Presents: Social Workers’ Family Values: Results of a Survey Kenneth R. Wedel Ph.D., Coordinator &...
64
Presents: Social Workers’ Family Values: Results of a Survey Kenneth R. Wedel Ph.D., Coordinator & Annie Smith, Knee Scholar NASW- Oklahoma Chapter 36 th Annual State Conference Norman, OK March 26, 2012 The University of Oklahoma Anne and Henry Zarrow School of Social Work Knee Center for Strong Families
Presents: Social Workers’ Family Values: Results of a Survey Kenneth R. Wedel Ph.D., Coordinator & Annie Smith, Knee Scholar NASW- Oklahoma Chapter 36
Presents: Social Workers Family Values: Results of a Survey
Kenneth R. Wedel Ph.D., Coordinator & Annie Smith, Knee Scholar
NASW- Oklahoma Chapter 36 th Annual State Conference Norman, OK
March 26, 2012 The University of Oklahoma Anne and Henry Zarrow
School of Social Work Knee Center for Strong Families
Slide 2
Outline of Presentation The Knee Center for Strong Families
Take the Family Values Survey The Importance of Values The
Conflictual Nature of Values Values Defined Social Work on Values
Family Values Defined (Review of Literature) Our Survey on Family
Values Results Discussion and Wrap-up
Slide 3
The Knee Center for Strong Families Founded in 2009 through a
bequest of Ruth Irelan and Junior Koenig Knee Ruth Knee was an
alumnus of the University of Oklahoma School of Social Work and a
pioneer in the advancement of professional social work practice and
interdisciplinary engagement in social policy development The Knee
Center was established to devote its work to building theory,
knowledge, practice, and education for the development of strong
families in their diverse forms
Slide 4
The Knee Center Mission The Knee Center for Strong Families is
dedicated to strengthening families in Oklahoma through research,
service, policy, and practice. Ruth Irelan Knee
Slide 5
Overview of the Knee Center The Knee Center is dedicated to
sponsoring academic and community-oriented programs in the fields
of social work, public health (including mental health), and fine
arts in the following three core areas: 1. Visiting lectureships,
workshops, seminars, meetings of scholars, conferences, symposia,
and forums 2. Planning grants or seed money to develop programs
that might have continuous funding from other sources 3. Underwrite
research on the planning and development of educational programs to
enhance family life in Oklahoma
Slide 6
Goals of the Knee Center Contribute new knowledge in quality of
life for Oklahoma families Foster collaboration for outreach
activities directed toward solving social problems for families
Increase current research capacity (including evaluation research)
of the centers faculty, investigators, and students through the
creation of research teams Increase the amount of externally funded
training and research grants conducted by the center by increasing
the number of investigator-initiated training and research grant
submissions; and developing multidisciplinary research teams to
conceptualize, plan, develop, and conduct service and research
initiatives
Slide 7
Features of the Knee Center 1. Collaborative civic engagement
in areas in which strong family development is an integral part of
practice, including: child welfare law family services mental
health substance abuse recovery health care/promotion 2. Curriculum
innovation supporting the preparation of a new generation of social
workers and helping professionals 3. Building awareness among key
constituencies and stakeholders of how policy can support strong
family development. 4. Development of new intervention models to
advance strong family development within Oklahoma and beyond 5.
Formation of strong partnerships with state and local organizations
and groups to advance knowledge and practice of strong family
development
Slide 8
Values Relate to what is important in our lives Abstract
Beliefs tied to emotion, not objective ideas. Everybody possesses
values Vary in degrees of importance Ordered by importance relative
to one another System of ordered values makes us who we are
-Rokeach, 1979
Slide 9
The Importance of Values Values connect individuals to society:
Help ease the conflict between individuals and collective
interests. Enable individuals to work together to realize
collectively desirable goals.
Slide 10
The Importance of Values (continued) Values: Serve as standards
or criteria in terms of actions, policies, people, and events Have
an effect on aspects of choice, decisions regarding courses of
action and outcomes, goals, attitudes, and behavior Mold our
beliefs and perceptions
Slide 11
The Conflictual Nature of Values The nature of values is often
fraught with conflict: Presumed to contain a right vs. wrong, good
vs. bad component Result in judgments of affirmation or
condemnation -Trotzer, 1981
Slide 12
Values Defined The concept of values is considered broad &
encompasses numerous definitions: Kluckholn and Stodtbeck (1961)
Values answer basic existential questions, helping to provide
meaning in peoples lives. Building Family Values (2000)-Values are
a reflection of who we are, of our culture, and of our own unique
heritage.
