The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
Volume 43
Issue 4
December
Article 8
2016
How are Social Problems Viewed and Analyzed in Social Work How are Social Problems Viewed and Analyzed in Social Work
Policy Textbooks? Policy Textbooks?
Marietta A. Barretti
Long Island University - C W Post Campus
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw
Part of the Social Work Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Barretti, Marietta A. (2016) "How are Social Problems Viewed and Analyzed in Social Work Policy
Textbooks?,"
The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
: Vol. 43: Iss. 4, Article 8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15453/0191-5096.4048
Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol43/iss4/8
This Article is brought to you by the Western Michigan
University School of Social Work. For more information,
please contact [email protected].
How are Social Problems Viewed and Analyzed
in Social Work Policy Textbooks?
Marietta A. Barretti
Long Island University Post
This article reviews seven of the most frequently used policy text-
books in social work and examines how social problems are viewed
in the narrative, and then analyzed in policy analysis frameworks.
Questions include: (1) how the authors define social problems; (2)
who they say "gets" to define problems in policy analysis; (3) how
problems should be analyzed; and (4) whether contextual influences
on the problem are considered. Findings include that most authors
argue that social problems are constructions in their narratives,
but do not transfer that perspective into their policy analysis frame-
works. Implications for education and policy practice are explored.
Key words: Social problems, social policy analysis, social work
policy textbooks, social constructionism
Policy analysis is a required competency of students in the
social work curriculum (Council on Social Work Education,
2015, p. 8), and social policy textbooks widely accommo-
date students by offering various frameworks and analytical
tools to conduct policy analysis (Weiss, Gal, & Katan, 2005).
However, the term "policy analysis" tends to be "used in vague
and inconsistent ways" (Popple & Leigninger, 2015, p. 36), and
may refer to any one or a combination of: (1) a process, or the
sociopolitical dynamics of policy formulation; (2) a product, or
the policy and its contents that results from the policy process;
and/or (3) performance, the evaluation of the outcomes of an
implemented policy (Gilbert & Terell, 2005). Since the unit of
analysis may be any one or more of the three above, authors
prescribe varying approaches, each serving a different purpose
(Popple & Leigninger, 2015).
Pal (2006) states that "there is universal agreement that
Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, December 2016, Volume XLIII, Number 4
135
the key factor [in policy analysis] is the problem or at least the
definition of a situation considered problematic" (p. 97). Policy
authors generally agree that "effective social policy is built on
the cornerstone of careful problem definition" (Chapin, 1995,
p. 506) and that a "definition of the problem is at the heart
of the policy, the key to understanding its logic" (Popple &
Leigninger, 2015, p. 79). Though social problems are consid-
ered critical antecedents to policy, in policy analysis, they
are typically not viewed or analyzed in the same manner as
the policies themselves. While contextual influences such as
power, ideology and special interests may be central to dis-
cussions on how policies are formulated (e.g., Dye, 2012;
Kingdon, 2011), they are usually not considered central to how
problems are formulated. In analytical frameworks, a number
of discrete, basic questions tend to guide problem analysis
(e.g., Cummins, Beyers, & Pedrick, 2011, pp. 222-226; DiNitto
& Johnson, 2012, pp. 28-29), while questions investigating the
policy lean toward nuance and critique. Some policy authors
may include little to no discussion of the problem's place at all
in policy analysis (e.g., Caputo, 2014; Gilbert & Terrell, 2005).
Additionally, while policy making is recognized as messy and
pluralistic (Chapin, 2014), taking place in an arena of compet-
ing interests (Segal, 2013), problem construction is not equally
presented as contentious and discursive.
The purpose of this study is to analyze a sample of the
most frequently adopted social work policy textbooks with
regard to how social problems are viewed in the narrative of
the textbook and in the policy analysis frameworks the author
offers. Textbooks were selected as the source of analysis in this
study because they provide theories and frameworks gener-
ally regarded by students as authoritative sources of expert
knowledge (Tompkins, Rosen, & Larkin, 2006), and convey
explicit and implicit ideological content (Ephross & Reisch,
1982). Since educators frequently use them as a foundation for
determining critical content areas in course planning (Kramer,
Hovland-Scarfe, & Pacourek, 2003), an analysis of how prob-
lems are viewed in policy textbooks could yield valuable in-
formation about how social work educators (and by extension,
the profession) are preparing students for policy analysis, and
what the implications are for clients and policy practice. To
date, the author could not locate any studies assessing how
136 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
problems are viewed in social work policy texts.
Competing Perspectives on Social Problems
The problem definition phase of policy analysis is de-
scribed as complex and often daunting (e.g., Popple &
Leighninger, 2015, p. 79). Ginsburg and Miller-Cribbs (2005,
pp. 56-57) present two sociological definitions of social prob-
lems to guide policy analysis. The first, from Maris (1988, p. 6),
asserts that:
social problems can be defined as general patterns of
human behavior or social conditions that are perceived
to be threats to society by significant numbers of
the population, powerful groups, or charismatic
individuals and that could be resolved or remedied.
The second, from Barker (2003), sees social problems as
"conditions between people leading to social responses that
violate some people's values and norms and cause emotional
or economic suffering" (p. 405). Earlier in time, Mills (1959)
made the distinction between private troubles and public
issues; the latter become social problems when they affect
large numbers of people and "when society as represented
by government, sees the troubles as a threat…" (Ginsburg &
Miller-Cribbs, 2005, p. 57). The definitions presented above
fit the primary, predominant view of social problems, called
the objectivist view (also referred to as the rationalist or struc-
tural functionalist view). In the pursuit of a scientific analy-
sis, sociologists treated social problems as consisting of a
number of objective, measurable characteristics, such as how
many people the problem affects, the degree of severity, a ty-
pology of the problem, and an explanation for how and why
the problem occurs (Blumer, 1971). Objectivism assumes that
definitions of problems remain relatively stable over time, and
frameworks based on this view largely fail to account for the
plastic, politically-charged context within which they emerge
and are deemed worthy of attention (Best, 1995).
Alternately, social constructionism espouses a subjec-
tive view of reality (Clarke, 2001), relegating a central, critical
role to the process of constructing, producing and circulating
meanings. It assumes that reality and its dimensions cannot be
Social Problems in Policy Textbooks
137
understood directly without first being assigned meaning. That
meaning is assigned by someone or some influential group
who relegates phenomena or experience to a specific place in
the social order and determines its level of importance. This
perspective argues that social problems are not conditions or
products, but instead interpretive and dynamic processes (Best,
1995; Spector & Kituse, 1977). Defined as "the activities of indi-
viduals or groups making assertions of grievances and claims
with respect to some putative conditions" (Spector & Kituse,
2001, p. 75), social problems cannot exist apart from their con-
structions (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). The social construction-
ist perspective starts by asking how and why some conditions
come to be defined as social problems and others do not, and
why a particular problem emerges or reemerges at a particu-
lar point in time. While social constructionists do not deny the
existence of objectionable conditions, they are more concerned
with how those conditions are represented by certain individ-
uals or groups, known as claimsmakers, through their claims.
Constructionists aver that any attempt to deal with problems,
especially in discourse, imposes an interpretation upon them,
which includes value judgments, assumptions and causal ex-
planations (Bacchi, 2007). The political interchange that histor-
ically occurs between competing claimsmakers both reflects
and shapes social order (Clarke, 2001).
