factors affecting the interest of israeli social work students in working with different client...

FACTORS AFFECTING THE INTEREST OF ISRAELI SOCIAL WORKSTUDENTS IN WORKING WITH DIFFERENT CLIENT GROUPS

Michal Krumer-NevoBen-Gurion University of tine Negev

Idit WeissTei-Aviv University

Employing a large-scale sample of 521 BSW students from 4 Israeli schools ofsocial work, this research examines the factors affecting social work students'interest in working with a wide range of client groups. The results suggest thatstudent interest in working with specific client groups is affected by factorsrelated to desire for professional status, a reflection of social values, social workeducation, and work rewards and conditions. The greatest motivators in stu-dent interest in working with all the client groups examined were found to be(1) student perception of such work as contributing to one's professionalgrowth and (2) aversion toward a client group. The limitations of the study andits implications for social work education are discussed.

A KEY VALUE IN SOCIAL WORK is a c o m m i t m e n t to

act on behalf of the disadvantaged and themarginalized. This is reflected in the profes-sional code of ethics in various countries(Israeli Association of Social Workers, 1994;National Association of Social Workers, 1999),as well as in the definition of the professionadopted by the International Federation ofSocial Workers (2000). However, considerableresearch on social work students indicatesthat they are generally less interested in work-ing with disadvantaged client groups, such asthe poor, the elderly, the chronically ill or dis-abled, than with those who have moreresources and less severe problems, such asindividuals and families with personal or

interpersonal problems (Aviram & Katan,1991; Jack & Mosley, 1997; Kane, 1999; Limb &Organista, 2003; Rubin, Johnson, & DeWeaver, 1986; Weiss, Gal, & Cnaan, 2004;Weiss, Gal, & Dixon, 2003).

Very little research, however, has beencarried out to examine the factors that affectstudents' interest in working with one clientgroup or another. A variety of explanationshave been suggested in various bodies of liter-ature, including literature on the sociology ofthe profession, social work education, and theidentification of social work students' prefer-ences (e.g., for methods, t3^es of services,client groups, etc.). With few, if any, excep-tions, the explanations were not examined

Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Fall 2006).Copyright © 2006 Council on Social Work Education, Inc. All rights reserved. 443

444 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

empirically. A few empirical studies have beencarried out to examine reasons for socialworkers' and social work students' choice ofprivate practice (Alexander, 1987; Butler, 1990,1992; Jayaratne, Siefert, & Chess, 1988;Smaller, 1987) or selection of macro specializa-tions (Schwartz & Dattalo, 1990). However,the authors found only three quantitativestudies (Kane, 1999; Litwin, 1994; Perry, 2003),and a single qualitative study Qack & Mosley,1997) on factors that may affect students'client group preferences. Along with theunexamined explanations, these studies offerfindings that enable us to formulate four the-oretical explanations for students' clientgroup preferences.

One is desire for professional status.Social work is often depicted as a relativelylow-status profession, variously termed asemi-profession (Etzioni, 1969; Toren, 1972), amaturing or developing profession (Skid-more, Thackeray, & Farley, 1991), or a margin-al profession (Enoch, 1989). According to avariety of writers, the professional preferencesof social work students and social workers areinformed by efforts to adopt the features ofthe higher-ranking helping professions, suchas psychology and psychiatry, especially theirdirect clinical intervention and private prac-tice (Aviram & Katan, 1991; Smaller, 1987).Several authors see social work students' re-luctance to work with disadvantaged popula-tions as linked to their perception that psy-chotherapy is inappropriate for these groups,and that indirect practice is technical and pro-fessionally unchallenging (Aviram & Katan,1991; Borsay, 1989). Others suggest that socialwork students hope to boost their profession-al prestige by working with higher-status

client groups (Abramovitz, 1998). In his studyof factors related to the desire of social workstudents to work with the elderly, Litwin(1994) found that the second strongest predic-tor of students' positive evaluation of geronto-logical social work was the perception that thework was prestigious in the eyes of their peergroup and also that the perception of socialwork with the elderly as largely indirect workdetracted from a positive evaluation.

