Draft

Human Rights: Its Meaning and Practice
in Social Work Field Settings
Julie A. Steen, Mary Mann, Nichole Restivo, Shellene Mazany, and Reshawna Chapple
The goal of the study reported in this article was to explore the conceptualizations of human
rights and human rights practice among students and supervisors in social work field settings.
Data were collected from 35 students and 48 supervisors through an online survey system
that featured two open-ended questions regarding human rights issues in their agency and
human rights practice tasks. Responses suggest that participants encountered human rights
issues related to poverty, discrimination, participation/self-determination/autonomy, violence, dignity/respect, privacy, and freedom/liberty. They saw human rights practice as encompassing advocacy, service provision, assessment, awareness of threats to clients’ rights,
and the nature of the worker–client relationship. These results have implications for the
social work profession, which has an opportunity to focus more intently on change efforts
that support clients’ rights. The study points to the possibilities of expanding the scope of
the human rights competency within social work education and addressing the key human
rights issues in field education.
KEY WORDS:accreditation standards; educational policy; field education; human rights;
social work education
I
n the most recent edition of Social Work Speaks,
the National Association of Social Workers
(NASW) (2015b) announced that “the struggle
for human rights remains a vital priority for the social
work profession in the 21st century” (p. 186). The
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW)
(2012), which is the international umbrella organization for national social work associations, has integrated the concept of human rights into their
Statement of Ethical Principles. Through this document, they call on social workers to “uphold and
defend” (IFSW, 2012) the human rights of clients.
In addition, they present international human rights
conventions as key to “social work practice and
action” (IFSW, 2012). Although NASW (2015a)
does not explicitly use the term “human rights” in its
Code of Ethics, many of the concepts within the
national document are derived from the human
rights philosophy. For example, the code requires
social workers within the United States to respect
“the dignity and worth of the person” (NASW,
2015a, p. 5), “facilitate informed participation by the
public in shaping social policies and institutions”
(NASW, 2015a, p. 27), and work to “ensure that all
people have equal access to the resources, employment, services, and opportunities they require to
meet their basic human needs” (NASW, 2015a, p.
27). These responsibilities align with the types of
human rights classified as integrity of the body, political rights, and social and economic rights (Steen,
2006).
Although social work professional organizations
on the national and international levels embrace the
human rights philosophy (Healy, 2008; Reichert,
2011; Steen, 2006; Wronka, 2008), questions remain
regarding the definition and application of human
rights in social work settings. Answers to these questions are particularly important as schools of social
work seek to meet accreditation standards that require
student mastery of a human rights competency
(Council on Social Work Education [CSWE],
2008, 2015). Although human rights content may
be easily infused into the curriculum, the field placement remains an unexplored venue for human rights
education. The field placement is perhaps the most
important aspect of social work education, as this is
the setting in which social work students directly
witness human rights violations and are given opportunities to take a human rights practice approach.
Social work educators and the profession as a whole
could build a stronger foundation for practice through
a greater understanding of the nature of human rights
doi: 10.1093/sw/sww075 © 2016 National Association of Social Workers 9
issues that confront social workers and the ways in
which social workers can take a human rights practice
approach. To address this gap, we sought to examine
the perspectives of field supervisors and social work
interns regarding the meaning of human rights and
human rights practice in social work field settings.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Meaning of Human Rights
Foundational to this discussion is the meaning one
assigns to the concept of human rights. Many rely
on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
for guidance in defining the scope of the concept
(Reichert, 2011; Wronka, 2008). Wronka (2008)
divided the articles of UDHR into the following
five dimensions: dignity; nondiscrimination; civil
and political rights; economic, social, and cultural
rights; and solidarity rights. This definition of
human rights has found its way into social work institutions. In fact, several of the dimensions listed
by Wronka are represented in CSWE’s (2008) human
rights competency, which includes attention to the
client’s right to “freedom, safety, privacy, an adequate
standard of living, health care, and education” (p. 5).
