Much of the literature concerning males in social work addresses working with men as service users and how they engage with social work (Huebner et al. 2008; Bellamy, 2009). The discourse centres on the abuse of women and children, absentee fathers and domestic violence (Berger et al. 2009; Brown et al. 2009; Gillingham, 2006; Holt, 2003; Parent et al. 2007; Scourfield, 2006a; Smith & Randall, 2007; Strega et al. 2008), and inevitably less discussion of domestic violence perpetrated by women (Tsui et al. 2010).
A growing literature is evident concerning social work with men as service users who display different sexual orientations (Bywater & Jones, 2007; Cosis-Brown, 1997; Dunk-West & Hafford-Letchfield, 2012; Fannin & Fenge, 2008). Cosis-Brown and Cocker (2011) identify that research in this area has historically been scarce, but nonetheless asserts that traditional social work theories and methods can be adapted to different groups.
The influence of men working in social work was first discussed in the literature by Dame Eileen Younghusband (1902-1981). Her post-war review and subsequent reports acknowledged the influence inherent in gender arguing that men and their perspective would increase the level of professionalism. She endorsed the concept of the ‘professional association’ as a vehicle for developing social work as a respected occupation,
In 1975 Walton’s classic study posited that men are usually found in settings which require a measure of management but reflects on the traditional paradigmatic dilemma between care and control in social work (Day, 1979). Parker and Doel (2013) identify ironically, that such patriarchal structures impact by controlling the lives and social position of women, in a profession informed and motivated by feminist emancipation.
Younghusband’s and Walton’s assertions appear to mirror many contemporary commentators of social work who broadly assert that aspects of hegemonic masculinity such as, rationality, technical expertise and emotional distance are fundamental aspects of social work practice as a rational-technical project (Christie, 1998; Orme, 2009; Perry & Cree, 2003; Pringle, 1995). Figueria-McDonough et al. (2001) reflect that although contemporary social work education supports feminist perspectives, it assists in reproducing gendered stratifications into the profession. Pease (2011) identifies such structures as masculine hegemony re-asserting itself. Given the perception that social work is an extension of the traditional roles of women as
40
carers and mothers (Kadushin, 1976), this represents a juxtaposition. Bowl (1985: 18) identifies however that men, particularly in social work do not wish to, or want to aspire to this ‘ideal’ hegemonic masculinity.
Contributors to the literature such as, Christie (1998; 2006) and Cree (2001) have provided a focus on male qualified practitioners in the UK. For example, Christie (2006) posits that female conceptions of male practitioners are on one hand ‘hero’s’ as ‘macho ‘protectors and on another, as ‘gentlemen’ displaying a softer, more empathetic persona. Christie (2006) identifies these binary opposites of masculinity to explain why some men are attracted to social work. This conceptualises the paradox of a women’s view of their male counterparts, either as the ‘heroic man of action’ and ‘protector’ of female colleagues in the face of hostile service users, or by contrast as a ‘gentleman’ which insinuates characteristics of reflexivity and perhaps effeminacy. While identifying these two binary opposites, they do not necessarily preclude other or multiple masculinities which male practitioners may present.
What appears to be missing from the social work discourse concerning males and hegemony is a conceptual framework for theorising men, for example, male practitioners who wish to reflectively and consciously avoid these classifications or be complicit with them (Buschmeyer, 2013).
Moreover, there is no evidence that the ‘heroic man of action’ might be more likely to identify as heterosexual. Assuming otherwise may be problematic, as Parker & Ashencaen Crabtree (2012) assert that deviation from hegemonic masculinity represents a ‘subordinated’ form of masculinity, subject to oppression by more dominant forms. This has relevance in a profession where homophobia is active (Perry & Cree, 2003), where a study by Black et al. (1998) found that MSWSs were more likely to exhibit homophobia than female counterparts. Homophobia in a social work education setting is a theme which other authors have discussed, and which is further explored below (see section 2.8.4).
Commentators identify that male practitioners can experience a ‘glass elevator’ of rapid promotion and advancement, in contrast to the ‘glass ceiling’ that female practitioners can experience (Christie, 2001a; Simpson, 2009). The glass ceiling/escalator phenomenon has been subject to extensive discourse within the social work profession (Curtis et al. 2010; Gibelman & Schervish, 1993; Lyons et al. 1995; McPhail, 2004; Williams, 1992) and within the academe (DiPalma & Topper, 2001; Sakamoto et al. 2008). Promotion of men into managerial positions was somewhat unintentionally encouraged by the Younghusband Report of 1959 but is less evident in primary school teaching and nursing (Shen-Miller & Smiler, 2015). A study by Taylor (1994) suggests that that there was a greater interest in advancement by
41
MSWSs than their female counterparts, but they were no more likely to apply for promotion than the female participants of the study.