Slide 13
Values Defined (continued) Rokeach (1979)- Values are core
conceptions of the desirable within every individual and society.
They serve as standards or criteria to guide not only action, but
judgment, choice, attitude, exhortation, rationalization, and one
might add, attribution of causality. Rokeach (1973)-They (values)
lead us to take particular positions on social issues and they
predispose us to favor one ideology over another.
Slide 14
Shaping Family Values All families possess values Generational
transfer Vary with the diversity of families Factors shaping family
values: Age Cohort, life-stage, physical Gender Experiences and
life circumstances Social, political, and economic environment
Cultural background
Slide 15
Changing Family Values Families and family values have changed
in American culture over the years: Thornton (1989) Study examined
changing values and norms in regards to family life over a period
of 30 years. Revealed changes in norms regarding marriage,
childbearing, and the roles of men and women. Similarity between
family values and broader social trends.
Slide 16
Family Values From a Political Perspective Family Values
Rhetoric: The concept of family values is conflictual. Has
subsequently been used as controversial political ammunition. Cahn
and Carbone (2010)- Red Families v. Blue Families. Cloud
(2010)-performed an extensive analysis of the political use of the
term family values. 1992 Presidential Elections.
Slide 17
A Nation Divided: Red vs. Blue States 2008 Electoral Map =
Republican States = Democratic States
Slide 18
Families on the Front Lines Families are on the front lines of
the culture wars. Controversies over abortion, same-sex marriage,
teen pregnancy, single parenthood, and divorce have all changed our
images of the American family. Some Americans seek a return to the
mom, dad, and apple pie families of the 1950s, while others embrace
all of our families, including single mothers, gay and lesbian
parents, and cohabitating couples. These conflicting perspectives
on lifes basic choices affect us all-at the national level, in
state courts and legislatures, in drafting local ordinances, and in
our own families. -Cahn and Carbone (2010)- Red Families v. Blue
Families.
Slide 19
Social Work on Values NASW Code of Ethics : Identifies core
values on which social works mission is based. States: They (social
workers) should be aware of the any conflicts between personal and
professional values and deal with them responsibly. Should be aware
of impact on ethical practice with clients
Slide 20
Survey Study on Family Values Importance Little is known about
family values espoused by social workers and how these values might
impact their practice with families. Lack of research and
literature surround family values of social workers.
Slide 21
Survey Study on Family Values Purpose In 2011, The Knee Center
conducted an online survey of National Association of Social
Workers (NASW) Oklahoma Chapter members to obtain information about
family values and their priorities for professional practice.
Slide 22
Survey Study on Family Values Purpose Study represents an
initial look at family values of social workers Important to
examine how congruent they may be with those of the individuals and
families for whom they provide services or administer policy
practice. Focuses on one aspect of the professions core values that
addresses the importance of human relationships Purposeful efforts
to promote, restore, maintain and enhance the well-being of
families.
Slide 23
Survey on Family Values : Methods Participants and Sampling
Procedure Research Survey Design Acquired a list of current 1,243
2010-2011 NASW-OK members from the NASW-OK office Invitation to
participate in study and link to online questionnaire were e-mailed
to a total of 973 members for whom e-mail contact info was
provided. 3 separate mailings conducted 22 e-mail addresses were
nonfunctional Among the 951 members with valid e-mail addresses,
283 returned their questionnaires Response rate of 29%. Online
survey administered using the Qualtrics software
Slide 24
Survey on Family Values : Methods Survey Design and Variables
First section of survey: Queried respondents with a 44, 9-point
semantic differential scale items Examined attitudes on different
aspects of family values These items were anchored on each side
with an opposite value statement conveying opposing value
preferences.
Slide 25
Survey on Family Values : Methods Survey Design and Variables
Example: Below are statements associated with domains of family
life. Please read each pair of statements and indicate your degree
of preference for one statement over the other by clicking the
appropriate circle. Clicking a circle closer in proximity to one
statement would signify your preference for that statement.