The meaning of human rights has gradually
expanded beyond UDHR with the creation and
adoption of population-specific conventions, declarations, and principles. Examples include the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights
of the Child (CRC), the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
and Principles for the Older Person. Many of these
documents reaffirm a specific population’s rights to
the entitlements outlined in UDHR, but they also
extend beyond this foundation by addressing the
unique situations faced by the population. For
example, CRC establishes a child’s right to be free
from military service with the aim of preventing
the use of child soldiers (Reichert, 2011). This realm
of population-specific rights is one of the most frequently featured in the social work literature with
authors directing their attention toward the human
rights of various populations, such as women (Choi,
Brownell, & Moldovan, 2015; Morgaine, 2006) and
children (Doek, 2009; Munro et al., 2011; Scherrer,
2012; Viviers & Lombard, 2012; Watkinson &
Rock, 2016).
The meanings described previously are largely
derived from legal thought within Western democratic countries, leading some to call for an alternative
means for defining the concept of human rights. Use
of Western-derived meanings imposes limitations
that contribute to colonialism and racism (Ife, 2010).
One solution suggested by Ife (2010) involves the
“reflexive definition of human rights,” which “occurs
when people address the idea themselves and, rather
than accept the dominant discursive construction
uncritically, think about and define what human
rights mean in their own context” (p. 135). Ife
emphasized experience and context as being key
parts of this making of meaning. “Human rights are
constantly being defined and redefined, constructed
and reconstructed, in people’s daily lives and their
interactions with others, and also in their conscious
reflection of what ‘human rights’ mean in context”
(p. 135).
This discussion begs the question of what social
workers in the field make of the concept of human
rights. This leads us to our first research question:
What meanings do social work students and their
field supervisors attribute to the concept of human
rights as it relates to their work in field settings?
Practice of Human Rights
Another important question focuses on the actions
social workers can take to make human rights a reality. In other words, the focus shifts from the concept
of human rights to the practice of human rights.
Most literature regarding the social worker’s role in
human rights presents human rights practice as taking the form of advocacy. In the words of Reichert
(2011), this form of practice involves “challenging
oppression.” Examples of both case-based and causebased advocacy within a human rights framework
abound. Case-based advocacy, in which social
workers campaign for environmental changes that
enable a client’s rights to be realized, has been operationalized in a wide variety of fields. In the area of
women’s rights, case-based human rights practice
has been framed as “interven[ing] to protect [a client]
against physical abuse from her partner” (Reichert,
2011, p. 240) and supporting client submissions of
individual petitions to the complaint mechanism
within the Women’s Convention (Tang, 2004).
Cause-based advocacy is also described within the
literature. Staub-Bernasconi (2012) listed tasks that
fall within this category of cause-based advocacy,
including “resource mobilization, consciousness
raising, mediation, and empowerment. More specific methods include . . . monitoring, lobbying,
and, more and more, also whistle blowing” (p. 35).
10 Social Work Volume 62, Number 1 January 2017
Specific examples of cause-based advocacy in the
field of women’s rights can be found in the work
of Tang (2004), who urged social workers to
“work together with women’s groups and progressive NGOs to advocate for and support the implementation of the Women’s Convention in their
country” (p. 1183).
Another option was advanced by Ife (2010),
who presented a mezzo-level model of human
rights practice. He argued that community development is a means through which human rights
can be practiced and achieved. Participatory democracy is central to his model. Community members
come together to dialogue, build, educate, and
advocate. Human rights education is one component of Ife’s model, though he believed that this task
should be carried out in a bottom-up fashion. As
such, he cited Freire’s (2014) philosophy and pointed
to works of creative expression (for example, drama,
art, and music) that provide community members
with outlets to share their experiences as survivors of
human rights violations. Social workers wishing to
engage in human rights practice using this model
would support community development through
facilitation of community member engagement.