More recently, qualitative research by Kullberg (2012) in Sweden suggests a proportional decrease of male practitioners of social work in senior management. The reasons cited for this trend are threefold. Firstly, the emergence of the ‘new man’, where family and actual content of work increasingly takes precedence over status and income. Secondly, managerial working conditions are seen to have been eroded and are therefore less attractive, and third is an increasing desire to develop a specialism using horizontal career progression pathways.
2.7.2 Motivations to enter the profession
Scholars have debated the varying motivations for entry into the profession (see for example: Christie, 2006; Christie & Kruk, 1998; Furness, 2007; Parker & Merrylees, 2002; Pease, 2011; Stevens, 2010; Wilson & McCrystal, 2007). A few of these make links between males and their motivations, but few based these on the responses of solely male participants. Christie’s (2006) study asked female participants why men might be motivated to enter the profession, attributing them to be similar to their own altruistic motives. Furness (2007) found no significant difference in the motivations of male or females in her study. Stevens et al. (2010) identify that male and female participants cited career stability and opportunities for promotion as the most significant motivator for males. In addition, a South African study involving both male and female participants, suggest that the bursary attached to studying social work is slightly more attractive to male than female students (Khnou et al. 2012). It appears then there is a gap in the established literature which solely explores the motivations of MSWSs to pursue a career in social work. If there is a desire to know what motivates males to enter into social work, then, as with this study, it might be preferable to principally ask those who identify as male.
2.7.3 The problem with men in social work
Feminist perspectives in social work are perceived, with some cause, to have perpetuated a low-lying negative view of men in regard to child protection and gender; some preferring to avoid working with men altogether (Scourfield, 2001a). In other research, social workers themselves identify that “pejorative discourses of client masculinity are in fact dominant in childcare teams” (Scourfield & Coffey, 2002: 323). Indeed, the concepts of male hegemony and patriarchy appear to have become synonymous with risk and abuse of children (Scourfield, 2001b; Scourfield & Coffey, 2002).
Furedi (2013), commenting on the Operation Yew Tree case, describes a moral crusade in an age of mistrust, which brings into sharp relief the analysis by Perry and Cree (2003) of society’s construction of men as ‘dangerous’ to children. This reflects the feminist discourse of gendered
42
power relations, where those with a penis are viewed with the capacity to rape and abuse (Woodhull, 1988). Such narratives serve to maintain a view of men as incorrigible and as potential violent abusers of children and women (Scourfield & Coffey, 2002; McLean, 2003; Gillingham, 2006).
In social work practice, Scourfield (2001b) suggests that men contribute very little to the wellbeing of their families, where Lloyd & Degenhardt (1996) explain that within a family subject to social work intervention, men can be perceived to be remote, hostile, and fearful or avoidant of any caring intimacy. A significant proportion of the profession’s time is spent in dealing with the consequences of men’s violence against women and children, and significantly less time working with men as service users (Christie, 2001). Munro (1998) asserts that men tend to be ignored or discounted because they are often absent from the ‘situation’ upon any social work intervention.
Research concerning males and masculinities in social work can induce controversy, where themes can represent a questioning of masculinity and motivations (Christie, 1998; Pease, 2011). Authors have discussed the links between gender, stereotypes, masculinities, child protection work and their perceptions within social work. This has fuelled conjecture concerning the role of men in social work and discussions over their paucity as practitioners (see for example: Cree, 1996, 2001; Christie, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2006; Parker & Ashencaen- Crabtree, 2012; Geisler, 2013; Gillingham, 2006; Harlow, 2002; Hicks, 2008; Holley & Steiner, 2005; McLean, 2003; McPhail, 2004, 2008; Moriarty & Murray, 2007; Perry & Cree, 2003; Scourfield, 2001a, 2003; Taylor, 1994; Walton, 1975).
Cree (1996) reflecting on her social work practice, describes a journey from purposefully distancing herself professionally from men, to a position of challenging and supporting them. Indeed, feminist perspectives concerning gender in social work have also sought to raise the importance of liberation of males as well as females, emphasising diversity and presenting a challenge to masculine hegemony seeking to subjugate subordinate males (Dominelli, 2002). Hicks (2008), as an openly gay male social worker, identifies issues around sexual orientation which might impact on practice and sweep away traditional barriers of men being a threat.