Slide 26
Survey on Family Values : Methods Survey Design and Variables
The second section of the questionnaire gathered data on a number
of respondent characteristics: Age Gender Degree level Years of
practice Whether or not practice directly with families Practice
Setting Marital status (whether or not previously or currently
married) Whether or not have children
Slide 27
Sample Population: Ages of Respondents
Slide 28
Sample Population: Gender of Respondents
Slide 29
Sample Population: Degree Level of Respondents
Slide 30
Sample Population: Years Practiced in Profession
Slide 31
Sample Population: Respondents Providing Direct Family
Services
Slide 32
Sample Population: Practice Setting
Slide 33
Sample Population: Respondents Who Have Children
Slide 34
Sample Population: Respondents Who Are Currently Married or Who
Have Been Previously Married
Slide 35
Survey on Family Values : Methods Analyses A principal
components analysis was conducted based on the 41 family values
items. Used the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling
adequacy Assessed whether individual variables were appropriate for
inclusion in our principal components analysis Conducted several
initial principal components analyses KMO measures for each
included variable each time Systematically eliminated variables
whose KMO measures were under.50 until no such items remained
Slide 36
Survey on Family Values : Methods Analyses: Principal
Components Analysis Resulted in 6 common variables 1. Support
secular values (believe religion is not sole value source) 2.
Support flexible family forms 3. Progressive values about sexuality
4. Pro-outside of family supports 5. Pro-Gun control/Intrusion of
family 6. Support public programs A principal components analysis
with varimax rotation was conducted based using these 6 factors
Factors were named and factor scores for each respondent were
generated. One-way ANOVAs were conducted to examine relationships
between respondent characteristics and factor scores
Slide 37
Results:
Slide 38
Results: 27. Religious values should always be taught in
schools vs. Religious values should always be taught outside of
schools Number of Respondents Religious values taught in
schools----Religious values taught outside of schools Mean=6.5
Slide 39
Results: 32. The Bible (or other religious texts) is the only
adequate source for the teaching of values vs. There are many
different sectors for the teaching of values Number of Respondents
The Bible (or other religious texts) for teaching values----Many
different sectors for teaching values Mean=7.5
Slide 40
Results: 18. Lifelong cohabitation should never be allowed
outside of marriage vs. Lifelong cohabitation should be allowed
outside of marriage Number of Respondents No lifelong cohabitation
outside of marriage----Lifelong cohabitation outside of marriage
Mean=6.9
Slide 41
Results: 9. Marriage should only be allowed with strict
lifelong conditions (covenant marriage) vs. Marriage should only be
allowed without strict lifelong conditions (non-covenant marriage)
Marriage with strict lifelong conditions----Marriage without strict
lifelong conditions Number of Respondents Mean=5.1
Slide 42
Results: 17. There should be no active role of religion in
child-rearing vs. There should always be an active role of religion
in child-rearing Number of Respondents No active role of religion
in child-rearing----Active role of religion in child-rearing
Mean=6.2
Slide 43
Results:
Slide 44
Results: 19. Single parent families provide sufficient
opportunities for children vs. Single parent families do not
provide sufficient opportunities for children Number of Respondents
Single parent families provide sufficient opportunities----Single
parent families do not provide sufficient opportunities
Mean=4.1
Slide 45
Results: 25. Individuals should only have children within
wedlock vs. Individuals should be free to have children outside of
wedlock Number of Respondents Should only have children only within
wedlock----Free to have children outside of wedlock Mean=5.5
Slide 46
Results: 41. Pro-choice vs. Pro-life Number of Respondents
Pro-choice----Pro-life Mean=3.5
Slide 47
Results: Factor 3: Progressive Values About Sexuality Results
of questions that correlated with factor: Question 31: Sex
education should be allowed within schools and other venues vs. Sex
education should only be allowed in the family= + Question 33:
Family planning is preferred vs. Family planning is not preferred =
+ Question 35: No parental consent should be required for access to
birth control devices or drugs (open access) vs. Parental consent
should be required for access to birth control devices or drugs
(restricted access) = +
Slide 48
Results: 33. Family planning is preferred vs. Family planning
is not preferred Number of respondents Family planning is preferred
---- Family planning is not preferred Mean= 1.9
Slide 49
Results: 31. Sex education should be allowed within schools and
other venues vs. Sex education should be allowed only within the
family Number of Respondents Sex education within schools and other
venues ----Sex education only within the family Mean=2.2
Slide 50
Results: Factor 4: Pro-Outside of Family Supports Results of
questions that correlated with factor: Question 10: Elder care
should only occur within the family vs. Elder care may occur
outside of the family= + Question 11: The teaching of values to
children should occur only in the home vs. The teaching of values
to children may occur in venues outside of the home= + Question 23:
Women with young children should stay at home vs. Women with young
children should be free to work outside of the home= +
Slide 51
Results: 10. Elder care should only occur within the family vs.