An example of this form of human rights practice
is described in the literature within the context of
Middle East peace efforts (Grodofsky, 2012).
Whereas Ife (2010) emphasized the role of the
social worker in the community, some authors
have discussed ways in which social workers can
integrate human rights into case management and
clinical practice. Reichert (2011) described this
method as being characterized by client empowerment, the strengths perspective, ethnic-sensitive
practice, feminist practice, and cultural competence. Additional details are offered by Wronka
(2008), who presented the following elements as
being essential to micro-level human rights practice: “creating a human rights culture,” respecting
human dignity, practicing nondiscrimination, using
a “nonhierarchical approach,” considering and
respecting the client’s cultural context, integrating
community- and client-driven interventions, using a
“systems-oriented approach,” and respecting selfdetermination. Berthold (2015) provided the most
comprehensive description to date of this approach.
Her model of human rights–based clinical practice
consists of “reframing needs as entitlements or rights,
operating from a stance of cultural humility and
intersectionality, fostering a therapeutic relationship
and reconstructing safety, providing trauma-informed
care, and drawing from the recovery-model and a
strengths and resilience orientation” (p. 2).
This literature provides a foundation on which
to ask our second research question: How do social
work students and their field supervisors describe
human rights practice in their own agency settings?
METHOD
Design
To attain a greater understanding of the meaning
and practice of human rights within social work
field settings, a phenomenological approach was
taken within the qualitative portion of a mixedmethods study. Field supervisors and field students
in a social work department with accredited BSW
and MSW programs were contacted by e-mail and
invited to participate in the study. The e-mail provided field supervisors and field students with a
link to an online survey. The online survey was
administered through Qualtrics (2016) and remained open for survey completion from February
2013 to April 2013. The survey system was entirely
anonymous, which limited the influence of the
researcher in survey responses and allowed participants to freely report their perspectives. No incentives were given to participate in this research,
financial or otherwise.
Survey participants received a summary explanation of research and a survey. When participants
clicked on the survey link in the recruitment
e-mail, the link first directed them to the summary
explanation of research, which is an abbreviated
consent form approved for use in research posing
less than minimal risk to participants. Participants
were then directed to the online survey items. A
portion of the survey included questions regarding
the application of the policy competency in field
settings; however, this article focuses exclusively
on the results from the human rights section of the
survey, which included both open-ended items
and a structured scale.
The open-ended items focused on respondents’
view of the human rights competency as they
experienced it in the field setting. The survey
included the human rights competency as outlined
in the CSWE (2008) Educational Policy and
Accreditation Standards:
Each person, regardless of position in society,
has basic human rights, such as freedom, safety,
Steen, Mann, Restivo, Mazany, and Chapple / Human Rights 11
privacy, an adequate standard of living, health
care, and education. Social workers recognize
the global interconnections of oppression and
are knowledgeable about theories of justice
and strategies to promote human rights and
civil rights. Social work incorporates social justice
practices in organizations, institutions, and society
to ensure that these basic human rights are distributed equitably and without prejudice. (p. 5)
The survey asked field supervisors to respond to
two open-ended items regarding this competency:
(1) What (if any) are the major human rights issues
in your agency’s field of practice? (2) Please list the
tasks that a student could complete in the internship that might demonstrate mastery of this human
rights competency. Field students were presented
with two nearly identical items: (1) What (if any)
are the major human rights issues in your internship agency’s field of practice? (2) Please list the
tasks that a student could complete in your internship that might demonstrate mastery of this human
rights competency.
In addition to the open-ended items, participants were presented with McPherson and Abell’s
(2012) Human Rights Exposure in Social Work
scale. This instrument is composed of 11 items designed to assess the respondent’s degree of familiarity
with human rights. The response set includes seven
points on a spectrum ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The instrument has
been tested, and results indicate acceptable levels of
factorial validity and reliability.
