Persuasion-Infusing advocacy practice with insights from anti-oppression practice

7/29/2019 Persuasion-Infusing advocacy practice with insights from anti-oppression practice

1/20

http://jsw.sagepub.com/Journal of Social Work

http://jsw.sagepub.com/content/12/4/345The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/14680173103872522012 12: 345 originally published online 11 March 2011Journal of Social Work

Ann Curry-Stevenspractice

Persuasion: Infusing advocacy practice with insights from anti-oppression

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Social WorkAdditional services and information for

http://jsw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jsw.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jsw.sagepub.com/content/12/4/345.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 11, 2011OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jun 15, 2012Version of Record>>

at University of Bucharest on November 9, 2012jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jsw.sagepub.com/http://jsw.sagepub.com/http://jsw.sagepub.com/http://jsw.sagepub.com/content/12/4/345http://jsw.sagepub.com/content/12/4/345http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jsw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jsw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jsw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jsw.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jsw.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jsw.sagepub.com/content/12/4/345.refs.htmlhttp://jsw.sagepub.com/content/12/4/345.refs.htmlhttp://jsw.sagepub.com/content/12/4/345.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jsw.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/03/07/1468017310387252.full.pdfhttp://jsw.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/03/07/1468017310387252.full.pdfhttp://jsw.sagepub.com/content/12/4/345.full.pdfhttp://jsw.sagepub.com/http://jsw.sagepub.com/http://jsw.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jsw.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/03/07/1468017310387252.full.pdfhttp://jsw.sagepub.com/content/12/4/345.full.pdfhttp://jsw.sagepub.com/content/12/4/345.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jsw.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jsw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://jsw.sagepub.com/content/12/4/345http://jsw.sagepub.com/


2/20

Journal of Social Work

12(4) 345363

! The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1468017310387252

jsw.sagepub.com

Article

Persuasion: Infusing

advocacy practicewith insights fromanti-oppression practice

Ann Curry-StevensPortland State University, USA

Abstract

Summary: The role of social work has not, to date, been sufficiently explored inpersuasive policy practice. This article draws upon messages from a study about themotivators used by educators to reach more privileged learners on issues of social

justice. Applying messages to policy practice allows advocates to comprehensively craftadvocacy practices that draw from these motivators, which have been shown to enlistsupport from more privileged power holders in social justice issues. Findings: This article confirms the importance of Goodmans motivators (2000, 2001)

of empathy, values and beliefs, spirituality, and self-interest; a deeper complexity abouthow to effectively use these motivators is explored. The research reveals that anotherfour categories of motivators can be added to persuasion strategies: guilt, anger, desireto create a legacy, and a universal yearning for justice. Applications: The contribution of this article is to advance the strategic dimensions ofadvocacy efforts undertaken by social workers. It seeks to inspire practitioners of theneed to move away from a value-neutral position of social work (where practitionersavoid using their influence to obtain specific outcomes) to exploring the strategic valueof being as persuasive as possible, in order to advance social justice among policy-makers.

Keywords

advocacy communications, anti-oppressive practice, pedagogy for the privileged, per-suasion, policy advocacy, policy practice, resistance, social work education, transforma-tive education

Corresponding author:

Ann Curry-Stevens, Portland State University, Suite 600, Academic Student Recreation Center, 1800 SW 6 th

Avenue, Portland, OR 97201, USA

Email: [email protected]

http://jsw.sagepub.com/http://jsw.sagepub.com/http://jsw.sagepub.com/http://jsw.sagepub.com/


3/20

Social work practitioners, educators and students all struggle with how to influence

others. While this dynamic is usually at the margins of ones attention in social

work practice, this article centers on the dilemma, and offers concrete solutions

about how to persuade others to embrace policy changes that place the needs of

those living on the margins at the center of public policy.

This is not a value-neutral endeavor. The language has been chosen carefully

rejected are notions of informing or educating replaced instead by methods to

catalyze the embrace of equity issues and other remedies to injustice: it is about

persuasion. Persuasion is understood here as the strategic exerting of influence,

aiming to change behavior towards support for proposed change. This is a rare

endeavor in social work practice, as the professions ethos has firmly centered self-

determination and informed consent. Social works primary address of topics of

persuasion conventionally rests in the area of motivational interviewing where it isrejected as an undue influence of the clinical practitioners will over the lives of

clients (Wahab, 2005). In community practice, however, there is considerable

urgency to advance advocacy practices for marginalized communities, and to per-

suade mainstream funders and policy practitioners to limit capitals influence over

public policy and, instead, advance attention to human need. Today, policy advo-

cates in social work must change the opinions of policy-makers and persuade them

of the importance of paying deeper attention to the needs of marginalized com-

munities, thus rallying a non-traditional ethic of practice (as foreshadowed by

Hardina, 2004). This divergence allows us to move away from the conservativeimpact of neutral political stances and towards more progressive ideologies of

advancing the common good and collective well-being.

While strong mandates for advocacy exist in the codes of ethics in Canada, the

USA and the UK (among others), the practices of social workers in systemic

advocacy efforts (as opposed to individually oriented casework advocacy) is rela-

tively low and weakening (Byers & Stone, 1999; Dudziak & Coates, 2004; Ezell,

1994; Reeser & Epstein, 1987). Building advocacy efficacy within the field can help

social work better embrace our advocacy mandates and equip practitioners for

advocacy practice. The application of such work is likely to be useful for preparingcommunications efforts aimed at recruiting allies among policy-makers. It is useful

for advocacy efforts both inside and outside policy-making arenas (for both con-

sensus building and for pressure politics).

The theoretical foundation of persuasion is traditionally rooted in two schol-

arly and professional arenas: marketing and psychology. It has recently been

applied to political campaigns through the work on framing by Lakoff (2002,

2004), and surfaces in a few community social work texts such as Homan (2008)

and Jansson (2008). Influencing behavior is growing in importance as a field of

research, and it has important lessons for community-based social workers whoengage in an array of advocacy efforts both inside and outside their organizations.

