintenance and custody. Conflict
arises between two group members about the affiliation and aims of the group, and
there are personal concerns about some of the members, one of whom appears
particularly hostile to female professionals.
It could be suggested that these types of scenarios more readily imply the use of
a social justice framework, since they involve situations where collective concerns
and explicit power relations are perhaps more readily evident. Our findings confirm
that there was markedly more social justice terminology used regarding these situ-
ations. Sixteen people used social justice terminology in talking about the racism
vignette, and fourteen people similarly with the mens’ group scenario.
However, an interesting finding is that, even though these situations might logic-
ally suggest the use of a social justice framework, closer analysis reveals that other
frameworks successfully compete. With the racism vignette, eight students did not
use any social justice terminology at all, and eighteen (60 per cent) used only one
social justice term or less. The dominant discourse appeared to imply a more clinical
or therapeutic, more individually-oriented stance than the social justice terms denote.
Twenty-two students used terms commonly associated with these less ‘social justice’
oriented approaches, and, of these twenty-two, all but eight used such terms more
than once. For example, the word ‘support’ was used twelve times, while ‘clarify’,
‘counselling’, ‘attitude change’ and ‘meeting’ were used seven times each. ‘Systems’
and ‘interview’ were also commonly used. This contrasts with the most used social
justice terms—‘discrimination/discriminatory’ (six times) and ‘policy’ (seven times).
With the mens’ group vignette, usage of terms implying a less politically-oriented
stance, were those which focused on the inter-personal level, rather than broader
structural conflict. They included (with instances of use in brackets): ‘mediate’ (6),
‘assessment’ (5), ‘problem’ (3), ‘counselling’, ‘monitoring’, ‘conflict resolution’,
therapeutic/ therapy’ and confronting’ (twice each). These predominated over social
8 Linette Hawkins, Jan Fook and Martin Ryan

justice terminology such as ‘lobbying’ (4), ‘dis/empowering’ (3), ‘politics’ (3), ‘par-
ticipating/participants’ (2), ‘advocate’ (1) and ‘socio-economic’ (1)). These findings
suggest that, even in situations where a social justice perspective might be expected
most appropriately to apply, social workers still tend to use the terminology of other
frameworks which are more likely to imply a treatment-oriented, and a power
‘denial’ type of stance.
When those interviewed talked about other types of scenarios, notably the critical
practice incidents they themselves chose, the usage of social justice terminology
dropped significantly. For example, when describing critical incidents from their
experience of social work study, only two participants used social justice termino-
logy (‘rights’ ‘powerless’, ‘community work’), and another two used related ter-
minology (‘radical’, ‘questioning status quo’). At stage six of the longitudinal study,
only two people speak about ‘advocacy’, and at stage nine, two.

Social justice terms used

Overall, the most commonly used terms were ‘empowering/empowerment’ (used by

four experienced workers and ten participants in the longitudinal study), and ‘advo-
cacy’ (used by four experienced social workers and three longitudinal study
participants). Other words used by the experienced group (albeit a minority) included
‘structural /change’, ‘oppression’, ‘powerless/balance’. The longitudinal study parti-
cipants used other terms like ‘politics’, ‘co-operation’, ‘rights’, ‘disadvantaged’ and
‘social action’.
More detail of the analysis of the racism vignette indicates that the more com-
monly used terms were ‘policy’ (used seven times), ‘discriminatory/discrimination’
(six times) and ‘advocacy’, ‘community organisation/work’, ‘action group’ (three
times each). Other terms included ‘dis/empowering’, ‘political/politics’, ‘social
action’, and ‘structural’ (once each).

Predominant terminology used and broader themes emerging

If social justice terminology was generally little used, what type of language did
predominate? Although experienced social workers spoke little in social justice
terms, a considerable number of them (about one third) used terms which reflected
an awareness of the influence of environmental factors, such as ‘context’, ‘socio-
economic’, ‘systems’.
However, it appears that, overall, the language of experienced workers implies
an individualistic as opposed to a broader structural focus. The term ‘individual/
individuality/individuation’ is used by six workers, along with ‘counselling’ (6),
‘perceptions’ (6), ‘family therapy’ (5), ‘family dynamics’ (5), and ‘isolation’ (5),
then, in descending order, ‘in/dependence’ (4) and ‘family pathology’ (3). Other
common terms (‘assessment’ (7), ‘resources’ (4), ‘strategies’ (5), ‘negotiate’ (4),
‘options’ (3), ‘short/long term’ (3)) might be said to be more indicative of traditional
 The Language of Social Justice 9