Sample
The final sample for the qualitative portion of the
study consisted of 35 field students and 48 field
supervisors. The average age within the student sample was 29 years. The majority of the field students
were female (77 percent), with the remainder being
male (20 percent) or transgender (3 percent). The
student sample included representation from multiple ethnicities: biracial (3 percent), black (9 percent),
Latino (23 percent), multiracial (3 percent), and white
(60 percent). Thirty-one percent of the students were
enrolled in the BSW program, and 69 percent were
enrolled in the MSW program. The field supervisor
sample had similar demographics, with the majority
being female (88 percent) and white (60 percent).
The sample included supervisors who were biracial
(6 percent), black (10 percent), Latino (15 percent),
and multiracial (2 percent). The average age of the
supervisor sample was 45 years. In regard to human
rights exposure, the average Human Rights Exposure in Social Work (McPherson & Abell, 2012)
scores were at the higher end of the spectrum for
both the student sample (M = 5.15) and the supervisor sample (M = 5.28). Note that the score is representative of the degree of exposure, with seven
representing the highest possible exposure and one
representing the lowest possible exposure.
Analysis
We analyzed the data with attention toward two
key concepts: human rights and human rights practice. Responses were sorted so that those with similar
conceptualizations were placed together. These
groupings were then labeled with themes based on
key terms found in the respondents’ comments.
To identify any differences across the two samples,
we compared the percentages of supervisors and
students issuing comments related to each theme.
RESULTS
Meaning of Human Rights
Seven themes arose from respondents’ conceptualizations regarding the human rights issues encountered in the field of practice associated with their
employing agencies or their internship settings.
These themes include poverty; discrimination; participation, self-determination, autonomy; violence;
dignity, respect; privacy; and freedom and liberty.
Significant statements that exemplify each of these
seven themes are presented in the following sections.
Poverty. Poverty was the most frequently mentioned human rights issue. Forty-four percent of
the field students and 37 percent of the field supervisors referred to poverty in response to the first
question regarding human rights issues in their
field of practice. Supervisors and students found
that this human rights violation was closely intertwined with their work and interfered with
their clients’ abilities to meet their physical and
psychological needs. Responses focused on the
ways in which poverty affects access to housing,
health care, and substance abuse treatment. One
student stated, “The majority of the clients served
are living well below national poverty levels so
safety, health care are compromised.” Other students
referred to clients being “booted [from treatment] as
soon as insurance is up” and the inability to “reunite
families because [of a] lack of a place to live.” Field
12 Social Work Volume 62, Number 1 January 2017
supervisors mentioned similar problems, such as
“patients without health insurance having issues
with obtaining needed medical services.”
Discrimination. Supervisors and students served
clients from diverse backgrounds who face discrimination at the societal and organizational levels. Both
supervisors and students made statements that reflected a concern regarding discrimination, though
there was a difference between these two groups in
the types of discrimination mentioned. Students
tended to focus on discrimination against the lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ)
population and listed concerns related to the 1996
Defense of Marriage Act (P.L. 104-199), “hate
crimes,” and “access to safe and appropriate bathrooms.” They also mentioned “employment discrimination” and “housing discrimination.” On the
other hand, field supervisors listed “cultural competency,” “equal access to care,” and “discrimination
from medical providers” against women placing
their children for adoption and “patients who secure
treatment through Medicaid.”
Participation, Self-Determination, and Autonomy.
Responses conveyed the idea that clients’ human
rights include the right to be treated as autonomous individuals who participate in the decisionmaking processes that affect their lives. This theme
was mentioned more frequently by field supervisors than by students. One field supervisor summarized this theme with the following phrase: “the
right to self-determination when choices are seen
as less than healthy by various members of the
interdisciplinary team.” Another supervisor framed
this idea as the “right to determine their own destiny.” This theme was often mentioned in the context of mental health and hospice and included
references to “restraints” and dying “in comfort.”
Students had similar concerns, such as “clients having a voice in their treatment plan,” the lack of “an
individualized treatment plan,” and a client’s “right
to choose how he or she dies.”