The premise is simple: advocacy efforts can be strengthened when we draw from

proven communications strategies about both persuasion (Cialdini, 2007; Simons,

2001) and understanding how motivation can be catalyzed when one is not directly

346 Journal of Social Work 12(4)



4/20

influenced by the issue, and in fact typically benefits from the current status quo

(this research).

Transformative learning also directs attention to motivation, with Mezirows

(1991; Mezirow et al., 2000) work on catalysts that serve as disorienting dilemmas

to ones existing worldview. This research suggests possibilities in extending trans-

formative learning practices with policy-makers. Transformative approaches are

understood to be more durable than episodic advocacy efforts here we intend to

shift the perspective of the targets from one of disagreement or disinterest, to one of

becoming allied with the policy being presented. This is an approach that is more

congruent with one of building consensus as opposed to a conflict-oriented

approach. This is of rising importance in understanding successful community

development practice (Beck & Eichler, 2000; Eichler, 2006). While the motivational

strategies in this text hold transformative potential with policy practitioners, theycan similarly be applied in a utilitarian manner to gain support for an issue. The

approach can thus be adopted more comprehensively as a framework for practice,

or more strategically applied as a tactic to be used within larger advocacy

campaigns.

The research base of this article flows from a qualitative research study con-

ducted from 2002 through 2005 in Canada. With grant funding from both the

provincial and federal governments, the project received ethics approval for the

protection of human subjects. Twenty adult educators were interviewed, focusing

on their experiences of working with privileged learners with the goal of assistingtheir transformation into allies for social justice. Deeply experienced community

and labor educators participated through 2003 and 2004, sharing insights into

educational practice with privileged learners. The context of their practice involved

conducting anti-oppression and anti-racism workshops, sensitivity training, orga-

nizational development, leadership development and human rights training. The

overall intention was to translate tacit knowledge of practitioners into more formal

knowledge by applying rigorous analytic methods for assessing the convergence

and divergence of practitioner sensibilities (akin to Bergers, 2010, focus on build-

ing practice-relevant knowledge).The social work link of this article is the field of anti-oppressive practice, and its

central focus on issues of power, oppression and privilege and ones group identi-

ties such as gender, race and class (Dominelli, 1998; Healy, 2005; Mulally, 2002).

Taking social location as foundational to how one experiences the world is a sig-

nificant addition to social work, helping social workers better address issues of

oppression and privilege, and manifest more strongly the mandate of advocacy

and advancing social justice. Drawing from the specifics of how educators practice

reaching privileged learners and then applying this knowledge to the field of pol-

icy advocacy holds potential for enhancing the skill base of practitioners andeducators alike.

Participants were selected using purposive sampling, on the bases of practice

locale, depth of experience, social identity, profile as an educator (those whose

teaching reflected adult education principles), and perceived ability to articulate

Curry-Stevens 347



5/20

their practice in a reflexive manner. Those interviewed were female 70 percent;

minority racialized 40 percent; working-class background 17 percent; and gay or

lesbian 20 percent. Analysis of the data followed methods for grounded theory and

combined open, axial and selective coding of the data in order to reveal a discur-

sive set of theoretical suppositions (Creswell, 2007, p. 160). Those findings have led

to the emergence of principles, practices and a pedagogical model through which

educators can catalyze the transformations of privileged learners (Curry-Stevens,

2005, 2007) into being allies for undoing oppression and privilege. The research

also surfaced motivators that can engage non-aligned learners in anti-oppression

practice. One application of these strategies is the policy advocacy arena.

Since that time, the author has applied these concepts in social work classrooms

in both Canada and the USA. Students resonate with the substance of the

approach as they are challenged with how to exert influence inside and outsidethe policy arena, offering the author an opportunity to reflect on how students

write persuasive advocacy statements to an array of audiences. This serves as a

testing ground for methods of persuasion.

The emerging framework of motivators includes a total of eight categories of

motivators which are profiled in turn. This framework builds upon Goodmans

work (2000, 2001) on how to motivate people from privileged groups to support

social justice, confirming and adding complexity to her original four categories

(empathy, values and beliefs, spirituality, and self-interest) and adding another

four categories of motivators (guilt, anger, desire to create a legacy, and a universalyearning for justice).

Empathy

Goodman (2001) defines empathy as our capacity to understand and feel the suf-

fering of others even though we have never experienced that particular suffering

ourselves (Chinua Achebe, as cited by Goodman, p. 126). Social work relies heav-

ily on empathy for its ability to guide comprehension and for communicating

compassion and support (Shebib, 2003), credited as a natural impulse that is sim-ilar to compassion, yet distinguished from sympathy which tends to generate feel-

ings for the person but without the comprehension of the cause of the distress

(Murphy & Dillon, 2008).

Goodman uses an inverted argument to explain the importance of empathy. It

is well recognized that, in order to legitimate the oppression of certain groups,

target groups have been dehumanized and depersonalized, and at times, demo-

nized. Slavery, segregation and denial of due process have been dependent on

understanding people of color as something less than human. In order to uphold

exploitive relationships, there must be a foundation that justifies inferior treat-ment. It has been a strong tool of the oppressor and as such warrants attention

as a potential remedy for injustice, as denial of empathetic opportunities erodes

our capacity for empathy and thus the propensity for care and action

(Goodman, 2001, p. 127).




6/20

Empathy-building operates when people build a compassionate understanding

of the distressing experiences of others. Empathy is typically evoked by telling

stories of distress and making explicit links to the causes for distress. Research

from Batson et al. (1997) shows that even when these stories could instead be

reinterpreted in a blame the victim manner, in fact they do not, and that: once

aroused, empathic feelings appear to have some inertia (Batson et al., 1997, p.

117), making it wise to tap empathy as a source of motivation. The core technique

behind an empathy-building persuasion technique is to share the details of peoples

lives so as to elicit an emotional response to the person, and by extension, others

like him/her. When photographs can tell a story, this too strengthens an emotional

empathetic response.