According to this view, problems and policies could never
be considered value-neutral; they are socially constructed ac-
cording to the interests and ideology of those most influential
in making claims at the time. Similarly,they are never objective
and static; history instructs that what is collectively consid-
ered a social problem and what should be done about it shifts
over time depending on a confluence of cultural, political and
economic forces (Blumer, 1971). Becker (1963) fleshed out the
temporal nature of problem definition in his assertion that de-
viance is a social construction. He argued that behavior that is
viewed or classified as deviant is context-specific and varies
during different historical periods and across different societ-
ies. Indeed, a number of articles analyzing problems from a
social constructionist perspective often include "the medical-
ization of deviance" (Conrad & Schneider, 1980). These articles
focus on the process whereby certain behaviors, often previ-
ously considered immoral or criminal, become defined as a
138 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
disease, codified and treated by the medical establishment.
Social Constructionism and Social Work
Some social work scholars have critiqued the rational,
functionalist framework and its implications for social work
knowledge, practice and policy. O'Connor and Netting (2008)
argue that rational, functionalist frameworks are based on
the faulty assumption that the world is orderly, that it can be
broken down into discrete variables, and that it can be known
and controlled through utilizing the scientific method. Weick
(1993), East (1998), and McPhee and Bronstein (2002) criticize
social work's alignment with a positivist model of knowing
which subsumes an elitist value system where the social
worker as expert is deemed the legitimate authority to deter-
mine the diagnosis and treatment of clients' problems, while
clients are subjugated as recipients of services and marginal-
ized from the process.
In the same vein, the tenets of social constructionism have
been recognized and applauded by some in social work. Danto
(2008), Laird (1993), and Weick (1993) argued for a social con-
structionist perspective in social work education. Sahin (2006)
argued social constructionism's consonance with the values
and mission of the social work profession, and Chapin (2014)
and Weick (1992) emphasized social constructionism's com-
patibility with the strengths perspective. Dybicz (2011) de-
fended social constructionism as a guiding framework when
using consciousness-raising to construct alternate, less op-
pressive identities and realities for clients. Dean (1993), in her
constructivist endorsement of clinical practice, recommends
substituting the term "collaborative inquiry" for assessment.
McVinney (2004) asserts that just as social constructionism
is critical for analyzing "historical attempts to objectify indi-
viduals … through language and narratives" (p. 6), so is de-
construction necessary for analyzing seemingly objective and
absolute truths that are inherent in the language and labeling
of those affected by social problems. Deconstruction has also
been applied to critiquing the language used in social policy,
and exposing implicit constructions of power, hierarchy and
marginalization therein (Danto, 2008). Feminist policy ana-
lysts also emphasize the importance of deconstruction in the
Social Problems in Policy Textbooks
139
140 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
analysis of discourse in shaping issues, how language is used
to shape and hide (gendered) assumptions about a problem,
how "women's problems" such as inequality, pay equity, child
care, domestic violence, and sexual harassment are currently
and historically represented in policy proposals, and most im-
portantly, the consideration of alternate representations of the
problem for future policy (Bacchi, 2007; McPhail, 2003).
Social Work Policy Authors and Social Problems
The results of a cursory examination of randomly select-
ed policy texts informed the question that titles this inquiry.
They indicated that some authors affirm the subjective nature
of social problems in their narratives, while prescribing the
use of objectivist criteria to analyze problems in policies. For
example, Jansson (2008) noted that social problems were "slip-
pery concepts" (p. 248), or ambiguous constructs that assumed
meaning at certain periods of time and not others depend-
ing on whether an intervention or solution was available to
address it. Rather than transferring this perspective into his
six-step policy analysis framework (p. 216), he instead recom-
mends reliance on the expert literature to define and describe
social problems. This entails asking a series of objective ques-
tions about: (1) the types of factors leading to the problem;
(2) the current remedies or solutions that exist to address
the problem; (3) the extent, origin, and adequacy of expendi-
tures on the problem; and (4) the negative implications of the
problem for specific persons or populations.
In an allusion to social constructionism, Cummins, Byers,
and Pedrick (2011) assert that "(s)ocial problems evolve over
time, necessitating an ongoing evolution of policy responses"
(p. 224), and "(t)he differences in the causes of social problems
in different historical eras demand different policy responses"
(p. 224). However, the authors propose a number of objectiv-
ist criteria for analyzing social problems, including the nature
of the problem, when it emerged, what it looks like, signs
and symptoms, who it affects, levels of severity, antecedent
events, consequences of the antecedent events, and whether
or not they both vary by target population (p. 224). Similarly,
Chambers and Wedel (2005) assert that how problems are
perceived and explained is highly variable depending on the
viewer. "To understand a social problem is to understand
how and what another person [or group] thinks and believes
about the social events being defined as a problem" (p. 8). The
authors' four dimensions for social problem analysis are com-
patible with a constructionist view. However, when applying
these dimensions to their policy analysis of selected features
of federal child welfare legislation (pp. 215-237), they recom-
mend deferring to the "expert" literature: government docu-
ments; research reports; the professional journal literature;
and legislative briefs to determine the social problem context.
For the social problem definition, they recommend selecting
from the literature and using national data to determine the
problem's scope.
Thus, though many policy authors in social work may
concede that social problems: are constructions or inventions
(e.g., Chapin, 2014, p. 122; Jansson, 2008); that "many factors
come into play before a social problem is recognized as a social
problem" (Cummins et al., 2011, p. 222); that public percep-
tions and beliefs about problems are more influential than ob-
jective reality (Barusch, 2015); "that social welfare policies are
hypothetical solutions to perceived social problems" (Popple
& Leighninger, 2015, p. 79), and that "political ideology and
special interests, the mass media, and public opinion all play
roles in problem identification" (DiNitto & Johnson, 2012, p.
13), tensions often exist between these assertions and how
authors direct students to view social problems in policy anal-
ysis frameworks.
Content Analysis of Social Work Textbooks:
A Brief Review of the Literature
The author was able to locate only a limited number of
content analyses of social work textbooks. Of these, content
analyses have been conducted in introductory social work
texts (e.g., Giesler, 2015; Strier, Feldman, & Shdaimah, 2012;
Wachholz & Mullaly, 2000) and foundation social work texts
(e.g., Kramer et al., 2003; Tompkins et al., 2006). A compos-
ite review of social work research textbooks (Patterson, 2010);
and one on content in school social work textbooks (Stone &
Gambrill, 2007) were also located. Some content analyses were
conducted in Human Behavior and the Social Environment
Social Problems in Policy Textbooks
141
(HBSE) textbooks (e.g., Lee & Hernandez, 2009; Reid-
Cunningham & Fleming, 2009) including an in-depth typology
and content analysis of 14 HBSE texts characterizing general
content, general and specific social environment content, and
the extent of focus on social justice and social problems (Taylor,
Mulroy, & Austin, 2004). Only one content analysis of social
work policy textbooks was located, and this analysis was an-
cillary to the primary analysis of HBSE textbooks (Lehning,
Vu, & Pintak, 2007). This study analyzed poverty content in
14 frequently assigned HBSE textbooks and the five most fre-
quently updated editions of social welfare policy textbooks.
No additional content analyses utilizing social work policy
texts and/or the policy analysis frameworks within them were
located by the author.
Methodology
The Faculty Center Network [FCN] was utilized to draw
the sample of most frequently utilized social work policy text-
books in the country for this study. The FCN's rankings are
based on demand for a textbook [or largest quantity textbook
orders] as collected by the MBS Textbook Exchange, Inc. from
roughly 3600 bookstores across the country and in Canada. On
a rating system of 0-5, [with 5 being the highest], the author
chose all textbooks with a rating of 4 and above for this sample.
A ranking of 4 signifies that texts chosen for this sample fell
in the 95.5-98.7 percentile in terms of demand. The percentile
demand is determined by dividing each textbook order in a
subject category by the largest order (Faculty Center Network,
2015).