Another explanation is that client grouppreferences reflect societal values. Accordingto Borsay (1989), who sought to explain thepoor accessibility of social services in Britainto the elderly and disabled, the phenomenonreflects the values of modern capitalist soci-eties, which place a premium on productivity,independence, ambition, and achievement.The elderly and disabled are viewed as notpossessing the qualities the society values andas unable to attain them. Sharing these values,social workers may pity the elderly and dis-abled, but see little point or appeal in invest-ing effort in assisting them. Similarly, manywriters (Hartford, 1985; Macarov, 1991;Scharlach, Damron-Rodriguez, Robinson, &Feldman, 2000) point out the deterrent effectof the marginalization of the elderly and thenegative attitudes and stereotypes aboutaging in modern society. As products ofprevalent social norms, they claim, socialworkers may view the elderly through theprism of a negative social stereotype. Muchthe same may be said of other marginalized ordisadvantaged groups.

This theory gains some support from thefindings of all four empirical studies of factorsrelated to social work students' client grouppreferences. Litwin (1994) found that the sin-

FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENT CLIENT INTERESTS 445

gle most influential factor in students' posi-tive evaluation of gerontological social workwas a traditional value orientation regardingthe elderly. That is, the more inclined studentswere to view the elderly as wise and worthyof respect, the more interest they reported ingerontological social work. Kane (1999) simi-larly found that positive attitudes toward theelderly predicted students' willingness towork with them, and that the perceived atti-tude of the profession toward the elderlyplayed an intervening role. Jack and Mosely(1997), who queried students' reasons for theirpreferences, found that those who were mostreluctant to work with the elderly and peoplewith "learning difficulties" saw these groupsas depressing, unattractive, irritating, andunable to change, while those who were mosteager to work with children and families per-ceived children as stimulating, capable ofchange, and the "core of society and itsfuture." In a somewhat different vein. Perry(2003) found that students who identifiedthemselves as left-wing progressive or liberalreported greater willingness to work with thepoor and homeless than their more conserva-tive counterparts.

A third theoretical explanation is that dif-ferences in client group preferences stem fromthe nature of the social work educationreceived. Scholars have repeatedly suggestedthat students' professional preferences reflectthe bias that informs social work education inmost Western countries, which emphasizesclinical intervention and work with familiesand children and neglects the elderly, poor,and disabled in both coursework and field-work (Peterson, 1990; Rosen & Zlotnik, 2001;Scharlach et al., 2000). This educational bias, it

is suggested, results in students' undervalu-ing social work with the elderly and disabled,as well as in misconceptions about thesegroups and the nature of social work withthem.

This theory, too, gains support from allfour empirical studies. Litwin (1994) and Kane(1999) both found that coursework on theaged and especially field work with them con-tributed significantly to the readiness to workwith the elderly. Perry (2003) found that stu-dents who had worked principally with thepoor and homeless during their first practicetraining were significantly more interested inworking with these groups than students whohad worked with other population groups.Jack and Mosely (1997) found that studentsgave lack of field experience with the elderlyand people with leaming difficulties as one oftheir reasons for not wanting to work withthese groups, and good field work experienceas among their reasons for wanting to workboth with these groups and with children andfamilies.

The fourth explanation is that differencesin preferences reflect the perceived rewardsand conditions of working with the variousgroups. According to this explanation, workrewards and conditions that various employ-ment settings offer graduates (e.g., externalrewards such as salary, job opporturuties,opportunities for advancement, and intrinsicrewards such as the opportunity for profes-sional growth, professional challenge orautonomy), have a considerable influence onthe professional preferences of social workersand social work students (Alexander, 1987;Butler, 1992; Jayaratne et al., 1988; Smaller,1987). Indeed, Jack and Mosely (1997) found


that one of the reasons students gave for their

reluctance to work with the elderly was the

poor work situation, marked by poor pay, and

inadequate services.