Violence. The responses of supervisors and students also conveyed the idea that the right to be
free from violence is a human right. Various forms
of violence were listed by both supervisors and students alike. Students referred to “elder abuse” and
“hate crimes.” Supervisors noted “maltreatment,”
“domestic violence,” “child abuse,” and “sexual
assault.” One supervisor also mentioned “refugees
that are fleeing oppression.”
Dignity and Respect. Another human right presented by the respondents is the right to be treated
as a being worthy of dignity and respect. This
theme was referenced within the context of health
systems, schools, hospices, and mental health and
substance abuse treatment. Students mentioned
“preserving dignity of clients within the health
care team and among hospital personnel” and
“treating each student as an individual and with
respect regardless of your opinion of them.” One
field supervisor issued a concern for “devaluation
in treatment and perception of those labeled as
‘liabilities’ rather than ‘assets.’”
Privacy. A few supervisors and one student mentioned either “privacy” or “confidentiality,” though
none of these respondents elaborated on this issue.
Freedom and Liberty. A few supervisors and one
student used the terms “freedom” or “liberty” in their
responses, with little detail regarding the type of
freedom.
Practice of Human Rights
An analysis of responses to the question regarding
human rights practice yielded five themes: advocacy, service provision, assessment, relationship,
and awareness.
Advocacy. Supervisors and students presented
advocacy as one form of human rights practice and
defined this in numerous ways (for example, efforts
to change policy, systems, organizations, or these
structures’ effect on a single client). Many of the
respondents (40 percent of field supervisors and 50
percent of field students) made statements that
reflected the theme of advocacy. These statements
were further categorized into the following three
subthemes: general advocacy, case advocacy, and
cause advocacy. The theme of general advocacy
refers to nonspecific statements that include the term
“advocacy.” Specific statements regarding advocacy
for individual clients were coded under the case
advocacy theme. Examples include “advocacy for
children’s human rights (as recommendations in assessments/staffings)” and “advocating on patient’s
behalf to government agencies to obtain services.”
This was the most frequently used advocacy code
for both supervisor and student responses. Cause
advocacy was mentioned by a greater percentage of
students than supervisors (18 percent of students
compared with 2 percent of supervisors). Examples
of cause advocacy within student responses include
Steen, Mann, Restivo, Mazany, and Chapple / Human Rights 13
“policy advocacy at the agency level aimed at
delivering quality care to marginalized populations”
and “having the clinic accept all insurances and
Medicaid.”
Service Provision. Supervisors and students in
the sample presented human rights practice as
stretching beyond advocacy on behalf of the client
to include micro-level practice directly with a client. Service provision, whether direct provision or
referral to another provider, was a frequently mentioned practice that respondents believed to be
reflective of human rights practice. Supervisors
provided examples across a broad range of fields,
such as disability, mental health, homelessness, family
violence, and health care. Specific tasks listed by
supervisors included “psychoeducation and support
services,” “assisting a client in accessing . . . Medicaid
services,” “matching birth mothers with adoptive
families,” and “participating in outreach efforts to
underserved communities.” Student responses reflective of this category included tasks related to discharge
planning, psychoeducation, case management, and
hospice.
Assessment. Respondents included the accurate
identification of clients’ needs and wishes as a form
of human rights practice, because assessment is a
necessary step before needs and wishes can be met.
Statements regarding assessment were prominent
in the responses of field supervisors, but not students. Supervisors viewed assessments as a method
for justifying client access to a particular resource.
Therefore, a small number listed assessments as a
form of human rights practice with people who
have disabilities, clients who “have been given a
terminal diagnosis,” and “older adults and people
who are affected by dementia.”
Relationship. Respondents presented human
rights practice as being embodied in the worker–
client relationship, specifically in the ways that this
relationship is responsive to the human rights issues of
dignity and respect, privacy, and nondiscrimination.
