Abstract
This purpose of this study is to explore the gender dynamics in recruitment of social workers to run for public office. It was hypothesized that since most social workers—and social workers elected to public office—are women, that most social workers recruited to run for office would be women as well. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that recruitment would increase political ambition among men and women in social work, with a greater impact on women. Regarding research methods, the study utilized a sample (N = 2,316) consisting of randomly selected licensed social workers in 24 states and the District of Columbia. Data came from the National Study of the Political Participation of Licensed Social Workers (NSPPLSW). Chi-square tests were conducted, and logistic regressions were created using predictor variables measured with Likert scales. Cox–Snell pseudo-R2 was calculated as a goodness-of-fit measure. Results indicated that, despite being vastly outnumbered, men in social work are significantly more likely to experience political recruitment than women. This was true across all practice areas except community organizing. Additionally, contrary to hypotheses, recruitment was found to bolster political ambition equally in men and women in social work. Concluding remarks recommend increasing the effort among gatekeepers in political social work to recruit more women to run for office.
Notes
The states that provided social work licensing information were: Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
References
Anzia, S. F., & Berry, C. R. (2011). The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson effect: Why do Congresswomen outperform Congressmen? American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 478–493.
Barnello, M. A., & Bratton, K. (2007). Bridging the gap in bill sponsorship. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(3), 449–474. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298007781699645
Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). (2022). Women in U.S. Congress 2022.
Center for American Women and Politics. Retrieved July 15, 2022, from https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/levels-office/congress/women-us-congress-2022
Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2004). Entering the arena? Gender and the decision to run for office. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.0092-5853.2004.00069.X
Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2010). If only they’d ask: Gender, recruitment, and political ambition. Journal of Politics, 72(2), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990752
Fulton, S. A., Maestas, C. D., Maisel, L. S., & Stone, W. J. (2006). The sense of a woman: Gender, ambition, and the decision to run for Congress. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900206
Lane & Humphreys. (2011). Social Workers in Politics: A National Survey of Social Work Candidates and Elected Officials, Journal of Policy Practice.
Lane & Humphreys. (2015). Gender and social workers’ political activity. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 30(2), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109914541115
Meehan, P. (2018). “I think I can … maybe I can … I can’t”: Social work women and local elected office. Social Work, 63(2), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swy006
National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (n.d.). Social Workers in Congress. National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved July 15, 2022, from https://www.socialworkers.org/Advocacy/Political-Action-for-Candidate-Election-PACE/Social-Workers-in-Congress
National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
Ostrander, J., Kindler, T., & Bryan, J. (2020). Using the civic voluntarism model to compare the political participation of the US and Swiss social workers. Journal of Policy Practice and Research, 2, 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42972-020-00020-z
Pease, B. (2011). Men in social work: Challenging or reproducing an unequal gender regime? Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 26(4), 406–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109911428207
Poggione, S. (2004). Exploring gender differences in state legislators’ policy preferences. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290405700211
Salsberg, E., Quigley, L., Mehfoud, N., Acquaviva, K., Wyche, K., & Sliwa, S. (2017, October). Profile of the social work workforce. https://www.cswe.org/Centers-Initiatives/Initiatives/National-Workforce-Initiative/SW-Workforce-Book-FINAL-11-08-2017.aspx#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20licensed%20social,in%20the%20range%20of%20350%2C000.&text=Social%20workers%20are%20predominantly%20female,graduates%20in%202015%20were%20female.
Thomsen, D. M., & Sanders, B. (2019). Gender differences in legislator responsiveness. Perspectives on Politics, 18, 1017–1030.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
Volden, C., Weisman, A., & Wittmer, D. (2010). The legislative effectiveness of women in congress. Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Vanderbilt University. https://www.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/research/files/CSDI-WP-04-2010.pdf
Whitaker, T., Weismiller, T., & Clark, E. J. (2006). Assuring the sufficiency of a frontline workforce: A national study of licensed social workers. National Association of Social Workers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ostrander, J., Berkowitz, A., Meehan, P. et al. Gender Dynamics and The Political Recruitment of Social Workers. J of Pol Practice & Research 4, 41–56 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42972-022-00066-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42972-022-00066-1