This study examines the contribution of

variables related to the above theories to

social work students' interest in working with

a wide range of client groups: persons with

marital or family problems, children with

minor emotional problems, abused or neglect-

ed children, teenagers with problems linked

to adolescence, the unemployed, addicted

persons, people living in poverty, people with

developmental disabilities, sexually assaulted

people, persons with mental illness, persons

with disabilities, criminal offenders, physical-

ly ill persons, and the elderly. Findings from

recent studies show that working with the

first four named client groups is generally

more desirable than working with the latter

ten Gack & Mosely, 1997; Kane, 1999; Limb &

Organista, 2003; Weiss, Gal, Cnaan, &

Maglajlic, 2002; Weiss et aL, 2003).

To our knowledge, the few studies to date

that have examined factors related to social

work students' client preferences have both

focused on a limited number of client groups

and tested a narrow range of independent

variables. By contrast, the current research

concentrated on a large number of client

groups and investigated the influence of a

wide variety of variables on the willingness of

social work students to work with them.

Examirving the influence of a wide range of

variables on the willingness to work with

diverse client groups should help better

understand how the variables examined affect

the desire to work with favored and less

favored client groups. It should also help to

determine whether the same variables affect

the willingness to work with all client groups

or whether different variables affect willing-

ness to work with different groups.

The study examines hypotheses stem-

ming from all four theories:

1. Desire for professional status. Students will

be more willing to work with the client

group: (a) the more they perceive work-

ing with the group as characterized by

clinical intervention; (b) the less they per-

ceive it as characterized by the indirect

practices of brokering and administrative

work; and (c) the more they perceive soci-

ety as viewing work with the client group

as requiring professional expertise.

2. Social values. Students will be more will-

ing to work with the client group: (a) the

less aversion they feel toward members of

the group; (b) the more potential for

change they see in them; and (c) the less

they perceive the group as socially

stigmatized.

3. Social work education. Students will be

more willing to work with the client

group: (a) the more they were taught

about the group (in class and field); and

(b) the better their field experience was

with the group.

4. Work rewards and conditions. Students will

be more willing to work with the client

group: (a) the more potential for profes-

sional growth they perceive in work with

the group; (b) the higher the remunera-

tion they expect in working with it; and

(c) the more employer demand they fore-

see for social workers with the client

group.


Method

Participants

A total of 521 BSW students from four ofIsrael's five university-based schools of socialwork participated in the study. The fifth, theUniversity of Haifa, was not sampled for lackof manpower and resources. The BSW pro-gram is a 3-year course and is the only quali-fication required for certification as a profes-sional social worker. The students were ineither their 2nd or 3rd year. The sample in itsentirety constitutes 53% of all the 2nd- and3rd-year students who were enrolled in thesocial work programs in the four universitiesin the year the study was undertaken(2004-2005) and 39% of the 2nd- and 3rd-yearstudents in all five university-based schools ofsocial work. The number of students whoresponded from each university and theresponse rates are presented in Table 1.

Acceptable response rates were obtainedfrom all but the Hebrew University. The par-ticularly low response rate there stemmedfrom the unwillingness of some of the facultyto allow us to distribute the questionnaires totheir students and of the unwillingness of oth-ers to free up class time for the students to fill

out the questionnaires. The high response ratein Ben-Gurion University seems to be a by-product of high class attendance, a possibleresult of the school's strict attendance policies.The demographic characteristics of the sam-ple are presented in Table 2.

Most of the respondents were women(90%). This percentage is virtually identicalwith the gender composition of social workgraduates in Israel (Bar-Zuri, 2004). Mostwere unmarried (65%), without children(85%), Jewish (91%), and secular (56%) in reli-gious orientation. Their ages ranged from 20to 57, with a mean of 25.94 (SD=5.26). The rel-atively high age range stemmed from the factthat some of the students were in retrainingprograms. No information is available on thesocio-economic composition of social workstudents in Israel.

Measures

The study focused on a single dependent vari-able and 11 independent variables. All thevariables were tapped by measures that wereconstructed specifically for this study.