Participants in this research reveal a more troubled relationship with empathy as

a motivator. While these educators confirmed the importance of empathy, they alsoadded three important dynamics that advocates for constrained use of this moti-

vator. The first is that it seems that one is blocked from empathy for another until

one recognizes their own suffering. Framing this as self-empathy (Curry-Stevens,

2003), self-empathy is a required precursor to the development of empathy for

another. One example is the early (and ongoing) backlash of white feminists in

their denials of perpetrating whiteness for until their oppression as women was

recognized, they were not ready to consider their role in upholding racism.

Advocacy work thus should be practiced with compassion for the ways in which

our targets may be or have been oppressed. Assuming their status to be uniformlyprivileged is a mistake. Working from the assumption that they have some legacy

of oppression is advised. We are also stretched by participants in this research to

simultaneously care for our learners, even to love them. By extending empathy in

this way, policy advocates are encouraged to reach through barriers to compassion.

While researched in the clinical context, participants in a study on transformative

change noted they felt completely loved and accepted by their therapist and that

this is an instrumental trigger for change (Miller & Cde Baca, as cited by Wahab,

2005, p. 48).

The second dynamic is that storytelling by the oppressed can result in a backlashagainst them particularly among those they know. Remember that we are using

their experiences to elicit empathy, but sometimes our advocacy targets are not

ready for these messages, and can retaliate by resisting the advocates messages or

their capabilities. In some settings, these storytellers become perceived as dam-

aged people who are not appropriate leaders or experts. In the policy advocacy

environment, the experience of people who are oppressed telling their stories needs

to be protected while not inappropriate, they need support (although this must

not verge on paternalism) and to be treated with respect.

Third, research participants issued a cautionary note about heavy reliance onempathy. Relying excessively on building empathy serves to place responsibility for

change in the hands of those who are oppressed. This means that the power to

create change lies in the persuasiveness of these stories. The result of this dynamic is

that if the persuasiveness is not sufficiently powerful, policy-makers are able to

Curry-Stevens 349



7/20

remain oblivious about the injustice. This is an unacceptable responsibility,

although it is currently the state of affairs, where the marginalized need to press

the corridors of power to affect change. Ultimately, we aim for the emergence of a

common good and shared conviction about the need to advance social justice, but

our pathways towards such consensus must not be walked on the backs of those

who experience injustice.

When considering the transformative potential of empathy, we notice a familiar

dimension of social work teaching. Empathy is understood as an essential skill for

practice and one that typically relies on ones ability to walk a mile in someones

shoes (Murphy & Dillon, 2008; Shebib, 2003). This is indeed what advocates are

trying to evoke, but with a subtle addition that draws from Goodmans (2001)

development of empathy. Her work posits that empathy exists relationally, and

that we can aspire to an interdependent understanding of empathy that exists whenwe understand that there is a fundamental common humanity among us all. This

framework of shared humanity requires that we reject our practices of othering

those who are outside our relational worlds. Simultaneously this approach requires

that we reject hierarchies that exist in the dominant discourse arena, such as the

idea that whites are better than people of color, and that those with deeper needs

and dependence on public supports are not as good as those who do not. Advocacy

within this framework emphasizes that stories be used that allows for the targets to

see themselves in these stories, such as average people trying to make a good life for

their children or trying to develop a skill or secure work. Stories should build suchcommonalities, and then identify divergences such as unique barriers or struggles

posed by policies that thwart their efforts.

This framework holds the long-term benefit of rejecting othering that serves to

allow us to accept such different life outcomes for the oppressed. When we see

ourselves as the same, then we look to other reasons to account for differences in

the challenges facing more marginalized groups. We become more likely to see

policies and systems as responsible for inducing the difference. Participants in

my research identified this dynamic as an important dimension of transformative

learning that comes from international exchange experiences for young adults. Asthey built relationships with those in another country and came to see their com-

monalities, they were more inclined to implicate macro-level injustices for the dif-

ferences in their living standards, and thoroughly reject individual deficiencies. In

short, the ideal form of eliciting empathy would come from building a shared sense

of humanity, and subsequently turning to injustice to explain distress.

Persuasion that relies on empathy means that we should use stories to elicit

empathy. Sharing the experiences of individuals who suffer due to the presence

or absence of particular policies will soften hardened hearts and bypass normal

resistance to progressive ideas. These stories are best told in the first person, but asecond-best method is to have others tell the story. It should allow for both sym-

pathy and compassion to emerge within the policy-maker and clearly articulate the

distress that is caused by specific policy initiatives. Ideally, the target (the policy-

maker) should be able to see themselves in the story, and see similarities between




8/20

themselves and the storyteller. The advocate is advised to ensure that this story-

telling is not exploitive, for when the storyteller might talk in the first person, and

then the response not be respectful, they may hurt by the response. When the risks

of exploitation cannot be minimized, it may be preferable to tell ones story by

someone else. Procedurally, the oppressed should have final say over how their

experiences are represented by advocates.

Values and beliefs

Values are understood to be personal perspectives that serve as guides to individual

and collective action. They are emotionally charged conceptions of what is desir-

able and within the field of social work are unprovable assumptions or tenets of

faith that guide social work practice (Compton & Gallaway, 1999, p. 151). Valuesguide behavior. While the profession of social work typically embraces a set of core

values (typically oriented towards service, integrity, and social justice, as in the

USA), dominant values co-exist such as individualism, merit, and self-sufficiency

that social workers have been socialized to adopt. One challenge for social workers

is to unlearn and/or bracket the influence of values rooted in dominant discourse

(as advocated by Compton & Gallaway, 1999, among others) as these values serve

to justify inequality and reinforce internalized oppression.

Advancing the values of justice, equity and fairness is of strategic importance to

exert influence and build support for policies that promote equity and social justice.One example is child poverty in Canada and the USA. More traction on the

broader issue of poverty exists when children are involved. While advocates

know that poor children are part of poor families, and solving child poverty will

require solving family poverty, advocates are able to gain significant support when

the experiences of children are evoked. This is true because child issues tap into our

values as adults, that we know we should protect them and step up when they are

vulnerable. The same is not true for their parents. This is a commonly held societal

value that is used strategically by advocates.