professional social work jargon, whereas others ‘crises’ (4) could indicate a particu-
lar theoretical framework, like crisis intervention. Other more commonly used terms
(2–3 times) include ‘relationship/s’, ‘explore/exploratory’, ‘problem’, ‘professional’,
‘involvement’, ‘feelings’, ‘establishing’, ‘confidentiality’, ‘demanding’, ‘interven-
tion’, ‘support/ing’, ‘authority’, ‘interaction’. Again, many of these terms appear to
be related to a focus either on more individualistic orientations, or on traditional
professional processes. Some of the terms above like ‘options’, ‘strategies’, ‘short/
long term’ could also be seen as part of the language of managerialism (Rees, 1995;
Hough, 1999).
Overall, it was difficult to identify a particular theoretical framework underlying
the language used. Workers tended to use a range of mixed terminologies related to
their theoretical frameworks. This finding is somewhat supported by Diane Zulfa-
car’s study (1991), in which 286 workers used 67 different terms to describe the
theoretical perspectives, models or value orientations they used, many of them stat-
ing that they used a number of perspectives or worked from an eclectic approach.
Broadly speaking however, by comparing the language used with the terms Payne
identifies in connection with some of the major available methods (1991), approxim-
ately one third used a clinical/therapy/family therapy approach, three applied a sys-
tems framework, three an eclectic approach (stated as such by the participant), two
implied legalistic/statutory control, five appeared to take a social justice and/or fem-
inist/structural perspective and the remainder were mixed. The difficulty in identify-
ing the use of theoretical perspectives by the experienced workers in the study might
have been compounded by their tendency to use terms which reflected the context
of their work environment rather than their own ideas.
Words commonly used by participants at stage nine of the interviewing were
‘mediation’, ‘counselling’, ‘inadequacy’, ‘problems’, ‘relationship’, ‘case’, self-
esteem’, ‘perspective’, ‘dynamics’, ‘therapy’, ‘assessment’ and ‘feminist’. Again, as
with the experienced workers, this list seems to indicate a predominance of individu-
alized and ‘medical model’ language implying a professional ‘problem’ orientation.
These themes are echoed in an overview of language used in stages one, four and
six. In stage one, students spoke about ‘talking to’, ‘finding solutions’, ‘deciding
actions’, ‘getting (them) to’. In stage four, they spoke about ‘interviewing’, ‘finding
solutions’, ‘putting up a package’, and ‘intervening’, and, in stage six, the common
language was about ‘monitoring’, ‘supporting status quo’, and ‘maintenance/auto-
nomy’, which may imply a more managerial stance.
Another dominating theme from a close analysis of responses to the racism vign-
ette, was that which we have labelled a ‘scientific inquiry’ perspective—students
spoke about the need to ‘find evidence’, ‘define the problem’, ‘clarify’ (both their
role and the problem—mentioned seven times altogether, search out the ‘underlying
problem’ or ‘get to the bottom of the problem’ (five times), conduct a ‘needs assess-
ment’ (four times), devise ‘strategies’ and ‘intervene’. Another theme which ran
parallel to this in the language used was the assumed importance, raised seven times,
of ascertaining whether the racist claims were ‘real’. One student referred to feeling
compelled to discover whether the NESB (Non English Speaking Background) stu-
dents’ complaints were ‘feelings or ‘pseudo-feelings’. This recurrent theme, echoed
10 Linette Hawkins, Jan Fook and Martin Ryan

in the concern (raised three times) about remaining objectives or having difficulties
with value conflicts, drew attention to some of the assumptions social work students
seemed to be making about the importance of ‘objective reality’, and the related
tendency to either deny the racism, minimize the potential conflict, or ‘blame the
victims’. Related to this point was the fact that twelve students mentioned the desire
to identify the ‘effects of the racism on the students’ (implying the paramount
importance of the micro-perspective), usually as part and parcel of deciding whether
or not action was required to be taken themselves as the social worker. In relation
to this, ‘clarifying’ the situation was related to ‘clarifying’ the social worker’s role,
in relation to whether or not they should take action against the racism.
Detailed analysis of responses to the racism vignette also revealed a ‘bureau-
cratic’ theme. Quite a number of students mentioned the need to investigate or
develop organization ‘policy’ (seven times), invoke ‘procedures’ (twice), call ‘meet-
ings’ as opposed to ‘interviews’ (seven times), and investigate the ‘law/legal’ posi-
tion.