The dependent variable was interest inworking with different client groups. It wasassessed on a 14-item scale, with each item

TABLE 1. Numbers of Students in Eacli University (M=519)

University

Bar-Ilan

Ben-Gurion

Hebrew University

Tel-Aviv

n

84

40

63

76

2nd Year

%

64

61

40

62

3rd Year

n

59

81

47

69

%

42

88

32

56

Note. Two students did not indicate the name of the imiversity at which they studied.


referring to one of the following groups: chil-

dren with behavioral problems, abused or

neglected children, teenagers with problems

linked to adolescence, the unemployed, per-

sons with addiction problems, persons with

marital or family problems, persons living in

poverty, persons with developmental disabili-

ties, persons who had been sexually assaulted,

persons with mental illness, persons with dis-

abilities, criminal offenders, persons with

physical illness, and the elderly. The respon-

dents were asked to indicate the degree to

which they would be interested in working

with each of these groups upon graduation,

on a 6-point Likert-type scale (l=very little, to

6=very much).

These population groups are not neces-

sarily distinct. To eliminate overlap, however,

we would have had to include an unwieldy

number of client groups in the study. We thus

decided to ask about the main client groups of

social workers in Israel, These are much the

same groups as had been asked about in pre-

vious studies of social work students' prefer-

ences and span the range from the least to the

most preferred groups (e.g,, Weiss et al,, 2003),

TABLE 2. Demographic Characteristics of the Student Sampie (/V=521)

Characteristic

Female

Male

Single

Married

Without children

With children

Jewish

Arab

Secular

Traditional

Orthodox

n

Gender

469

51

Marital Status

340

175

Parental Status

441

79

Ethnicity

472

42

Religiosity

291

85

143

%

90

10

65

34

85

15

91

8

56

16

28

Note. With regard to some variables, the totals may not equal the specified N because of missingdata.


A principal components factor analysis

with varimax rotation yielded five factors

with Eigenvalues greater than 1,0, which

jointly explained 68% of the variance. The fac-

tors, the item loadings, the Eigenvalues, and

percentage of variance explained, are present-

ed in Table 3,

The first factor, termed "persons with dis-

abilities and the elderly," consists of four

groups: persons with disabilities, persons with

physical illness, the elderly, and persons with

developmental disabilities. The second factor.

"children and adolescents" consists of three

groups: children with behavioral problems,

teenagers with problems linked to adoles-

cence, and abused or neglected children. The

third factor, "poor and unemployed" consists

of two groups: the unemployed and persons

living in poverty. The fourth factor, "addicts

and criminal offenders," consists of people

with addiction problems and criminal offend-

ers. The fifth factor, "adults with emotional

difficulties," consists of three groups: persons

with mental iUness, persons with marital or

TABLE 3. Resuits of the Factor Analysis of Student Interest in Working WithIdentified Client Groups (/V=521)

% of VarianceLoading Eigenvalue ExplainedFactors by Loaded Items

Factor 1 ("Persons with disabilities and the elderly")

Persons with disabilities ,88

Persons with physical illness ,85

Elderly .81

Persons with developmental disabilities ,64

3,02 21,58

Factor 2 ("Children and adolescents")

Children with behavioral problems

Teenagers with problems

Abused or neglected children

Factor 5 ("Adults with emotional difficulties")

Persons with mental illness

Persons with marital problems

Persons who had been sexually assaulted

,81

,78

,75

.68

,62

,60

2,67

1,03

19,07

Factor 3 ("Poor and unemployed")

Unemployed

Persons living in poverty

Factor 4 ("Addicts and criminal offenders")

People with addiction problems

Criminal offenders

,85

,82

,87

,82

1,48

1,31

10,56

9,35

7,42


family problems, and persoris who had beer\

sexually assaulted. Scores on each factor were

calculated as the mean of the participant's

responses on all the items in that factor.

The measures for the independent vari-

ables were constructed in a multi-staged

process that began with the authors' concep-

tualization of variables that could test the four

theoretical explanations for social work stu-

dents' preferences for client groups (presented

earlier). Twelve variables, three for each

explanation, were proposed. These were

shown to five social work faculty members,

who were asked to indicate which of the theo-

retical explanations each could be used to test.