Advocates rely heavily on values to influence policy, with an example being thecall: its the right thing to do. Often times, there is a companion juxtaposition of a

characteristic of the target with that of more marginalized groups, such as: Its

unconscionable that you go to bed safe and sated while poor children dont have

such luxury. Such communications are explicitly or implicitly rooted in values of

equity and equality and are deemed the core of advocacy practice.

Educators in this research relied heavily on values and moral persuasion to

help shift perspectives. Yet cautions exist relying on values assertions. The first is

that it can render the target defensive, for there is an unspoken message that: my

values are better than yours. To moderate this dynamic, the advocate would bewise to also implicate themselves in the targets behavior. The prior scenario can

thus be reformatted as: Its unconscionable that you and Igo to bed safe and sated

while poor children suffer. This positioning serves to take the advocate off their

self-proclaimed pedestal of superiority and communicate a humility that is much

Curry-Stevens 351



9/20

less likely to trigger resistance. The advocates decision to implicate oneself is

strategic to avoid creating a power dynamic that suggests the advocate is morally

superior. This method is correlated to Richans call for the development of

common ground (2006, p. 82). There is an assumption that the target and the

advocate will share ground in being troubled by such a contradiction of experience.

The second caution is that when used alone can generate accusations of irratio-

nality as the approach suggests emotional responses matter more than the intellect.

We thus add factual arguments to strengthen our position. Educators specifically

identified the need to statistically profile lived experiences of marginalized commu-

nities, and aligned with Saids notion of contrapuntal analysis that juxtaposes

differential experiences of privileged and marginalized groups (1994). This

approach simultaneously deconstructs privilege and oppression, and advances

social justice in a profoundly logical way, since systems of oppression and domi-nation are mutually constructed. Such an approach has a two-fold benefit: it pro-

vides evidence of unfairness without overplaying the moralizing features that can

easily backfire, and it accomplishes engagement of both the head and heart. An

example is to not only deplore racism, but also to identify disparities in lived

experiences between whites and people of color, such as longevity, health out-

comes, incomes and educational attainment. Such an approach combines values

and beliefs with factual arguments and expands persuasiveness, congruent with the

advice of communications strategists (Fenton Communications, 2001; IMPACS,

2002; Simons, 2001).Greater complexity about reliance on values was uncovered in this research. The

issue of moral superiority was believed to be a problematic stance for advocate and

educator alike. The stance leads to self-righteous activism that is deeply divisive

and likely to induce resistance. While advocacy efforts have traditionally relied on

discrete binary opposites of good (the advocates position) and bad (the targets

position), such framing is typically simplistic and inaccurate. While it is simple and

effective to motivate people by rallying against a clearly defined enemy (and

simultaneously build shared identity and urgency for action, as articulated by

Burgmann, 2005), the risks are that our analysis is oversimplified: today, we areall implicated in domination in numerous dimensions. One educator held out for a

much more complex understanding of complicity and possibilities for deep trans-

formation, advocating herself for an end to the good and bad dichotomies so

prevalent in social movement campaigns:

Lots of activism is just about condemning those who have more than I do, and being

the gracious and noble helper of those who have less than I do. Many activists still

avoid going upstream [to address the causes of oppression]. It means they can stay in

their own place of comfort and self-righteousness. And not actually have to changethemselves . . . this whole bringing together of the conscientized oppressed and the

conscientized privileged has to begin with us here, where we have the capacity to

recognize not just the truth of dominance but also that we are part of the problem.

It is so much easier to think of ourselves as part of the solution . . . but we have got to




10/20

agree to much that changes our lifestyle [to build a sustainable future.] (Curry-Stevens,

2005, p. 214)

This perspective of the complex nature of privilege and oppression suggests

advocates move away from dualistic thinking. This article surfaces the need to

gently but persuasively add complicity to understanding advocacy practice, as we

now recognize that advocates themselves are usually implicated in systems of

oppression and privilege.

Today we need to consider how we can rework our understanding of enemy

and ally. At hand is an opportunity to redefine and broaden social consensus and

the common good. Framing issues can broaden our appeal and open engagement

possibilities. Part of that process will involve understanding how we are all impli-

cated in domination moralistic messages to the contrary will prove hollow (orcertainly short-sighted) bases from which to organize. It is time to explore, as

Lakoff (2004) suggests, what values and principles can help us build a positive

future for all and that open (instead of narrow) the possibility for an expanding

solidarity.

Spiritual teachings and values

Using spiritual teachings and values to motivate others is a strategy that connects

with an answer to the following question: From where do we draw our moralcompass? Both prior literature and this research illuminates that there are spiritual

traditions that are shared by many that instill a motivation within many that comes

from faith traditions. Drawing explicit attention to these imperatives we are guided

by can help provide impetus to persuade others.

Working from a First Nations worldview, Hill (2000) asserts that human exis-

tence begins with natural alignment of the self with others, and injustice is created

as differences and power-based hierarchies emerge. This takes all of us, as individ-

uals and collectively, away from our place of integrity in terms of our emotional,

spiritual, physical and intellectual well-being. Recovery requires a worldview ofharmony and an active resistance to all forms of oppression and privilege. The

reclamation process of resistance to both privilege and oppression is perceived as a

spiritual journey and a healing of the soul wound that injustices create (Duran,

2006).

Similarly, Christianity, Judaism, Bahai, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism,

Islam, Sikhism, and Taoism emphasize the interdependence of humankind. We are

taught that all human life is valuable, and that no life is more important than

another.

Advocacy work can effectively draw on faith traditions and spiritual texts toemphasize the connectedness of all humanity, and the compelling value that all

religions have placed on equality among all people, as well as the requirement of

those with more to remedy the injustices done to those with less. Participants in

this research expressed their support for a similar framework, particularly

Curry-Stevens 353



11/20

participants who worked in faith-based organizations who made explicit use of

scriptures to conduct advocacy work. They identified the value of using spiritual

texts to achieve several advocacy goals: to reintroduce the moral compass to

direct human progress, to identify contradictions between faith mandates and

policy impacts, and to build commonality between divergent groups in society

(thereby reducing the social distance between policy-makers and those who are

impacted by them).