Discussion and conclusion

In summary, our results indicate minimal usage of social justice terminology—few
terms used by few workers. Its use does appear to increase with social work educa-
tion and experience, and may be related to the type of practice situation being discus-
sed, and whether it is has been traditionally conceptualized in social justice terms.
However, when discussing scenarios which have been chosen by the worker, and
which were therefore subject to minimal prior framing by someone else, it is interest-
ing to note that workers still use very little social justice terminology. Overall, pat-
terns of terminology used seem to indicate a predominance of clinical and traditional
professional language which implies an unequal, often distanced, relationship with
service users. Individuals, their families (and less commonly, their situations) are
‘interviewed’, ‘assessed’, ‘treated’ and ‘intervened in/with’ using a variety of ‘strat-
egies’. Rarely do workers talk about ‘empowering’, ‘advocating for’, ‘collaborating
with’ or even ‘changing structures’. Social workers’ language use appears to be
quite incongruent with our stated mission of social justice.
Such findings accord to some degree with our broader findings from the group
of new social work students which indicate, from responses to practice vignettes, a
fairly traditional individualised casework focus, even when confronted with poten-
tially broader political scenarios, and a tendency to be concerned about deviations
from ‘normal’ family life (Ryan et al., 1995, p.25).
How conclusive can our conclusions be? Obviously we would want to be guarded
in making generalizations from our results, given that our study participants have
not been chosen as a representative sample, and given that we are aware that what
we have presented are our interpretations of language used. We need to recognize
that there is a danger of mis-interpreting the use of single words if taken out of
context, so we have attempted to safeguard against this by reporting broader patterns
of usage. We are also well aware that the use of social justice terminology does not
 The Language of Social Justice 11

preclude the use of other, perhaps incongruent, perspectives, by the same person.
The use of terms which indicate a detached professional and ‘scientific inquiry’ type
of perspective is a case in point, in that this is often combined with the use of terms
which also indicate a wish to equalize power in a social justice perspective. Quite
clearly, this again bears out the ‘old news’: that is, the apparent contradictions
between ‘espoused theory’ and ‘theory in action’ (Argyris and Schon, 1974).
Another question which needs to be addressed is that of how much social justice
terminology it is reasonable to expect workers to use in talking about their work. Is
it reasonable to expect workers to use the language of social justice if this is not
reflected in the literature used in their education, or in official documentation?
Although social justice is espoused by social work organizations (Australian Associ-
ation of Social Workers, 1999), in social work writing (e.g. Statham, 1978; Jordan,
1990; Rees, 1991; Ife, 1997; Leonard, 1997) and in social work documentation,
how much social justice language is actually officially used? This question warrants
separate and further investigation. It would be interesting to conduct, for example,
a study of job advertisements, course outlines, textbooks and professional association
codes of ethics to see how practice is framed, and whether ‘social justice’ ways of
talking about our practice predominate, or whether they appear as marginal.
Another important question is the extent to which practitioners’ experiences and
work contexts influence their use of social justice terminology. It should be noted
that the majority of experienced workers were in settings and roles which might be
said to be more ‘traditional’ (direct service, child and family welfare, and manage-
ment roles) and perhaps less inclined to encourage social justice perspectives. In the
case of the students, this becomes a slightly more complex question, since their
course handbooks explicitly claimed that the course was based on social justice
principles. However it might have been that these principles were espoused in over-
arching philosophies, but not in particular subjects.
What are the implications for social work? If we want the profession of social
work to pursue a social justice mission, which our official and espoused position
suggests, then we need to take steps to ensure that the way we frame and conceptual-
ize our practice is congruent with, and furthers, social justice principles. It appears
that we rarely use social justice terminology to talk about our work. It is in our
official documents, but has not made its way into the everyday way in which we
conceptualize and speak about what we do. Perhaps we need to examine our current
language, to consciously use social justice terminology where appropriate, or to coin
new ‘socially just’ terms to suit our purposes.