The author conducted 2 searches of the FCN's title list-
ings during the summer of 2015. Both searches utilized the
general index of Social Work and Social Welfare. The first
search utilized the sub-category of Welfare, within which 10
sources emerged with a ranking of 4 or 5. The second search
utilized the sub-category of Social Work Policy/Guidelines
and yielded 7 sources, four of which overlapped with sources
from the first search. Thus, a total of 13 texts with a ranking of
4 or 5 were found. Six of these texts were eliminated, as they
did not meet the inclusion criteria (see below), resulting in a
total sample of 7 texts.
142 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
The inclusion and exclusion criteria for a textbook's admis-
sion to the sample required that: (1) the textbook must be a
social policy textbook, assumedly used in undergraduate or
graduate social work policy courses, the title of which includes
two or more of the following words: Social+Welfare+Policy;
(2) the text had to include a section or chapter on policy anal-
ysis; (3) direct practice texts, policy statements, specialized
policy texts in child welfare or poverty, and/or texts with a
primary focus of social welfare history were inadmissible; (4)
texts that combined an introduction to social work and social
welfare were also ineligible, as these were assumedly intro-
ductory social work texts. The exact edition of the text as listed
on the FCN website was utilized for this study, even if a more
recent edition was currently available.
The units of analysis for this study were: (1) the narrative
in each text regarding how problems are viewed; and (2) how
the problem was analyzed in the policy analysis framework in
the text. In all but two of the seven texts (Barusch, 2015; Blau &
Abramovitz, 2014), the framework was a page or more of bul-
leted or numbered questions placed in subcategories that were
usually offset from the rest of the chapter in a separate box or
encapsulation. The questions below were directed toward the
content in the framework, but sometimes clarification or elab-
oration of the content was sought and garnered from the text
outside of the framework. This was especially true in the two
cases mentioned above (Barusch, 2015; Blau &Abramovitz,
2014), where there was no encapsulated framework.
The author first investigated the major differences between
and critiques of objectivist and social constructionist perspec-
tives on social problems from the sociological literature (e.g.,
Best, 1995; Blumer, 1971; Spector & Kituse, 1987) and placed
them in a table side-by-side. The literature presented three
major distinctions between the paradigms, which the author
posed into questions 2-4. The author searched the frameworks
for information that responded to the questions and relied on
the manifest language used by the author in the framework or
in the attending narrative to answer the questions:
• Question 1: What is the author's definition of a social
problem in the narrative of the text? (Objectivists define
problems as objective conditions that remain fixed and
Social Problems in Policy Textbooks
143
144 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
Table 1: The problem in policy narrative and policy analysis
Q1. What is the author's definition of a
social problem in the narrative of the text?
Q2: Who should define the
problem when analyzing
policies?
Q3: What questions/ criteria does
the problem analysis include?
Q4: Are contextual influences
considered in the problem
analysis?
Barusch (2015)
No declarative definition of social problems
could be located, however, examples are
provided. Includes two approaches to un-
derstanding problems in a policy context:
(de Swaan, 1988) and Chambers (2000). De
Swaan (1988) identifies "3 conditions that
facilitate collective solutions to personal ad-
versity" including that the "external effects"
of a problem must be recognized by some
"other" (p. 93).
Invoking Chambers (2000),
author advises student to begin
defining a problem by describing
the affected population, and then
demographic features and his-
toric trends. Author then advises
student to "identify ideology and
values embedded in popular
definitions of social problems"
(p. 94).
Invoking Chambers (2000),
problem analysis includes: 1)
problem definition; 2) causal
analysis; 3) identification of ideol-
ogy and values; 4) consideration of
winners and losers (p. 94).
In Chambers' (2000) model
as presented, ideology and
values appear to be the only
contextual forces affecting
problem analysis.
Blau & Abramovitz (2014)
"Social problems are public 'needs' that
are identified, defined, and then explained
through the use of a theory. Who defines
these needs—elites or mass popular pres-
sure—and how the theory explains them
usually point the way toward the range of
possible solutions" (p. 17).
Student is advised to consider
how problems are constructed,
by answering 4 distinct ques-
tions about social problems
utilizing a social constructionist
perspective. Three elements are
involved in constructing a social
problem: choosing it; framing
it; and offering an explanatory
theory (p. 5).
Four key questions include:
1) "how do social problems
get constructed; 2) who gets to
construct them; 3) how does the
construction of a social problem
help to create a social policy that
shapes what social workers do; 4)
how do social policies change over
time" (p. 5)?
Somewhat. The problem
context shaping the policy is
woven into chapter subsec-
tions [social change triggers
and context] in Chapters 8-12
which cover income support,
jobs and job training, housing,
health care, and food and
hunger.
The chapter on Ideological
Perspectives and Conflicts
discusses how ideology
shapes "the definition of
need" (p. 147).
Chapin (2014)
Invokes Chambers and Wedel's definition
(2009), "social problems are concerns about
the quality of life for large groups of people
that are either held as a broad consensus
among a population and/ or voiced by
social and economic elites" (p. 2).
"The social problems that typically guide
policy and program development are
socially constructed" (p. 173).
Author advises [student] to view
problem as "policy makers and
the public understood (it) at the
time the policy was made" (p.
169).
In policy analysis framework,
examination includes:
--how the problem or need was
defined and documented.
--how values and self-interest
shaped the definition and
documentation.
--which causal theories have been
developed based on the defini-
tions of social problems and what
consequences are ascribed to the
problem so defined (pp. 175, 203).
Yes. Policy analysis frame-
work (p. 203) includes ques-
tions regarding the historical
approach to the problem and
consideration of its cultural,
political and economic con-
texts, the key players, and
how the definitions of the
problem/need changed over
time.
DiNitto & Johnson, (2012)
No declarative definition of social problems
could be located. Authors offer a critique
of the rational approach, stating that "prob-
lems cannot be defined because people do
not agree on what the problems are…" (p.
7).
Advises that policy analysts
should not impose own defini-
tions of the problem, yet "the
task of crafting some kind
of workable definition falls
to policy analysts…" (p.28).
Analysts may use different
definitions or measures of the
problem to consider varying
effects of a policy proposal, and
these definitions are open to
debate.
Two problem analysis questions
are contained in authors' "rational
model of policy analysis" 1) "how
is the problem defined; 2) what is
the nature or cause of the problem"
(pp. 28-29).
Acknowledges that "(p)
olitical ideology and special
interests, the mass media, and
public opinion all play roles
in problem identification"
(p. 13).
One question in the analysis;
"What is the nature or cause
of the problem?" includes
consideration of the "social,
economic, political, envi-
ronmental, health or other
conditions that spawned the
problem" (p. 29).
145
Table 1: The problem in policy narrative and policy analysis
Q1. What is the author's definition of a
social problem in the narrative of the text?
Q2: Who should define the
problem when analyzing
policies?
Q3: What questions/ criteria does
the problem analysis include?
Q4: Are contextual influences
considered in the problem
analysis?
Barusch (2015)
No declarative definition of social problems
could be located, however, examples are
provided. Includes two approaches to un-
derstanding problems in a policy context:
(de Swaan, 1988) and Chambers (2000). De
Swaan (1988) identifies "3 conditions that
facilitate collective solutions to personal ad-
versity" including that the "external effects"
of a problem must be recognized by some
"other" (p. 93).
Invoking Chambers (2000),
author advises student to begin
defining a problem by describing
the affected population, and then
demographic features and his-
toric trends. Author then advises
student to "identify ideology and
values embedded in popular
definitions of social problems"
(p. 94).