An example of policy advocacy relying on spiritual teachings is the progressive

Christian church sector that designed a campaign around the concept of Jubilee

the biblical call for debt forgiveness. This campaign worked among congregations

to build analysis and action among people of privilege in both geographic and

economic contexts. They drew heavily from their faith to mobilize Christians

across Canada. Over 640,000 people signed a petition to cancel foreign debt, suc-cessfully persuading the federal government to declare a moratorium on $696

million debt owed to Canada by 11 countries (Canadian Council of Churches,

2001, p. 17). Their pitch drew from their scriptures directives to set slaves free and

cancel debts (as directed in the Book of Leviticus).

These advocates recognize the significance of the persuasiveness of their faith-

based values and how effective a tool for organizing it can be. Faith-based imper-

atives for action would be useful for those who are rooted in such faith traditions.

It should be viewed as a potential lever for change, and its relevance will be greatest

where such a context is shared.

Self-interest

The most contentious of the motivators to enlist support for social justice issues is

self-interest. In the arenas of psychology and marketing, self-interest is a relative

no brainer since self-interest is such a ubiquitous motivator that human behavior

is understood to be incomplete unless this concept features dominantly. Indeed,

Cialdini (2007) omits the concept of material self-interest from his text not

because it is unimportant, but because it is always an influence in decision-making. Within advocacy practice to improve conditions for marginalized commu-

nities, however, self-interest is a deeply contested motivator, largely rejected in

favor of reliance on values and ethics.

The history of social work can help unravel this. The early influence of the

charity model leads us to a noblesse oblige framework for understanding the

interface between those with and those without access to societys resources.

Leading advocates such as Saul Alinsky, Bertha Reynolds, Cesar Chavez,

Martin Luther King, Barbara Wootten and Jane Addams similarly valued the

idea of social responsibility from those with privilege to help those with less.This history continues to influence advocacy practice today that obligation,

empathy and moral higher ground are the strategies used by advocates to advocate

for change. These are powerful arguments but greater prospects for change could

result if advocates made effective use of self-interest.




12/20

Goodman (2000, 2001) helps us reflect on the role of self-interest, profiling how

privileged people have been hurt by privilege, and that by working to end oppres-

sion, they simultaneously advance their self-interest. She details psychological,

social, intellectual, moral/spiritual, and material/physical costs that are incurred

by those with privilege. Examples include the costs of being isolated from many

peoples of the world, and the economic costs of policing such divides.

A current application of this work is the business case developed to provide

institutions the motivation for undoing various forms of institutional oppression

(racism, sexism, heterosexism, and ablism). These business cases provide a wide-

ranging set of motivators for businesses to do the right thing and draw explicitly

from self-interest such as reducing legal costs, lowering staff turnover, improving

community credibility and leveraging customer purchasing dollars by illustrating

commitments to diversity.Why then the ongoing reluctance of community advocates to use the same

strategy? Most find that it is inappropriate to suggest that someone with privilege

has been hurt by a system of privilege, since it implicitly marginalizes the injustices

faced by the oppressed. Participants in my research diverged in their support for

using self-interest as a motivator. Here, one flags concern about pedagogy that

places the costs associated with privilege as a central tenet of the practice:

My anxiety is about the fact that people will talk about the losses in terms of political

correctness and reverse racism. Theyll say, in our society, its no longer positive to bewhite, and in particular a white straight male. Thats the way theyll talk about loss.

Im not sure thats where we want to go . . . I think the risk lies in the problem of

saying, its worse for us [as privileged people]. (Curry-Stevens, 2005, p. 235)

Despite this caution, the same educator notes that she has used this approach to

discuss issues of globalization:

I used to talk about the global economy as being death dealing for people in the

global south. You could see that it was killing people in the south at a far greater ratethan it was killing us . . . [And yet] theres a sense that it was killing our souls. From

that first cup of coffee in the day, we were implicated in this kind of web of oppression

and oppressing other people which nobody wants to be doing . . . Just in having a

cup of coffee we end up participating in this oppression which cant be good for me.

(Curry-Stevens, 2005, p. 235)

Participants emphasized that no harm done to the privileged through oppression

can approximate the devastation experienced by the oppressed. While this frame-

work does hold possibility for implying that the privileged are somehow victims asbeing privileged, educators acknowledged that focusing on losses suffered through

oppression to them personally is believed to be a powerful motivator for social

change. By enabling educators and activists to explore self-interest, we gain more

influence.

Curry-Stevens 355



13/20

Some writers advocate expanding consideration of the losses from oppression.

Kivel (2002) states: racism is burning us all. Some of us have third degree burns or

have died from its effects; many others live in the charred wreckage (p. 1).

Kaufman (1991a, 1991b) adds a focus on the liberation potential that feminism

holds for men. The advocacy work of US-based Responsible Wealth relies on

wealthy individuals to advocate for more progressive taxes, and thereby work

against their apparent self-interest. While these wealthy advocates may have a

loss of finances, they are likely gaining through the ripple effects of reduced

social unrest. Similarly, ending sexism and racism can improve the quality of life

for all through reducing social and material costs, while collaboratively improving

quality of life for all of our children.

Overall, the motivator of self-interest is a powerful lever to add to ones advo-

cacy toolbox, particularly since excessive reliance on the traditional motivators ofvalues and ethics is cautioned, with the proviso that using values and ethics

effectively can build a shared consensus around shared humanity. If more pow-

erful levers exist, it is incumbent on social workers to gain familiarity and ease

with using them. It remains evocative to suggest that privilege carries costs and

that policy makers simultaneously suffer from their privilege. While these costs

pale in comparison with those who experience oppression, they can still be con-

sidered costs.