Students mentioned consent forms and protection
of confidentiality as key aspects of human rights
practice. Supervisors also mentioned confidentiality
but broadened their treatment of this topic by
including “fair and equal treatment of each patient”
and stating that “all patients are treated with dignity
and respect.”
Awareness. According to the respondents, an
important element of human rights practice is the
perspective one brings to the work, in particular, a
perspective that incorporates an understanding of
the possible threats to client rights. This theme of
awareness received a small amount of attention
from students and supervisors. Students mentioned
“being aware of signs of elderly abuse,” “learning
more about religious-based organizations, how that
can impact what you can and cannot do or say,”
and “understanding mental health laws and policy.”
Supervisors listed similar items, such as “notice any
discrimination that marginalized clients face.” They
also suggested activities that could increase student
awareness, such as taking a “cultural competency
and ethics course” and spending the “night in a
homeless shelter or on the street in teams.”
DISCUSSION
The results provide rich descriptions of the human
rights issues encountered by supervisors and students in field placement sites. The frequency of responses regarding poverty as a human rights issue
was noteworthy, because this problem relates to
economic rights that traditionally are not embraced
in capitalist countries. This frequency may be an
indicator that the profession of social work can
expand beyond the Western confines of the
human rights definition. The responses also revealed the embedded nature of human rights in
domestic applications across a wide variety of social
work practice fields. The supervisors and students
occasionally used abstract or philosophical language when defining human rights issues, but the
majority of comments addressed practical, realworld concerns in the local community. Although
their responses were locally embedded, their conceptualizations were similar to those found in the
literature. The themes that arose closely mirrored
the human rights dimensions listed by Wronka
(2008). Significant statements included the types of
population-specific applications found in Reichert’s (2011) classic text.
Although their responses regarding human rights
practice were aligned with the literature in the
endorsement of advocacy and respect for client
rights within the worker–client relationship (Reichert, 2011; Wronka, 2008), the supervisors and students diverged from the establishment on other
dimensions of human rights practice. Ife’s (2010)
mezzo-level model of human rights practice was
not mentioned by respondents. In place of this
14 Social Work Volume 62, Number 1 January 2017
model, supervisors and students emphasized service
provision with multiple examples of tasks that constitute case management. This conceptualization is
unique in that the respondents are emphasizing the
actual tasks as opposed to how the tasks are performed (that is, what is done versus how it is done).
Human rights theorists in social work have long
argued that social workers can practice human rights
through the way in which they interact with clients
(for example, respect for and empowerment of clients) (Reichert, 2011; Wronka, 2008). However,
these supervisors and students asserted that the tasks
of social work, specifically the tasks of case management, are a form of human rights practice. Essentially,
this argument may be translated into the idea that the
core of social work itself is human rights practice.
Discussion of the language that was absent from
the results is also warranted. Though students and
supervisors mentioned issues, such as discrimination and poverty, that are often related to race,
none of the responses addressed race or racism.
This lack of attention to race could be due to the
absence of this term from the CSWE (2008)
human rights competency, which was part of the
question prompt. On the other hand, students
referred to discrimination against LGBTQ individuals, despite the fact that the human rights competency is missing any mention of the LGBTQ
population. The supervisors used terms, such as
cultural competency, that might indicate a consideration of race, but they did not specify a particular
dimension of cultural diversity. The absolute absence
of race from the responses is significant and may provide justification for Ife’s (2010) concern regarding
the racist implications of Western definitions of
human rights.
Implications for Social Work Practice
These results have implications for the social work
profession. Both practitioners and students are recognizing the connection between human rights and
social work. Leaders of the profession can strengthen
this connection by incorporating human rights language into the mainstream dialogue, specifically the
declarations and publications of professional associations, the subject matter of professional journals, and
the framing of conference themes and tracks. When
the institutions of the social work profession reinforce the emerging recognition of human rights
within the field, the profession can more clearly focus
its intention on the realization of human rights.
