Corps de l’article

Social work journals are a curated reflection and repository of contemporary issues, and thus provide a meaningful—though not necessarily comprehensive—indication of social work agendas. Marie-Christine Bois and Jeanette Schmid explored the social work discourses represented in the Canadian Social Work Review (CSWR) as the only formal bilingual (French–English) peer-reviewed social work journal in the country and the only journal prioritizing Canadian social work in particular. The journal was launched in 1974. As of 1982, when the journal adopted its current title, it aimed to publish articles relevant to “Canadian social work theory, practice, policy, administration and education” (Canadian Journal of Social Work Education, 1982, p. 3).

In 2020, we reviewed the decade 2010–2019 (inclusive) to draw out implications regarding the journal’s scope and influence, and in particular, to identify the extent to which the journal articles represent a Canadian social work character. Only the articles selected for publication were analyzed. We utilized a critical social work lens (Fook, 2016)[2], along with a social constructivist perspective, to pay attention to the voices in the journal and draw out essential themes regarding social work priorities.

Marie-Christine is the managing editor of the CSWR and Jeanette, a member of the editorial board. We thus do not claim objectivity but did embark on this project as a means of assessing where the journal stands. We brought different perspectives to that research task, with each of us being at home in different linguistic and cultural contexts. We hope that our contrasting positionalities allowed for complementarity and further investigation of issues.

In approaching the research task, we explored the literature, establishing that various regional constructs of social work have been articulated, particularly in recent years. These have occurred mostly as a means of resisting dominant Anglophone, Western, and Eurocentric social work. This body of knowledge identifies underlying assumptions and practice approaches for particular localities. Examples include work by Anderson (2015), Bennett et al. (2013), Furuto (2017), Patel (2018), Ravulo et al. (2019), Spitzer et al. (2014), Yadav (2019), and Yip (2013). There does not appear to be a specific conceptualization of what constitutes Canadian social work, though it seems that the dominant social work here often adopts Eurocentric, Anglophone assumptions. These assumptions are illustrated in the various social work codes of ethics and the Canadian Association of Social Workers’ 2020 Scope of Practice Statement, which, although now acknowledging social justice and Indigenous perspectives, still privileges an individualized and competency-based perspective. Various frameworks identified as more pertinent to Canadian realities have been offered. Examples include structural social work (Mullaly, 2006), critical social work (Fook, 2016), green social work (Dominelli, 2018), and anti-oppressive practice (Dumbrill & Yee, 2019; Parada & Wehbi, 2017). Significant efforts in theorizing and advancing Indigenous social work are also being made (Baskin, 2016; McCauley & Matheson, 2018; Sinclair, 2004).

In addition to considering regional conceptualizations of social work, we also explored previous discourse analysis of social work journals. Such retrospectives are limited, though evident in recent work by Molgat and Trahan-Perreault (2015), regarding Canadian Francophone minority contexts, and Yu (2018), regarding Australia’s Stolen Generations.

Employing content analysis, we aimed to identify the various constructions of Canadian social work represented in the journal over the last decade. We reviewed 163 articles, which we coded and organized into categories and themes.

We identified that there were somewhat more English articles than French ones, though toward the end of the time period reviewed, we found parity regarding the number of articles appearing in these languages. The vast majority of these items discuss social work in Canada specifically. It was also evident that almost a third of the articles zeroed in on Ontario. French articles tended to be specific to the lived realities of Francophones and were concentrated in Quebec. Although such distribution coincides with the location of social work institutions, other parts of the country appear underrepresented, some areas having no representation. We did note that at least 75% of Canadian institutions that host social work programs were represented, sometimes through collaborative research endeavours. Indeed, amongst French publications, the larger institutions dominated, particularly Université Laval. Perhaps the occluded universities represent smaller institutions or those with primarily undergraduate programs.

Another theme that emerged related to the conceptual lenses adopted. Where none were stated, we attempted to make inferences. Most common overall were postmodern lenses of critical enquiry that included anti-oppressive or social justice discourse, feminist approaches, critiques of neoliberalism, and discussions of green social work. However, French articles focused more on the construction of lived realities, with critical discourses and issues of power being addressed in a less direct way, perhaps a reflection of cultural differences within the profession. The conceptual lenses were generally complemented by the research methodologies used. Sometimes methodologies were used in combination. Qualitative inquiry appeared to dominate, though some did rely on mixed methods or quantitative methodologies.

We also explored the particular issues that were discussed in the articles. Practice-related themes were most often discussed, as were the needs of specific groups. These topics ranged widely, without a particular coalescing focus. Aspects of social work education, particularly field education, were taken up by some authors. Issues of neoliberalism and social justice issues, especially in relation to policy, were explored. The successful themed publications and fora topics, which reflect the board’s priorities, focused attention on Indigenous social work; feminism in social work; human rights, neoliberalism, new activism, competencies, and gender and sexual identity; and spirituality, social work, and social justice respectively. Some calls did not attract sufficient articles to result in themed issues.

In drawing meaning from the findings, we were aware that Canadian social work academics submit articles for international publication and also may publish in other social work or interdisciplinary Canadian journals. Our findings thus do not represent Canadian social work as a whole but do offer an indication of what local academics feel belongs in a country-wide journal.

The emerging trends imply that, although the journal is Canada-focused, rather than broadly reflecting Canadian realities and contexts, there is regional dominance both in authorship and issues explored. This is partly an unintended consequence of the increased voice of Francophone social workers, who bring to the journal their own traditions and culture of social work. At least a quarter of Canadian social work programs have not been represented in the journal over the last decade, and the editorial board might consider ways of encouraging broader participation. Invitations to special calls, as well as fora, have shaped the journal content, without which issues of oppression and representation—particularly regarding Indigenous, racialized, and gendered groups—may have been largely overlooked. A qualitative, postmodern lens characterizes most published articles. However, mechanisms for further strengthening a critically interrogative lens may be required.

We conclude that the journal, whilst leaning towards a critical representation of social work, also reflects mainstream, dominant views of Canadian social work, and thus speaks to the ongoing, contested nature of Canadian social work. The board may thus wish to consider strategies for enhancing the critical content of the journal, incorporating racialized, Indigenous and other marginalized voices and enhancing cross-country regional and institutional representation. It may be worth also considering how Indigenous languages might find their place in this Canadian journal, such as through the translation of journal’s abstracts, which is currently being explored by the editorial board.

The focus of this special theme issue represents the board’s desire for the journal to reflect a critical voice that challenges mainstream social work, acknowledges the diversity of lived experience, and platforms knowledges that may have typically been silenced. Given such review can provide a picture of the current landscape of social work, we encourage future editorial boards to engage again in exploring the content and direction of the journal. Perhaps this can become a new tradition, with reviews every decade, offering a reflection on the evolution of the profession.