Guilt

Guilt is understood by research participants as a powerful stimulus to motivate a

change in perception, and ideally action. It is the emotion that results when one

understands that they are the beneficiary of an unjust situation, or an empathetic

response to someone elses oppression. Guilt is believed relatively simple to evoke,

especially when it is the intended goal of advocacy practice. One example is the

reaction most people feel to seeing homeless people on the street it evokes a sense

of guilt about the relative ease and comfort that exists when knowing that one has a

home where food, warmth and safety exists. Powerful pictures and scenarios canprovoke this guilt and this is believed to be rooted in an awareness of the relative

privilege with which the target lives his or her life.

While most advocates hope to induce some discomfort or disruption in the

complacency of the target, evoking guilt can be a risky endeavor. Echoing the

sentiments of participants in the research, the following authors well capture its

complexities. Guilt can hold the potential to motivate (Holzman, 2002; Kimmel,

2002; Morales, 1998), but it is also believed to immobilize the target at times

(Kumashiro, 2000; Vodde, 2001). Holzmans position is persuasive: Guilt is the

discomfort I feel when I have done something that harms another person or vio-lates a moral prohibition. . . Guilt tells me I have done something wrong and need

to correct it or make reparation (2002, p. 108). Kimmel also advocates for guilt

to be used strategically in persuasion: Guilt can motivate us to transform the

circumstances that made us feel guilty. . . guilt can politicize us (2002, p. 5).




14/20

Holzman, on the other hand, cautions that immobilization can result, yet also

guides us towards more effective guilt-evoking practices when she highlights the

areas to avoid:

Shaming techniques such as belittling, sarcasm, or expressions of disgust, contempt or

condemnation are counterproductive. They reproduce childhood shaming experiences

and are likely to trigger irrational shame . . . there will remain a tendency to parrot

what is believed to be acceptable to the group, and for the learning process to be

drastically inhibited. (2002, p. 111)

This research adds another layer of complexity to understanding the role of guilt

in advocacy. Advocates can be strategic in their use of guilt. They can evoke guilt,

and then offer redemption from this discomfort by suggesting ways to act to alle-viate guilt. Guilt can be a positive motivator for change, as long as the advocate

also takes responsibility for ensuring that it does not immobilize and that actions

are recommended. The most intense reactions are believed to occur when powerful

arguments are made as to the complicity of the target in the oppression of others,

such as intentional shaming messages. The primary advice is to avoid shaming.

Caution remains: while such evocation may help the target consider their privilege

in a more enduring manner, there are risks of it backfiring and triggering an

immobilized reaction.

Anger

Advocates have been able to evoke anger among their targets quite easily about

injustice. Building anger within a target is understood to be relatively easy,

although care must be taken to maintain focus on the issue, rather than it spreading

to the advocate communicating the message. Simply, anger is the logical reaction to

a perceived wrongdoing. Methods include sharing information about injustice,

presenting persuasive data about the experiences of people who suffer. An example

would be showing how children are impoverished and denied education throughchild labor in India. Even more powerful is the addition of pictures and stories

about the experience. Particularly powerful is, as identified earlier, profiling how

some thrive while others suffer, especially when this suffering is due to the actions

of those who are thriving. Specific methods include juxtaposing the different effects

of particular policies: the degradation of the environment leading to the suffering of

polar bears (or baby wildcats) while corporate paper producers make record prof-

its. Another example is the juxtaposition of the different benefits of a 20 percent

income tax cut: a round-the-world trip for upper income earners versus a weekend

in a budget hotel for lower income earners.Anger results from observing these different impacts. Generating anger has long

been associated with social justice campaigns. There is little else so reliable as a

force for generating support and involvement. When an injustice is perceived, anger

and outrage are a logical response.

Curry-Stevens 357



15/20

This approach does not, however, come without a price tag. There are three

reasons why building anger is not enough, and why it might backfire. The first is

that it positions the advocate as needing to return again and again to elicit the

support of targets for little transformative learning has occurred, and more dura-

ble change and commitment to ending injustice has not occurred. One research

participant suggested that it is probably good enough as a motivator, if one is

satisfied with this reactivity orientation, as opposed to a transformative orienta-

tion. If the advocate is aiming for support, then eliciting anger is enough. If,

instead, the advocate desires transitioning the target into a reliable ally on a

broader issue, then building anger is not sufficient as a motivator.

The second is that it is easy to blame others for injustice and remain ignorant of

ones own complicity. In an example where a target successfully becomes, for

example, angry about the harms of racism, s/he will be applauded in efforts toend racism (such as remedial schooling supports) but the complicity of whites

(including his/her own) will be left out of the equation. The target gets to claim

exceptional status among whites, which while desirable if it catalyzes action, is

ethically somewhat suspect since whiteness needs to remain implicated in injustice,

but through this strategy stays out of sight. The individuals get to position them-

selves on the side of the angels. Similarly, it falls prey to an uncomplicated rela-

tionship between right and wrong, which devalues the significant role that everyone

plays in upholding injustice.

The third reason that evoking anger is not enough is that it typicallyevokes charity or bandage solutions instead of justice-oriented solutions. Such

solutions flow from an oversimplified understanding of the issue, because com-

munications that engender an anger response have typically communicated the

issue in oversimplified terms, relying on binaries or right and wrong. The

approach is simplistic and can lead to arguments based in self-righteousness

that are not deserved or accurate. When one becomes the target of the self-

righteous zeal of another, this dynamic can deteriorate, for self-righteousness

implicitly suggest a dynamic of I am better than you. Anyone who has been

the target of such accusations knows that it can backfire into defensiveness andcounter-attacks.

While there are varying responsibilities for injustices (such as comparing the

shopper at Wal-Mart with the corporate lobbyist who ended inheritance taxes or

environmental regulations), advocates stand on shaky ground when they espouse

that one group needs to change without the others similarly changing their prac-

tices. This becomes a form of moralizing that can readily create divides and narrow

the possibility for transformative change, consensus, and durable commitments to

justice.

If ones advocacy practice is more utilitarian and pragmatic, then evoking angeris an appropriate strategy for change. But if ones strategy is more holistic and

transformative in nature, then advocates need to be more restrained about evoking

anger due to its potential to advance an overly simplistic analysis of good

and bad.