Invoking Chambers (2000),
problem analysis includes: 1)
problem definition; 2) causal
analysis; 3) identification of ideol-
ogy and values; 4) consideration of
winners and losers (p. 94).
In Chambers' (2000) model
as presented, ideology and
values appear to be the only
contextual forces affecting
problem analysis.
Blau & Abramovitz (2014)
"Social problems are public 'needs' that
are identified, defined, and then explained
through the use of a theory. Who defines
these needs—elites or mass popular pres-
sure—and how the theory explains them
usually point the way toward the range of
possible solutions" (p. 17).
Student is advised to consider
how problems are constructed,
by answering 4 distinct ques-
tions about social problems
utilizing a social constructionist
perspective. Three elements are
involved in constructing a social
problem: choosing it; framing
it; and offering an explanatory
theory (p. 5).
Four key questions include:
1) "how do social problems
get constructed; 2) who gets to
construct them; 3) how does the
construction of a social problem
help to create a social policy that
shapes what social workers do; 4)
how do social policies change over
time" (p. 5)?
Somewhat. The problem
context shaping the policy is
woven into chapter subsec-
tions [social change triggers
and context] in Chapters 8-12
which cover income support,
jobs and job training, housing,
health care, and food and
hunger.
The chapter on Ideological
Perspectives and Conflicts
discusses how ideology
shapes "the definition of
need" (p. 147).
Chapin (2014)
Invokes Chambers and Wedel's definition
(2009), "social problems are concerns about
the quality of life for large groups of people
that are either held as a broad consensus
among a population and/ or voiced by
social and economic elites" (p. 2).
"The social problems that typically guide
policy and program development are
socially constructed" (p. 173).
Author advises [student] to view
problem as "policy makers and
the public understood (it) at the
time the policy was made" (p.
169).
In policy analysis framework,
examination includes:
--how the problem or need was
defined and documented.
--how values and self-interest
shaped the definition and
documentation.
--which causal theories have been
developed based on the defini-
tions of social problems and what
consequences are ascribed to the
problem so defined (pp. 175, 203).
Yes. Policy analysis frame-
work (p. 203) includes ques-
tions regarding the historical
approach to the problem and
consideration of its cultural,
political and economic con-
texts, the key players, and
how the definitions of the
problem/need changed over
time.
DiNitto & Johnson, (2012)
No declarative definition of social problems
could be located. Authors offer a critique
of the rational approach, stating that "prob-
lems cannot be defined because people do
not agree on what the problems are…" (p.
7).
Advises that policy analysts
should not impose own defini-
tions of the problem, yet "the
task of crafting some kind
of workable definition falls
to policy analysts…" (p.28).
Analysts may use different
definitions or measures of the
problem to consider varying
effects of a policy proposal, and
these definitions are open to
debate.
Two problem analysis questions
are contained in authors' "rational
model of policy analysis" 1) "how
is the problem defined; 2) what is
the nature or cause of the problem"
(pp. 28-29).
Acknowledges that "(p)
olitical ideology and special
interests, the mass media, and
public opinion all play roles
in problem identification"
(p. 13).
One question in the analysis;
"What is the nature or cause
of the problem?" includes
consideration of the "social,
economic, political, envi-
ronmental, health or other
conditions that spawned the
problem" (p. 29).
Social Problems in Policy Textbooks
146 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
Table 1: The problem in policy narrative and policy analysis, continued from previous page
Q1. What is the author's definition of
a social problem in the narrative of the
text?
Q2: Who should define the
problem when analyzing
policies?
Q3: What questions/ criteria does
the problem analysis include?
Q4: Are contextual influences consid-
ered in the problem analysis?
Karger & Stoesz (2014)
No declarative definition of social prob-
lems could be located. "The relationship
between social problems and social
welfare policy is not linear, and not all
social problems result in social welfare
policies" (p. 5).
Guided by historical informa-
tion, the student-analyst defines
the problem, and is advised
to "acknowledge own values,
while at the same time basing
the analysis on objective criteria"
(p. 28). "The analyst must be
familiar with the nature, scope
and magnitude of the problem
and with the affected popula-
tions" (p. 30).
Policy analysis model begins
with three historical questions
relating to the problem: 1) What
historical problems led to the
creation of the policy; 2) How
important have these problems
been historically; 3) How was
the problem previously handled"
(p. 29). The problem description
section includes: 1) "What is the
nature of the problem; 2) How
widespread is it; 3) How many
people are affected by it; 4) Who
is affected and how; 5) What
are the causes of the problem"
(p. 29)?
Somewhat. Policy analysis model
begins with three historical ques-
tions relating to the problem: 1) What
historical problems led to the creation
of the policy; 2) How important have
these problems been historically; 3)
How was the problem previously
handled" (p. 29). Though student is
advised to consider the ideological
assumptions underlying the policy
and the target population (p. 30), the
ideology of the problem construction
is not considered.
Popple & Leighninger (2015)
No declarative definition of social
problems could be located. "The defini-
tion of the problem addressed by a
social welfare policy may be vague and
obscure, sometimes even misleading"
(p. 79). "
The authors instruct that policy
analysts are in charge of problem
definitions, that they begin "with
formulating the problem and
proceed to stating the hypoth-
eses, developing data collec-
tion procedures, collecting and
analyzing data, drawing conclu-
sions and generalizing from the
results" (p. 53).
The first section of the frame-
work [delineation and overview
of the policy under analysis] (p.
31) asks "What is the nature of
the problem being targeted by
the policy? How is the problem
defined? For whom is it a
problem?"
Yes, somewhat. The outline ad-
dresses the historical context of
the problem (p. 32); "how has this
problem been dealt with in the past?"
and "what does history tell us about
the effective/ ineffective approaches
to the problem being addressed?"
This section also asks which people
or groups initiated, promoted and
opposed the policy, [but does not ask
for their problem constructions or
claims.]
The definition of social welfare prob-
lems is largely socially constructed…
"(p. 83). Authors warn against viewing
social problems as objective conditions
and invokes Spector and Kituse's (1987)
social constructionist view that social
problems are defined as the activities
of individuals or groups making claims
with result to some assumed condition
and are accepted or rejected based on
the power or skill of the claimsmaker
(p. 80).
The analyst must also engage in
1) "assessment of the complete-
ness of the knowledge regarding
the problem; 2) what we know
about the population affected by
the problem" (p. 81).
The "social analysis" section of
the authors' framework (p. 32)
poses 7 questions [5 including
the problem] that require the
analyst's judgment.
[See next column].
The "social analysis" subsection
asks 1) "how complete is our
knowledge of the problem; 2)
are our efforts to deal with the
problem in accord with research
findings; 3) what population is
affected by the problem; size,
defining characteristics, distribu-
tion? 4) what are the major social
values related to the problem and
what value conflicts exist?
5) what are the hypotheses im-
plicit or explicit in the statement
of the problem and goals" (p. 32)?
Segal (2013)
No declarative definition of social prob-
lems could be located. Acknowledges
the subjective nature of problems,
"Often, social conditions are viewed
as a problem by some, but not all
members of society. An issue gains
acceptance as a social concern when
more and more people, social groups,
and policy makers define it as a social
problem" (p. 96).
Student is advised [in the text]
to answer a number of questions
to clarify problem definition.
Questions include "what is the
definition of the problem? Are
there competing and conflict-
ing definitions of the problem;"
"what is the extent of the
problem;" and "who is defining
it as a social concern at this point
of time." [Acknowledges that
"values and ideological leanings
color how the issue is viewed"
(p. 96).]