Elder care may occur outside of the family Elder care only within
the family----Elder care may occur outside of the family Number of
Respondents Mean= 6.6
Slide 52
Results: 11. The teaching of values to children should occur
only in the home vs. The teaching of values to children may occur
in venues outside of the home The teaching of values to children
only in the home----The teaching of values to children outside of
the home Number of Respondents Mean=6.4
Slide 53
Results: Factor 5: Pro-Gun Control/Intrusion On Family Results
of questions that correlated with factor: Question 13: No corporal
punishment of children should be permitted vs. Corporal punishment
of children should be permitted = - Question 39: Gun control vs. No
gun control= - Question 44: It is acceptable to have firearms in a
household with children vs. It is not acceptable to have firearms
in a household with children = +
Slide 54
Results: 44. It is acceptable to have firearms in the household
with children vs. It is not acceptable to have firearms in the
household with children Number of Respondents Firearms in the
household with children----No firearms in the household with
children Mean=5.5
Slide 55
Results: 39. Gun control vs. No gun control Number of
Respondents Gun control----No gun control Mean=3.0
Slide 56
Results: Factor 6: Support Public Programs Results of questions
that correlated with factor: Question 20: Social services for
families should only be from private providers vs. Social services
for families should only be from public providers= + Question 30:
The family should be responsible for the long-term care of their
elderly family members vs. The government should be responsible for
the long-term care of elderly family members = +
Slide 57
Results: 20. Social services for families should only be from
private providers vs. social services should only be from public
providers Number of Respondents Social services for families from
private providers----Social services for families from public
providers Mean= 5.2
Slide 58
Results: Social Work Respondents As A Group On each of the six
items, the mean responses were closer to the value statement
conveying progressive attitudes. Overall, it is clear that the NASW
responding sample has distinctly progressive attitudes.
Slide 59
Results: Differences Among Respondents Study adapted an
exploratory approach in its analyses. Hence, ANOVAs were run using
each respondent characteristic variable as a group (independent)
variable and each factor score as a dependent. Though results
differ for the different components, a basic trend is clear: The
youngest group of respondents is often quite traditional in its
attitudes The oldest group is often quite progressive Only age
group showed consistent statistically significant associations with
factor scores: Secular values (believe religion is not sole value
source) In support of outside family support Pro-gun control
Slide 60
Results: Older Respondents vs. Younger Respondents: Pro- Choice
vs. Pro-Life Question 41: Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life
Slide 61
Results: Older Respondents Tend to Orient More Towards Secular
Values Question: 32 : The Bible (or other religious texts) is the
only source of values vs. There are many different sectors for
teaching values
Slide 62
Results : Older Respondents Tended to More Highly Prefer Elder
Care Provided Outside the Family Question 10: Elder care should
occur only within the family vs. Elder care may occur outside of
the family
Slide 63
References Building Family Strengths: Values. (2000, March).
Clemson Extension: Family Relationships. Retrieved from:
http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/psapublishing/PAGES/FYD/FL523.pdf
Cahn, N. & Carbone, J. (2010). Red Families v. Blue Families:
Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press. Cloud, D. (1998). The rhetoric of
:Scapegoating, utopia, and the privatization of social
responsibility. Western Journal of Communication, 62(4), 387-419.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. National Association of Social
Workers. (approved 1996, revised 2008). Code of Ethics of the
National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved from http://www.
naswdc.org /pubs/code/code.asp Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of
Human Values. New York, NY: The Free Press. Rokeach, M. (1979).
Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal. New York, NY:
The Free Press. Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Basic human values: Theory,
measurement, and applications. Revue franaise de sociologie.
Thornton, A. (1989). Changing Attitudes toward Family Issues in the
United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51(4), 873-893.
Retrieved from http://www. jstor.org/stable/ 353202 Trotzer, J.P.
(1981). The Centrality of Values in Families and Family Therapy.
International Journal of Family Therapy, 3(1), 42-55.
doi:0148-8384/81/1300-0042$00.95