Accepted: November 1999

References

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1974) Theory In Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness,

New York, Jossey-Bass.
12 Linette Hawkins, Jan Fook and Martin Ryan

Australian Association of Social Workers (1999) Code of Ethics, Hawker, ACT, Australia,
Australian Association of Social Workers.
Benn, C. (1991) ‘Social work, social policy and social work’, Australian Social Work, 44(4),
pp. 33–7.
Berlin, S. (1990) ‘Dichotomous and complex thinking’, Social Service Review, 64(1), pp.
46–59.
Fook, J., Ryan, M. and Hawkins, L. (1996) ‘Expert social work: an exploratory study’, Canad-
ian Social Work Review, 13(1), pp. 7–22.
Fook, J., Ryan, M. and Hawkins, L. (2000) Professional Expertise: Practice, theory and
education for working in uncertainty, London, Whiting and Birch.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., Collins, P. and Blair, D. (1996) An Introduction to Language, 3rd
edn, Sydney, Harcourt Brace.
Furlong, M. (1990) ‘On being able to say what we mean: the language of hierarchy in social
work practice’, British Journal of Social Work, 20, pp. 575–90.
Hartman, A. (1991) ‘Words create worlds’, Social Work, 36(4), pp. 275–6.
Hough, G. (1999) ‘The organisation of social work in the customer culture’, in Pease, B. and
Fook, J. (eds.), Transforming Social Work Practice: Postmodern Critical Perspectives,
North Sydney, Allen and Unwin.
Ife, J. (1997) Rethinking Social Work: Towards Critical Practice, South Melbourne, Longman
Cheshire.
Illich, I. (1977) The Disabling Professions, London, Marion Boyars.
Jordan, B. (1990) Social Work in an Unjust Society, Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Kellehear, A. (1993) The Unobtrusive Researcher, Sydney, Allen and Unwin.
Leonard, P. (1997) Postmodern Welfare: Reconstructing an Emanicipatory Project, London,
Sage.
Payne, M. (1991) Modern Social Work Theory, Basingstoke, Macmillan.
Postman, N. (1992) Technopoly, New York,Vintage.
Rees, S. (1991) Achieving Power, Sydney, Allen and Unwin.
Rees, S. (1995) ‘The fraud and the fiction’, in Rees, S. and Rodley, G. (eds.), The Human
Costs of Managerialism: Advocating the Recovery of Humanity, Sydney, Pluto Press.
Reeser, L. C. and Leighninger, L. (1990) ‘Back to our roots towards a specialisation in social
justice’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 17(2), pp. 69–87.
Rojek, C., Peacock, G. and Collins, S. (1988) Social Work and Received Ideas, London,
Routledge.
Rose-Miller, M. (1994 ) ‘Evaluation, social justice and social work’, Australian Social Work,
47(4), pp. 21–6.
Ryan, M., Fook, J. and Hawkins, L. (1995) ‘From beginner to graduate social worker: Prelim-
inary findings from an Australian longitudinal study’, British Journal of Social Work, 25,
pp. 17–35.
Saleebey, D. (1991) ‘Philosophical disputes in social work: social justice denied’, Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare, 17(2), pp. 29–40.
Sands, R. and Nuccio, K. (1992) ‘Postmodern feminist theory and social work’, Social Work,
37(6), pp. 489–94.
Statham, D. (1978) Radicals in Social Work, London, Routledge Kegan and Paul.
Tesoriero, F. and Verity, F. (1993) ‘Towards citizen control and social justice in a disadvant-
aged community’, Australian Social Work, 46(1), pp. 37–45.
Throssell, H. (1975) Social Work: Radical Essays, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, University
of Queensland Press.
Vinson, T. (1986) ‘The obscure language of welfare’, Advances in Social Work Education,
Kensington, New South Wales, Australia, Heads of Schools of Social Work in Australia.
Weedon, C. (1987) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory, London, Basil Blackwell.
 The Language of Social Justice 13

Zulfacar, D. (1991) ‘Avenues for growth: developing professionalism and diversity in direct
practice’, Advances in Social Welfare Education, Clayton, Victoria, Australia, Australian
Association of Social Work and Welfare Education and Heads of Schools of Social Work
in Australia, Monash University.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to acknowledge funding assistance from the Australian Research
Council in support of this research.