Questions in the framework
include what is the problem;
its definitions, the extent, who
defines it as a problem; who
disagrees; what are the conflict-
ing social values and beliefs;
underlying causes and factors;
and the groups affected by the
problem. In subsequent sections
of the analysis, questions are
included as to how the social
problem changed, was supposed
to be changed, and if the problem
decreased (p. 100).
Somewhat. There are no specific direc-
tives in the framework to consider
the historical, economic, and political
forces affecting problem defini-
tion/ construction. However, the
framework includes a subsection on
Power Imbalance or Struggle that
considers who has power [it does not
state if that means 'power to define'
problems], and a section on Publlic
Reaction which alludes to social
context asking about the views [but
not the competing problem construc-
tions] of voters, non-voters, upper
and lower income classes, dominant
and minimal values and beliefs, and
how the media covers and portrays
the issue. [In prototypes on immigra-
tion and TANF, there is no mention of
competing definitions of the problem
as recommended in framework (pp.
103-105).]
147
Table 1: The problem in policy narrative and policy analysis, continued from previous page
Q1. What is the author's definition of
a social problem in the narrative of the
text?
Q2: Who should define the
problem when analyzing
policies?
Q3: What questions/ criteria does
the problem analysis include?
Q4: Are contextual influences consid-
ered in the problem analysis?
Karger & Stoesz (2014)
No declarative definition of social prob-
lems could be located. "The relationship
between social problems and social
welfare policy is not linear, and not all
social problems result in social welfare
policies" (p. 5).
Guided by historical informa-
tion, the student-analyst defines
the problem, and is advised
to "acknowledge own values,
while at the same time basing
the analysis on objective criteria"
(p. 28). "The analyst must be
familiar with the nature, scope
and magnitude of the problem
and with the affected popula-
tions" (p. 30).
Policy analysis model begins
with three historical questions
relating to the problem: 1) What
historical problems led to the
creation of the policy; 2) How
important have these problems
been historically; 3) How was
the problem previously handled"
(p. 29). The problem description
section includes: 1) "What is the
nature of the problem; 2) How
widespread is it; 3) How many
people are affected by it; 4) Who
is affected and how; 5) What
are the causes of the problem"
(p. 29)?
Somewhat. Policy analysis model
begins with three historical ques-
tions relating to the problem: 1) What
historical problems led to the creation
of the policy; 2) How important have
these problems been historically; 3)
How was the problem previously
handled" (p. 29). Though student is
advised to consider the ideological
assumptions underlying the policy
and the target population (p. 30), the
ideology of the problem construction
is not considered.
Popple & Leighninger (2015)
No declarative definition of social
problems could be located. "The defini-
tion of the problem addressed by a
social welfare policy may be vague and
obscure, sometimes even misleading"
(p. 79). "
The authors instruct that policy
analysts are in charge of problem
definitions, that they begin "with
formulating the problem and
proceed to stating the hypoth-
eses, developing data collec-
tion procedures, collecting and
analyzing data, drawing conclu-
sions and generalizing from the
results" (p. 53).
The first section of the frame-
work [delineation and overview
of the policy under analysis] (p.
31) asks "What is the nature of
the problem being targeted by
the policy? How is the problem
defined? For whom is it a
problem?"
Yes, somewhat. The outline ad-
dresses the historical context of
the problem (p. 32); "how has this
problem been dealt with in the past?"
and "what does history tell us about
the effective/ ineffective approaches
to the problem being addressed?"
This section also asks which people
or groups initiated, promoted and
opposed the policy, [but does not ask
for their problem constructions or
claims.]
The definition of social welfare prob-
lems is largely socially constructed…
"(p. 83). Authors warn against viewing
social problems as objective conditions
and invokes Spector and Kituse's (1987)
social constructionist view that social
problems are defined as the activities
of individuals or groups making claims
with result to some assumed condition
and are accepted or rejected based on
the power or skill of the claimsmaker
(p. 80).
The analyst must also engage in
1) "assessment of the complete-
ness of the knowledge regarding
the problem; 2) what we know
about the population affected by
the problem" (p. 81).
The "social analysis" section of
the authors' framework (p. 32)
poses 7 questions [5 including
the problem] that require the
analyst's judgment.
[See next column].
The "social analysis" subsection
asks 1) "how complete is our
knowledge of the problem; 2)
are our efforts to deal with the
problem in accord with research
findings; 3) what population is
affected by the problem; size,
defining characteristics, distribu-
tion? 4) what are the major social
values related to the problem and
what value conflicts exist?
5) what are the hypotheses im-
plicit or explicit in the statement
of the problem and goals" (p. 32)?
Segal (2013)
No declarative definition of social prob-
lems could be located. Acknowledges
the subjective nature of problems,
"Often, social conditions are viewed
as a problem by some, but not all
members of society. An issue gains
acceptance as a social concern when
more and more people, social groups,
and policy makers define it as a social
problem" (p. 96).
Student is advised [in the text]
to answer a number of questions
to clarify problem definition.
Questions include "what is the
definition of the problem? Are
there competing and conflict-
ing definitions of the problem;"
"what is the extent of the
problem;" and "who is defining
it as a social concern at this point
of time." [Acknowledges that
"values and ideological leanings
color how the issue is viewed"
(p. 96).]
Questions in the framework
include what is the problem;
its definitions, the extent, who
defines it as a problem; who
disagrees; what are the conflict-
ing social values and beliefs;
underlying causes and factors;
and the groups affected by the
problem. In subsequent sections
of the analysis, questions are
included as to how the social
problem changed, was supposed
to be changed, and if the problem
decreased (p. 100).
Somewhat. There are no specific direc-
tives in the framework to consider
the historical, economic, and political
forces affecting problem defini-
tion/ construction. However, the
framework includes a subsection on
Power Imbalance or Struggle that
considers who has power [it does not
state if that means 'power to define'
problems], and a section on Publlic
Reaction which alludes to social
context asking about the views [but
not the competing problem construc-
tions] of voters, non-voters, upper
and lower income classes, dominant
and minimal values and beliefs, and
how the media covers and portrays
the issue. [In prototypes on immigra-
tion and TANF, there is no mention of
competing definitions of the problem
as recommended in framework (pp.
103-105).]
Social Problems in Policy Textbooks
constant over time. Constructionists define problems
as inventions or activities whose definitions are fluid,
temporal and negotiated.)
• Question 2: Who should define the problem
when analyzing policies? (Objectivists leave the
problem definition to the expert or expert literature.
Constructionists leave the definition to social discourse
or successful claimsmakers that "won" control of the
language or typification of the problem.)
• Question 3: What questions/criteria does the
problem analysis include? (Objectivists ask questions
relating to the problem's chronicity, scope, severity,
typologies, causes and solutions, and populations
affected. Constructionists ask why problems emerge or
reemerge at a particular time, how they are represented
or framed at those times, and who brought attention to
them, or made a claim).
• Question 4: Are contextual influences considered in
the problem definition/analysis? (Objectivists tend not
to include the influence of context in problem definitions
since problems are considered objective conditions that
are ideologically neutral and unchanging over time.
Constructionists consider how historical, political,
economic, ideological, and social forces shape how
social problems are framed and perceived.)
Limitations
Some limitations of this study include the small sample
size that inherently limits the generalizability of the findings
to the entire universe of social work policy texts. Another limi-
tation includes that a full-scale content analysis of the entire
texts in the sample was not conducted, though references to
social problems were searched using the textbook's index.
Some relevant information (i.e., content on social construction-
ism) was discovered unsystematically as a result of searching
through the textbook. Efforts were made to present relevant
data wherever possible, even if they were found outside of the
designated areas of the textbook.