Results point to specific areas of concern that
can be addressed by the profession. One of these
concerns is the negative impact that poverty has on
the human rights of clients. Poverty is rarely a
direct focus of social workers in the United States,
where the emphasis primarily lies with aging, child
welfare, mental health, and substance abuse. The
respondents repeatedly noted the implications of
poverty in these practice fields. Professional leaders
can respond to this human rights issue by including
content regarding poverty at social work conferences; addressing the relationship between poverty
and the various practice fields; and increasing
awareness of the intersections of poverty, race,
gender, and age. A second issue of concern noted
by respondents is the way in which organizations
and providers treat and serve marginalized clients.
The profession can provide more education and support for frontline workers on organizational change
efforts. Continuing education could equip them
with the tools they need to shape their organizations
into more respectful environments for clients.
Implications for Social Work Education
This study also has implications for social work
education. The results may indicate that the human
rights competency could be expanded beyond its
current state. The current definition of the human
rights competency (CSWE, 2015), which has changed only slightly since the 2008 version of accreditation standards for social work education, contains a
heavy emphasis on advocacy. Although advocacy is
an important component of human rights practice,
field supervisors and students in this sample reported
a conceptualization with a wider scope. Specifically,
they incorporated practice tasks related to direct service provision and case management.
Social work education can respond to this widening definition by integrating human rights into
practice courses. As the field of human rights education has expanded, social work educators now
have a wealth of material for use across the curriculum. Educators can go beyond the advocacy-based
conceptualizations by including textbooks on the
human rights approach to practice. The most recent
examples include Berthold’s (2015) text on human
rights in clinical practice; Libal and Harding’s (2015)
text on human rights in community practice; and
Androff’s (2016) text on the application of human
rights in a wide variety of fields, including child
welfare, poverty, and mental health. Furthermore,
Steen, Mann, Restivo, Mazany, and Chapple / Human Rights 15
course content regarding human rights should be
presented within the context of multiple dimensions of diversity, including race, ethnicity, gender,
age, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion.
Field educators can also play an important role in
guiding student application of human rights concepts
in real-world practice. As social work students strive
to apply what they learned in the classroom, they
often encounter resistance to the full realization of
social work ideals. In fact, one student respondent
stated, “It’s a hospital. These standards are written
into policy. There are chances to advocate for an
individual patient, but that’s all.” Field seminar instructors can bring this issue to the forefront of seminar discussions and explore the ways in which
students can advance human rights to the greatest
extent possible. Dodd and Jansson (2004) provided
an excellent model for these types of discussions
with an emphasis on preparing students to overcome
barriers in organizational change efforts. In addition
to seminar discussions, field educators can use the
learning contract as an opportunity to more fully
integrate human rights practice concepts into the
field experience and explicitly label social work
activities as human rights practice.
CONCLUSION
Although theorists and researchers have made substantial contributions to the conceptualizations of
human rights and human rights practice, the voice
of the frontline social worker is an important one
to consider. This study was conducted in an effort
to bring this voice into the professional dialogue
and deepen our understanding of the connection
between human rights and social work. With this
understanding, the profession can begin to create a
clearer roadmap for strengthening this connection
and protecting client rights. SW
REFERENCES
Androff, D. (2016). Practicing rights: Human rights-based approaches to social work practice. New York: Routledge.
Berthold, S. M. (2015). Human rights-based approaches to clinical social work. New York: Springer.
Choi, M., Brownell, P., & Moldovan, S. I. (2015). International movement to promote human rights of older
women with a focus on violence and abuse against
older women. International Social Work. Advance
online publication.
Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://
www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=13780
Council on Social Work Education. (2015). Educational policy
and accreditation standards for baccalaureate and master’s social
work programs. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/
File.aspx?id=81660
Defense of Marriage Act, P.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419
(1996).
Dodd, S., & Jansson, B. (2004). Expanding the boundaries
of ethics education: Preparing social workers for ethical advocacy in an organizational setting. Journal of
Social Work Education, 40, 455–465.