16/20

Desire to create a legacy

The seventh motivator documented in this research was the desire to create

a legacy by which a policy-maker might want to be remembered. The concept

of building legacies has burgeoned in philanthropy, and is usefully applied

to policy advocacy. Participants highlighted that they have used this approach

in both organizational advocacy practices (to motivate Boards of Directors

to rebuild their organizations to foster social justice environments in their orga-

nizations) and in advocacy work with policy-makers (to inspire politicians to

leave lasting changes on the policy environment as they were leaving office).

It is a persuasive social justice approach as it tends to inspire the best in

people. There are many reasons why policy makers neglect the needs of margin-

alized communities during their time in office such as the impact on theirchances of reelection (consider, for example, the US debate on gay marriage)

and the cost factor. A departing policy-maker is unconcerned with re-election and

less accountable to the public for expenditures of public dollars. This can be a

fortunate confluence that makes progressive policies more likely at the close of a

reign of power.

Appealing to decision-makers to make their mark on the policy landscape typ-

ically brings out the best in people. It provides a motivational message to reach

through complicity and inaction to persuade policy-makers to create change, and

thus be remembered (after leaving office or after they die). This motivator canstretch through many layers of institutional ranks and reach politicians, policy-

makers, decision-makers and social service practitioners. Suggesting people can

place their mark on history or on an organization in a durable way has the poten-

tial to be a significant force for justice.

There are different ways to approach this practice. The first has a moralizing

tone, and can be very effective to catalyze action when inaction has been the his-

toric pattern. It would go something like this: Do you want to be remembered as

an advocate for those in need, or as someone who stood idly by as people suffered?

While moralizing has been treated with skepticism in this paper so far, its contri-bution is more promising here, since it is juxtaposed with an opening to move away

from the stance of moral dubiousness.

The remaining ideas do not rely on the moralistic overtones. Instead a

direct appeal to create a legacy is offered through motivators such as:

What mark do you want to leave on this organization? How do you want

to be remembered? Another could be: This is a chance to distinguish yourself

from others. You can be remembered for your courage to stand up for what

is right.

Creating a legacy is a profound idea for many in the policy arena. In Canada,it is believed departing Prime Minister Jean Chretien was inspired

to advance legalized marriage for the lesbian and gay community in 2003, intro-

ducing legislation to legalize such unions. This is perceived to have been a

legacy action.

Curry-Stevens 359



17/20

A universal yearning for justice

Participants surfaced a belief that all of us yearn, at some level, for social justice.

The persuaders task is to activate this yearning which may be buried or over-

shadowed by other aspirations. An eclectic set of writers suggest this yearning

takes different forms: for connection and community (Peck, 1987), and for an

integration of values and behavior (Lange, 2000; Palmer, 2005). This is similar

to the aboriginal notion of a soul wound (Duran, 2006; Hill, 1999) whereby

our inherent nature is premised on peace and kinship. The existence of oppressive

hierarchies creates a wounding that needs to be healed through eliminating hier-

archies and patterns that reflect that some lives are more valuable than others.

Participants believe that all of us desire equality and inclusion, and the corollary

desire to end exploitation and oppression. Oppression is at odds with these con-cepts. When these desires are buried and not very hot as profiled by a participant,

the task is to bring them back to the surface, breaking through other values and

defenses.

Advocates can activate this yearning through simple yet passionate expressions

of the world we want. Talking passionately about our future dreams and goals may

heat up the dissonance between what we live with and what we want. It is suggested

that such articulation can break through cynicism and apathy and enliven the

possibility for social justice.

The appeal of such a construction is obvious from an intellectual and emo-tional perspective. It sets aside the constraints of traditional social movement

tensions, and articulates a world of alternatives. Such a repositioning is reflected

in the tremendously successful World Social Forum that derives much of its

success from its embracing of the vision: Another world is possible. While some

might scoff at the idea of returning to utopian values, we need simply to remind

ourselves of powerful orators who know the persuasiveness of vision-based lan-

guage: Martin Luther King, Bertha Reynolds and President Obama are excellent

examples of how to tap into these universal yearnings, and activate a sense of

possibility in the present moment, even when the current context is perceived asdismal.

Advocates can activate this motivator when they communicate with passion and

inspiration. Articulating a vision for the future is one such method. Asserting the

existence of a future condition where all are equal and peace and justice are

observed across society is persuasive.

Conclusions

As one reviews the motivations profiled in this article, an obvious questionemerges: what form of motivation should the advocate enlist? The answer is that

the advocate should enlist as many forms as possible, that they all serve as potential

hooks to recruit the support of the target. While Janssons work (2008) suggests

that specific forms are more appropriate for specific audiences, there is wisdom in




18/20

using as many as possible, provided that information does not suggest that some

approaches will be counterproductive.

A final cautionary message needs to be shared: the underlying framework in this

article is that privileged policy-makers can be voluntarily persuaded to improve the

policy environment for marginalized communities. Two shortcomings exist with

this approach: continuing to make marginalized communities responsible for cat-

alyzing such change and the voluntary nature of such change. To address this,

reforms to policy processes continue to be needed such as limiting the influence

of those advancing the interests of capital (such as campaign finance reforms),

diversifying those in policy practice positions, and increasing the power held by

those living in the margins (such as increased political participation and increased

influence over policy practice, drawing from Arnstein, 1969, as an example).

Second, the voluntary nature of such persuasion strategies provides no guaranteethat the advocates recommendations will be adopted. Commitments might be

derailed and sidelined as the normative environment has not changed.

Alternative change strategies exerted by social movements and advocates are

needed to exert outside pressure for change. It is important to retain the full

scope of methods to advance social justice while we simultaneously emphasize

the value of persuasion to influence voluntary change practices.

This article concludes with an appeal for social workers to make more extensive

use of these and another other advocacy strategies. Advocacy practices rooted in

persuasion can be strengthened by following the directions laid out in this article,but the strategic advocate is wise to expand beyond the persuasion arena into

structural shifts in the advocacy landscape. Our influence can and must expand

if we are to live our commitments to social justice and our mandates to advocate

for ending injustices.