Findings and Interpretation
Table 1 includes a presentation of the data from the seven
148 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
textbooks admitted to the sample in alphabetical order. The
first column in the matrix asks what is the author's definition
of a social problem in the narrative of the text? In five of the
frameworks (Barusch, 2015; DiNitto & Johnson, 2012; Karger
& Stoesz, 2014; Popple & Leighninger, 2015; Segal, 2013) no
declarative definition of social problems by the author could
be located. Blau and Abramovitz (2014) included their own
definition (p. 17) and Chapin (2014) invoked Chambers and
Wedel's (2009) definition. The other five authors made ref-
erences to social problems and their relationship to social
policy without actually offering a definition. Barusch (2015)
invoked two authors' approaches (Chambers, 2000; deSwaan,
1988) to understanding problems in a policy context. Of these,
deSwaan's approach includes that the "external effects" of a
problem must be recognized by some "other" (p. 93). DiNitto
and Johnson (2012) asserted that "problems cannot be defined
because people do not agree on what the problems are …"
(p. 7); Karger and Stoesz (2014) aver that the "relationship
between social problems and social policy is not linear, and
not all social problems result in social welfare polices" (p. 5);
Popple and Leighninger (2015) acknowledge that the "defini-
tion of social welfare problems is largely socially constructed"
(p. 83) and invoke Spector and Kituse's (1987) theory of social
construction. Finally, Segal (2013) acknowledges the subjec-
tive nature of social problems: "an issue gains acceptance of a
social problem when more and more people, social groups and
policy makers define it as a social problem" (p. 96).
Interpretation. Though five of the authors in this study
would not commit to offering their own definition of social
problems, the referents they use to describe social problems
defy the objectivist/rationalist perspective. There is nothing
in these references that supports the view that problems are
objective conditions that remain fixed and constant over time.
Instead, their references support a view of problems as sub-
jective conditions whose definitions or constructions are fluid,
temporal and negotiated and that someone or some group,
assumedly with power, defines as a problem. Even for those
authors invoking Chambers (2000) or Chambers and Wedel
(2009), there is acknowledgement that how problems are per-
ceived and explained is highly variable depending on the
Social Problems in Policy Textbooks
149
150 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
viewer.
The second column in the matrix asks who should define
the problem when analyzing policies? In four frameworks, the
problem definition falls to the student-analyst to define (e.g.,
DiNitto & Johnson, 2012), while utilizing (historical) informa-
tion and being mindful of one's own values (Karger & Stoesz,
2014), or the (conflicting) values of others and how they affect
problem definitions (Barusch, 2015; Segal, 2013). While Popple
and Leighninger (2015) ask, "how is the problem defined?"
they also instruct that policy analysts are in charge of problem
definitions (p. 53). The other two frameworks posit a social
constructionist perspective, postulating that the problem was
already collectively constructed and defined by the existing
policy (Blau & Abramovitz, 2014; Chapin, 2014).
Interpretation. Five out of seven frameworks in this study
specify that the student-analyst or expert define the problem
in policy analysis frameworks, suggesting a rationalist orien-
tation to policy analysis. Though the student's values or the
values of others may be required considerations, it is not always
explicit why it is important to consider them. Frameworks that
direct students to consider value orientations when defining
problems stop short of asking follow-up questions as to how
values played a role in constructing the problem and its defini-
tion during the policy process. In contrast, the two self-identi-
fiably constructionist frameworks begin with the premise that
policies come with problems already collectively defined and
framed. In sum, there are conflicting directives to students
across texts as to who defines problems and how they "get"
defined, which may in part reflect the tensions in the profes-
sion and in the field of policy studies between positivist and
social constructivist ways of knowing.
The third column in the matrix asks what questions/cri-
teria does the problem analysis include? All texts provided
at least some problem analysis questions. However, one text
offered the problem analysis framework separately from the
policy analysis framework (Blau & Abramovitz, 2014), and
one text which did not include a policy analysis framework at
all, presented the problem analysis in a separate chapter from
the discussion on various policy analysis techniques (Barusch,
2015). Five authors treated problem analysis utilizing objectiv-
ist criteria. Barusch (2015), DiNitto and Johnson (2012), Karger
and Stoesz (2014), Popple and Leighninger (2015), and Segal
(2013) posed questions including some or all of the following:
the nature of the problem; the extent of the problem; the com-
peting definitions of the problem; the demographic character-
istics and number of people affected by the problem; and the
causes (theoretical explanations) of the problem. Some of these
questions required that students make judgments about the
problem: "How complete is our knowledge of the problem; are
our efforts to deal with the problem in accord with research
findings?" (Popple & Leighninger, 2015, p. 32). Also, "Is the
social problem changed?" (Segal, 2013, p. 100); and "how im-
portant have these problems been historically?" (Karger &
Stoesz, 2014, p. 29). Two authors (Barusch, 2015; Chapin, 2014)
invoked Chambers' (2000) approach to social problem analysis.
Two authors (Blau & Abramovitz, 2014; Chapin, 2014) advised
students to employ a constructionist perspective when analyz-
ing problems: "How do social problems get constructed; who
gets to construct them; how does the construction of a social
problem help to create a social policy that shapes what social
workers do?" (Blau & Abramovitz, 2014, p. 5) and "How is the
problem or need defined and documented; how have values
and self-interest shaped the definition and documentation;
what causal theories have been developed based on the defini-
tion of social problems and what consequences are ascribed to
the problem so defined?" (Chapin, 2014, p. 203).
Interpretation. All but two frameworks utilize objectivist
questions/criteria for analyzing the problem. This is a curious
state of affairs, as mentioned earlier, since most of the authors
prescribing objectivist criteria acknowledge the subjective
nature of problems elsewhere in the texts, but apparently have
not transferred this perspective into problem analysis. Instead,
student-analysts are encouraged to use empirical and theoreti-
cal literature, or to conduct policy analysis like research (e.g.,
Popple & Leighninger, 2015) in order to define the problem,
the problem's nature, extent or scope, identifying who is af-
fected and how, and a causal analysis or theory of the problem.
This guidance is not accompanied by any critique that it may
mislead; that empirical, expert definitions are not necessarily
objective or ideologically neutral, but are rather interpretations
that imply a causal explanation and location for the problem
(individual, group or society). Thus, as mentioned earlier,
Social Problems in Policy Textbooks
151
there is no warning that the student may simply be reproduc-
ing the biases of the "experts" (Danto, 2008).
The fourth column in the matrix asks are contextual in-
fluences considered in the problem definition/analysis? In
two cases, the historical context of the problem as addressed
by the policy is included in the framework (Karger & Stoesz,
2014; Popple & Leighninger, 2015). Segal's (2013) policy analy-
sis framework contains some questions indirectly related to
the political, economic, and social contexts of problems. One
chapter in Blau and Abramovitz (2014) discusses how ideology
shapes "the definition of need" (p. 147), and the problem con-
texts of five specific policy areas are discussed in chapter sub-
sections illustrating the application of their model. Similarly,
Barusch's (2015) (separate) social problem analysis section dis-
cusses ideological influences on problem definitions, and in
separate chapters on specific problems, the historical, political,
social, and/or economic context of the problem is explored.
More broadly, DiNitto and Johnson (2012, p. 29) include one
question in their policy analysis framework requiring con-
sideration of the "social, economic, political, environmental,
health or other conditions that spawned the problem." Finally,
Chapin's (2014) framework requires a comprehensive analysis
of the historical, cultural, political and economic contexts of
the problem.