Doek, J. E. (2009). The CRC 20 years: An overview of
some of the major achievements and remaining challenges. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 771–782.
Freire, P. (2014). The pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary
ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. (Original
work published 1968.)
Grodofsky, M. M. (2012). Community-based human rights
advocacy practice and peace education. International
Social Work, 55, 740–753.
Healy, L. M. (2008). Exploring the history of social work as
a human rights profession. International Social Work, 51,
735–748.
Ife, J. (2010). Human rights from below: Achieving rights through
community development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
International Federation of Social Workers. (2012). Statement
of ethical principles. Retrieved from http://ifsw.org/
policies/statement-of-ethical-principles/
Libal, K. R., & Harding, S. (2015). Human rights-based community practice in the United States. New York: Springer.
McPherson, J., & Abell, N. (2012). Human rights engagement and exposure: New scales to challenge social
work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 22,
704–713.
Morgaine, K. (2006). Domestic violence and human rights:
Local challenges to a universal framework. Journal of
Sociology & Social Welfare, 33, 109–129.
Munro, E. R., Pinkerton, J., Mendes, P., Hyde-Dryden, G.,
Herczog, M., & Benbenishty, R. (2011). The contribution of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child to understanding and promoting the interests of young people making the transition from care to
adulthood. Children and Youth Services Review, 33,
2417–2423.
National Association of Social Workers. (2015a). Code of
ethics of the National Association of Social Workers.
Retrieved from https://www.socialworkers.org/
pubs/code/code.asp
National Association of Social Workers. (2015b). International policy on human rights. In Social work speaks:
National Association of Social Workers policy statements
2015–2017 (10th ed., pp. 182–187). Washington,
DC: NASW Press.
Qualtrics [Computer software]. (2016). Provo, UT: Author.
Retrieved from https://www.qualtrics.com
Reichert, E. (2011). Social work and human rights: A foundation for policy and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University.
Scherrer, J. L. (2012). The United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child as policy and strategy for social
work action in child welfare in the United States.
Social Work, 57, 11–22.
Staub-Bernasconi, S. (2012). Human rights and their relevance for social work as theory and practice. In L. M.
Healy & R. J. Link (Eds.), Handbook of international
social work: Human rights, development, and the global profession (pp. 30–36). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Steen, J. A. (2006). The roots of human rights advocacy and
a call to action [Guest Editorial]. Social Work, 51,
101–105.
Tang, K. (2004). Internationalizing women’s struggle
against discrimination: The UN Women’s
16 Social Work Volume 62, Number 1 January 2017
Convention and the Optional Protocol. British Journal
of Social Work, 34, 1173–1188.
Viviers, A., & Lombard, A. (2012). The ethics of children’s
participation: Fundamental to children’s rights realization in Africa. International Social Work, 56, 7–21.
Watkinson, A. M., & Rock, L. (2016). Child physical punishment and international human rights: Implications
for social work education. International Social Work, 59,
86–98.
Wronka, J. (2008). Human rights and social justice: Social action
and service for the helping and health professions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Julie A. Steen, PhD, MSW, is associate professor, Mary
Mann, MSW, is instructor, Nichole Restivo, MSW, is
research assistant, Shellene Mazany, MSW, LCSW, is
online MSW coordinator and instructor, and Reshawna
Chapple, PhD, LCSW, is assistant professor, School of
Social Work, University of Central Florida, Orlando. Address
correspondence to Julie Steen, School of Social Work, University
of Central Florida, 12805 Pegasus Drive, Orlando, FL 32816;
e-mail: [email protected]
Original manuscript received October 27, 2015
Final revision received May 4, 2016
Editorial decision May 18, 2016
Accepted May 20, 2016
Advance Access Publication November 17, 2016
Steen, Mann, Restivo, Mazany, and Chapple / Human Rights 17
Copyright of Social Work is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.