References

Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of

Planners, 35(4), 216224.

Batson, D., Polycarpou, M., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H., Mitchener, E., & Bednar, L.,et al. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group

improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1),

105118.

Beck, E., & Eichler, M. (2000). Consensus organizing: A practice model for community

building. Journal of Community Practice, 8(1), 87102.

Berger, R. (2010). EBP: Practitioners in search of evidence. Journal of Social Work, 10(2),

175191.

Burgmann, V. (2005). From syndicalism to Seattle: Class and the politics of identity.

International Labor and Working-Class History, 67, 121.

Byers, K., & Stone, G. (1999). Roots of activism: A qualitative study of BSW students. TheJournal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 5(1), 114.

Canadian Council of Churches. (2001). Record and evaluation of the Canadian Ecumenical

Jubilee Initiative (19972001). Toronto, ON: Canadian Council of Churches.

Cialdini, R. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Collins.

Curry-Stevens 361



19/20

Compton, B., & Galloway, B. (1999). Ethical practice. In Social work processes (pp. 151

166). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Curry-Stevens, A. (2003). An educators guide for changing the world: Methods, models and

materials for anti-oppression and social justice workshops. Toronto, ON: CSJ Foundation

for Research and Education.

Curry-Stevens, A. (2005). Pedagogy for the privileged: Building theory, curriculum and

critical practices. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto. Proquest Digital

Dissertations (AAT NR07560).

Curry-Stevens, A. (2007). New forms of transformative education: Pedagogy for the privi-

leged. Journal of Transformative Education, 5(1), 3358.

Dominelli, L. (1998). Anti-oppressive practice in context. In R. Adams, L. Dominelli, &

M. Payne (Eds.), Social work: Themes, issues and critical debates (pp. 322). Basingstoke:Macmillan.

Dudziak, S., & Coates, J. (2004). Social worker participation in policy practice and political

activity. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 54, 7996.

Duran, E. (2006). Healing the soul wound: Counseling with American Indians and other native

people. New York: Teachers College Press.

Eichler, M. (2006). Consensus organizing, building communities of mutual self interest.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ezell, M. (1994). Advocacy practice of social workers. Families in Society, 75(1), 3646.

Fenton Communications. (2001). Now hear this: The nine laws of successful advocacy com-

munications. Washington, DC: Fenton Communications.Goodman, D. (2000). Motivating people from privileged groups to support social justice.

Teachers College Record, 102(6), 10611085.

Goodman, D. (2001). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from privileged

groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hardina, D. (2004). Guidelines for ethical practice in community organization. Social Work,

49(4), 595604.

Healy, K. (2005). Social work theories in context: Creating frameworks for practice.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hill, D. (1999). Holistic learning: A model of education based on aboriginal cultural phi-

losophy. Unpublished Masters thesis, Saint Francis Xavier University, Antigonish,Nova Scotia.

Holzman, C. (2002). Rethinking the role of guilt and shame in white womens anti-racism

work. In J. Helfand & L. Lippin (Eds.), Understanding whiteness, unraveling racism: Tools

for the journey (pp. 103113). Mason, OH: Nelson Learning Custom Publishing.

Homan, M. (2008). Promoting community change: Making it happen in the real world.

Belmont, CA: Thomson.

IMPACS. (2002). Plan the work: A handbook for strategic communications planning for not-

for-profit organizations. Vancouver, BC: IMPACS.

Jansson, B. (2008). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to social

justice. Belmont, CA: Thomson.Kaufman, M. (1991a). Being a man doesnt have to be a struggle. Retrieved 15 August 2002

from: http://www.michaelkaufman.com/articles/pdf/beingaman.pdf.




20/20

Kaufman, M. (1991b). Men must abandon notion that they are violent by nature. Retrieved

15 August 2002 from: http://www.michaelkaufman.com/articles/pdf/

menmustabandon.pdf.

Kimmel, M. (2002). Toward a pedagogy of the oppressor. Retrieved 30 November 2003from: www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0211/article/

021113c.html.

Kivel, P. (2002). Uprooting racism: How white people can work for racial justice. Gabriola

Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Kumashiro, K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational

Research, 70(1), 2553.

Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (2004). Dont think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. White

River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.Lange, E. (2000). Beyond transformative learning: Work, ethical space and adult education.

Paper presented at the Adult Education Research Conference, Victoria, BC.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass Publishers.

Mezirow, J., Kegan, R., Belenky, M., Stanton, A., Parks Daloz, L., & Brookfield, S. (Eds.)

(2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San

Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Morales, A. (1998). Racism: Rootedness as spiritual and political practice. In Medicine

stories: History, culture and the politics of integrity (pp. 7577). Cambridge, MA: South

End Press.Mullaly, B. (2002). Anti-oppressive social work practice at the personal and cultural levels.

In Challenging oppression: A critical social work approach (pp. 170192). Don Mills, ON:

Oxford University Press.

Murphy, B., & Dillon, C. (2008). Interviewing in action in a multicultural world. Belmont,

CA: Brooks/Cole.

Palmer, P. (2005). A life lived whole. Yes: A journal of positive futures, 32, 3336.

Peck, S. (1987). The different drum: Community making and peace. New York: Penguin.

Reeser, L. C., & Epstein, I. (1987). Social workers attitudes toward poverty and social

action: 19681984. Social Service Review, 61(4), 610622.

Richan, W. (2006). Lobbying for social change. New York: The Hawarth Press.Said, E. (1994). Culture and imperialism. New York: Vintage Books.

Shebib, B. (2003). The pursuit of empathic understanding. In Choices: Interviewing and

counselling skills for Canadians. Toronto: Prentice Hall.

Simons, H. (2001). Persuasion in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Vodde, R. (2001). De-centering white privilege in social work education: Whose job is it

anyway? Race, Gender and Class, 7(4), 139160.

Wahab, S. (2005). Motivational interviewing and social work practice. Journal of Social

Work, 5(1), 4560.

Curry-Stevens 363

Documents

Persuasion-Infusing advocacy practice with insights from anti-oppression practice