Interpretation. Most authors seem to recognize and include
one or more influential, contextual forces affecting the problem,
but most do not include explicit, consistent and systematic
treatment of the problem context throughout the policy analy-
sis. Alternatively, the policy's context enjoys comprehensive
interrogation in the frameworks (and in most texts as a whole).
Discussion and Recommendations
This study was guided by the question, "How are social
problems viewed and analyzed in social work policy text-
books?" The data suggest a mixed response, in that a few
policy analysis frameworks in this study openly espouse a
social constructionist perspective when examining problems,
while many others make indirect references to the subjective
nature of social problems in their narrative descriptions, but
prescribe objectivist criteria when analyzing them. The fact
152 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
153
that most authors avoid directly committing to a definition of
social problems, describing rather than defining them, giving
examples, or leaving social problems to another scholar to
define, may suggest some dissonance between two predomi-
nant competing perspectives on social problems in the litera-
ture. Still, the results conclude that the majority of frameworks
in this study cannot presently equip students with the neces-
sary questions or criteria to capture how subjective definitions
of social problems play out in policy.
More telling than the formal data presented here were
the inadvertent discoveries made during the data collection
process. The first discovery concerned the relatively meager
amount of space dedicated to social problems in most policy
textbooks. While one text offered a complete chapter on
problem analysis, most others offered at most a few pages
of narrative discussion. Second, there is a clear bifurcation
in the encapsulated frameworks between the problem analy-
sis section (usually presented at the beginning of the frame-
work, assumedly because problem definition initiates policy
analysis), and the policy analysis section, each with little to
no overlap between them. These separate sections may help
students better manage and organize their analysis, but may
unintentionally present a view of the problem and policy as ar-
tificially disparate, when they are instead inextricably bound
in reality and should arguably remain so in analysis. In some
texts, a few questions about the problem surface again at the
end of the framework concerning "how the problem changed"
or "was expected to change as a result of the policy," but as-
sumedly these questions, too, refer to the problem in objective
terms. Policies are seldom, if ever, responses to purely objec-
tive conditions, as all the policy authors in this study would
agree, yet the completed framework that separates an objec-
tive problem analysis from a contextual policy analysis yields
the false impression that they are.
Bacchi (2007) contends that every problem definition is
both an interpretation and an intervention, as definitions
invariably predict policy responses by how they represent
what is problematic (and unproblematic through gaps and
omissions) in the representation of the problem. Thus, there
is no such thing as an ideologically neutral problem defini-
tion, whatever the source. The definer provides the value
Social Problems in Policy Textbooks
orientation for the problem; in most of the frameworks in the
study, it is the expert-policy analyst, assisted by the literature
or some source deemed to be powerful or authoritative on the
subject. Students are advised to be aware of their value orienta-
tions (e.g., Chambers & Wedel, 2005) "while basing the analysis
on objective criteria" (Karger & Stoesz, 2014, p. 27). However,
this creates a curious paradox. In advising students to access
the expert literature to avoid tainting the analysis with their
own value orientations, students still inadvertently adopt the
expert's value orientations when they adopt their definitions
of the problem. Danto (2008, p. 718) comments on the profes-
sion's educational approach to policy analysis, "Students use
selected ideological frameworks to analyze current social and
economic legislation … set by … the very law-makers who
set up the social hierarchy and economic dominance which
creates the social worker's client base" (p. 718). It should be
noted that a social constructionist perspective guards against
this potential bias. When the student-analyst employs a social
constructionist perspective to analyze problems, and by exten-
sion their policy responses, they are freed from: (1) having to
fulfill the role of expert and decide the definition and nature
of the problem as it has already been decided or, in the case of
policy proposals, will be decided during public discourse; and
(2) tainting the analysis with her/his own value orientations
because they are in essence, irrelevant.
Theoretically, the author acknowledges the baggage which
accompanies a social constructionist perspective and its pre-
dominant critique, i.e., that this view "trivializes the reality
of social problems" to mere constructions (Clarke, 2001, p.
12). The author qualifies that objectivist and constructionist
perspectives have respective utility in educating social work
students. Objectivist criteria are critical starting points in the
initial recognition, documentation, and establishment of objec-
tionable social conditions in terms of scope, severity, and its
effect on vulnerable populations, especially when those con-
ditions have not yet attained the status of a policy problem.
However, when analyzing existing policies, which is the focus
of this inquiry, where problem definitions have already been
framed and determined, viewing the problem's construction
within the discursive context from which it emerged calls for
154 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
a constructionist perspective. As mentioned previously, objec-
tivist criteria do not capture problem definitions as framed in
policies and how they evolved to reach the point of policy rec-
ognition at their respective historical points in time.
A more holistic perspective of social problems in policy
texts also contains implications for policy practice. When stu-
dents adopt the understanding that problem constructions pre-
destine policies, and that this construction occurs discursively
in a dynamic and fluid political context, then they can enlist
and mobilize affected populations to take their rightful place
as social participants at the beginning of the collective process
of assigning meaning and directing attention to their reality,
allowing them to select the language and compete for the typi-
fication that best represents their issues and influences public
consciousness. Even strongly institutionalized constructions
are "unstable and subject to change" (Schneider & Sidney, 2009,
p. 106), and can be deconstructed and reconstructed through
conflict and challenge. Discourse has a democratizing effect on
power, as it is through discourse that reality is produced and
knowledge is redistributed, shifting power from the expert to
those who previously were not "allowed to know and to say
things" (Clarke, 2001, p. 11). As such, terminology and course
content in social policy courses may need to include the art of
framing issues for public recognition (Lakoff, 2014).
In closing, the author recommends two modest modifica-
tions to begin the shift toward a more systematic incorpora-
tion of the acknowledged subjective nature of social problems
in policy analysis. First, when analyzing established policies,
instead of starting with defining the problem, the student
could "walk the policy backward" to the place and time in
which the policy was made in order to better understand: the
historical, economic and political context in which the prob-
lems (re)emerged; the collective understanding of how the
problem was perceived; the forces affecting those percep-
tions and the claimsmakers that competed for control of the
problem's language before the political process mobilized to
address the problem so constructed. "It is sometimes interest-
ing to go backward in the analysis, looking at the specifics of a
policy or program and deciphering what they imply about the
perceived causes of the problem" (Barusch, 2015, p. 94).
Social Problems in Policy Textbooks
155
Second, rather than implementing a complete overhaul
of existing policy analysis frameworks, a simple recalibration
in the balance between problem and policy may ensure that
students weight the multi-dimensional nature of policy and
problem construction equally. Karger and Stoesz (2014) iden-
tify eight key elements that characterize "well-designed policy
frameworks" (pp. 26-27), which with a few simple substitu-
tions (e.g., replacing "problem construction" for "policy") can
be adapted to level the two sides, strengthen the problem to
policy link, and yield a more organic analysis overall:
• Policy frameworks reflect the understanding that a
social problem is context sensitive, and that there are
competing frames [substituted for "priorities"] in all
policy options.
•Po licy frameworks should attempt to take into account
the unintended consequences of a particular problem
construction [substituted for "policy or program"].
• Policy analysts should consider alternative problem
constructions and their implications for present or
future resources allocated to a given policy.
• Policy frameworks should examine the potential
impact of a problem construction on other social
policies, social problems, and the public good. (pp. 26-
27)
These criteria will hopefully enable social policy authors
to more effectively transfer their cogent arguments for a social
constructionist perspective from their narratives into their
policy analysis frameworks.
References
Bacchi, C. (2007). Women, policy and politics. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Barker, R. L. (2003). The social work dictionary (5th ed.). Washington
DC: NASW Press.
Barusch, A. S. (2015). Foundations of social policy: Social justice in human
perspective (5th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Becker. H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New
York: Free Press.
Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality.
New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
156 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
Best, J. (1995). Images of issues: Typifying contemporary social problems.
NY: Adline De Gruyter.
Blau, J., & Abramovitz, M. (2014). The dynamics of social welfare
policy (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Blumer, H. (1971). Social problems as a collective behavior. Social
Problems, 18(3), 298-306.
Caputo, R. K. (2014). Policy analysis for social workers. CA: Sage.
Chambers, D. (2000). Social policy and social programs: A method for the
practical public policy analyst (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Chambers, D. E., & Wedel, K. R. (2005). An overview of a style of
policy analysis: A value-critical approach. In social policy and
social programs: A method for the practical public policy analyst.
(4th ed., pp. 49-90). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Chambers, D., & Wedel, K. (2009). Social policy and social programs:
A method for the practical public policy analyst (5th ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.
Chapin, R. K. (1995). Social policy development: The strengths
perspective. Social Work, 40(4), 506-514.
Chapin, R. (2014). Social policy for effective practice: A strengths approach
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Clarke, J. (2001). Social problems: Sociological perspectives. In M.
May, R. Page, & E. Brunsdon (Eds.), Understanding social problems:
Issues in social policy (pp. 3-15). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Conrad, P., & Schneider, J. W. (1980). Deviance and medicalization:
From badness to sickness. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Council on Social Work Education. (March, 2015). Educational policy
and accreditation standards for baccalaureate and master's social work
programs. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/
Cummins, L. K., Byers, K. V., & Pedrick, L. (2011). Policy practice for
social workers: New strategies for a new era. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Danto, E. A. (2008). Same words, different meanings: Notes toward
a typology of postmodern social work education. Social Work
Education, 27(7), 710-722.
Dean, R. G. (1993). Constructivism: An approach to clinical practice.
Smith College Studies in Social Work, 63(2), 127-146.
DeSwaan, A. (1988). In care of the state: Health care, education, and
welfare in Europe and the USA in the modern era. New York: Oxford
University Press.
DiNitto, D. M., & Johnson, D. H. (2012). Essentials of social welfare:
Politics and public policy. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Dybicz, P. (2011). Anything goes? Science and social constructions
in competing discourses. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare,
38(3), 101-122.
Dye, T. R. (2012). Understanding public policy (14th ed.). NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
East, J. F. (1998). In-dependence: A feminist postmodern
deconstruction. Affilia, 13(3), 273-288.
Social Problems in Policy Textbooks
157
158 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
Ephross, P., & Reisch, M. (1982). The ideology of some social work
texts. The Social Service Review, 56(2), 273-291.
Faculty Center Network. (2015). Methodology. Retrieved with
permission from http://www.facultycenter.net/fc_
methodology.php?CSID
Giesler, M. A. (2015). Elevated or erased? A content analysis of the
portrayal of men in introduction to social work textbooks. Journal
of Men's Studies, 23(2), 147-160.
Gilbert, N., & Terrell, P. (2005). A framework for social welfare policy
analysis. In Dimensions of Social Welfare Policy (6th ed., pp.62-
95). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Ginsburg, L., & Miller-Cribbs, J. (2005). Understanding social problems,
policies, and programs (4th ed.). Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina Press.
Jansson, B. S. (2008). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy
practice to social justice (5th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.
Karger, H. J., & Stoesz, D. (2014). American social welfare policy: A
pluralist approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (updated
2nd ed.). IL: Longman.
Kramer, B. J., Hovland-Scarfe, C., & Pacourek, L. (2003). Analysis of
end-of-life content in social work textbooks. Journal of Social Work
Education, 39(2), 299-321.
Laird, J. (Ed.). (1993). Revisioning social work education: A social
constructionist approach. Binghampton, NY: The Haworth Press,
Inc.
Lakoff, G. (2014). Don't think of an elephant: Know your values and frame
the debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
Lee, C., & Hernandez, M. Y. (2009). Theories of immigration:
An analysis of textbooks of human behavior and the social
environment. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment,
19(6), 663-674. doi:10.1080/10911350902910815
Lehning, A., Vu, C. M., Pintak, I. (2007). Theories of poverty: Findings
from textbooks on human behavior and the social environment.
Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 16(1/2), 5-19.
doi:10.1300/J137v16n01_02
Maris, R. W. (1988). Social problems. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
McPhail, B. (2003). A feminist policy analysis framework: Through a
gendered lens. The Social Policy Journal, 2(2/3), 39-61.
McPhee, D. M., & Bronstein, L. (2002). Constructing meaning:
Strengthening the policy-practice link. Social Work Education,
21(6), 651-662.
McVinney, L. D. (2004). Epistemology of the bottle: The social
construction of alcoholism and alcoholics in social work literature
in the United States between 1950 and 1959. Journal of Social Work
Practice in the Addictions, 4(4), 3-35.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford
University Press.
O'Connor, M. K., & Netting, F. E. (2008). Teaching policy analysis as
research: Consideration and extension of options. Journal of Social
Work Education, 44(3), 159-172.
Pal, L. A. (2006). Beyond policy analysis: Public issue management in
turbulent times (3rd ed.).Toronto: Thomson/Nelson.
Patterson, G. T. (2010). A composite review of social work research
textbooks. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30(2), 237-246.
doi:10.1080/00841230903482486
Popple, P. R., & Leigninger, L. (2015). The policy-based profession:
An introduction to social welfare policy analysis for social workers.
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Reid-Cunningham, A. R., & Fleming, V. C. (2009). Theories of
disability: Findings from an analysis of textbooks on human
behavior and the social environment. Journal of Human Behavior
in the Social Environment, 19(1), 10-25.
Sahin, F. (2006). Implications of social constructionism for social
work. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work & Development, 16(1), 57-
65.
Schneider, A., & Sidney, M. (2009). What is next for policy design
and social construction theory? The Policy Studies Journal, 37(1),
103-119.
Segal, E. A. (2013). Social welfare policy and social programs: A values
perspective (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage.
Spector, M. & Kituse, J. I. (1987). Constructing social problems. Menlo
Park, CA: Cummings.
Stone, S., & Gambrill, E. (2007). Do social work textbooks provide
a sound guide for education and practice? Children and Schools,
29(2), 109-118.
Strier, R., Feldman, G., & Shdaimah, C. (2012). The construction of
social class in social work education: A study of introductory
textbooks. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32, 406-420. doi:10.1
080/08841233.2012.667753
Taylor, S., Mulroy, E. A., & Austin, M. J. (2004). Social work textbooks
on human behavior and the social environment. Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment, 10(3), 85-110. doi:10.1300/
Jl37v10n03_04.
Tompkins, C. J., Rosen, A. L., & Larkin, H. (2006). An analysis of
social work textbooks for aging content: How well do social
work foundation texts prepare students for our aging society?
Journal of Social Work Education, 42(1), 3-23.
Wachholz, S., & Mullaly, B. (2000). The politics of the textbook: A
content analysis of the coverage and treatment of feminist,
radical, and anti-racist social work scholarship in American
introductory social work textbooks published between 1988-
1997. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 11(2), 51-76.
Social Problems in Policy Textbooks
159
160 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
Weick, A. (1992). Building a strengths perspective for social work. In
D. Saleebey (Ed.), The strengths perspective in social work practice
(pp. 18-26). New York: Longman.
Weick, A. (1993). Reconstructing social work education. Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 8(1/2), 11-30.
Weiss, I., Gal, J., & Katan, J. (2006). Social policy for social work : A
teaching agenda. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 789-806.