Variables on which at least four out of the five

reviewers agreed were retained. Those on

which three agreed were rephrased. Those on

which fewer agreed were dropped and

replaced with others. The procedure was

repeated until each explanation could be

tapped by at least two generally agreed upon

variables. Only those variables upon which

there was consensus among the reviewers

were included to the final version of the ques-

tionnaire. In the end, there were 11 variables

in all, with three of the explanations tested by

3 variables and one tested by 2 variables.

The questionnaires were then distributed

to 10 social work students, who were asked to

complete them and to comment in writing on

any lack of clarity or confusion. In addition,

the researchers interviewed all the students

separately to determine whether they under-

stood each of the questions in the way the

researchers intended. Changes were then

made in the wording and structure of the

questions in the wake of the students'

responses.

The independent variables were meas-

ured by 11 questions, with each question

measuring the single variable it queried: On

each, responses were elicited separately for

each of the 14 client groups. With one varia-

tion (noted below), respondents were asked to

indicate their response on a 6-point Likert

scale, with l=not at all, to 6=a great deal. The

variables are presented below grouped under

the theoretical explorations they help to

examine.

Desire for Professional Status

1. Perception that social work practice with the

client group is characterized by clinical therapeu-

tic interventions. To what degree does social

work with each of the following groups

involve clinical-therapeutic interventions?

2. Perception that social work practice with the

client group is characterized by brokering and

administrative tasks. To what degree does

social work with each of the following

groups involve brokering and adminis-

trative tasks?

3. Perceived public perception that social work

practice with the client group requires a high

level of professional expertise. In the view of

the general public, to what degree does

work with each of the following groups

require a high level of professional

expertise?

Reflection of Social Values

4. Perceived social stigma. To what degree

does each of the following groups suffer

from social stigma?

5. Perceived potential for change. To what degree

does each of the following groups have the

potential for change and improvement?

FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENT CLIENT INTERESTS 4 5 1

6, Aversion. To what degree does each of the

following groups arouse feelings of aver-

sion in you?

Social Work Education

7. Education. How much have you been

taught in your social work education (in

coursework and field work) to work with

each of the following groups?

8, Quality of field experience. How was your

field experience with each of the client

groups? (The Likert scale here was

l=extremely negative, to 6=highly posi-

tive. Students could also reply "no experi-

ence at all,")

Work Rewards and Conditions

9. Perceived potential contribution of working

with the client group to the students' profes-

sional growth. How much do you think

that working with each of the client

groups will contribute to your profes-

sional growth?

10, Expected remuneration. How likely do you

think that work with each of the follow-

ing groups will bring high financial remu-

neration?

11, Perceived employer demand. What do you

think the level of employer demand is for

social workers with each client group?

Procedure and Data Collection

The questionnaires were distributed in the

2nd semester of the 2004 academic year. The

administration of the questionnaires to the

2nd- and 3rd-year students differed some-

what. The 2nd-year students were given the

questionnaires at the beginning of compulso-

ry courses attended by most of the students in

the cohort. Although the courses were com-

pulsory, the filling of the questionnaires was

voluntary and the researchers explained the

goals of the study and ensured the anonymity

of the replies. The 3rd-year students were also

given the questionnaires in class, but filled

them out at their convenience and returned

them to the researchers' university mailboxes.

This procedure was followed because several

3rd-year instructors were unwilling to devote

class time to the questionnaires.

Results

The first part of our analysis was descriptive.

Means and standard deviations of the stu-

dents' level of interest in working with the

five client groups and of their responses on

the 11 predictors were calculated. A one-way

MANOVA with repeated measures was carried

out to determine the overall difference in the stu-

dents' responses concerning the five client

groups. This analysis yielded an overall statisti-

cally significant difference (F(48, 7,728)=81,17;

p<,001), Univariate ANOVAs were conducted

to identify both the predictor variables that

showed differences over the five client groups,

as well as to determine whether there were

differences in interest in working with these

client groups. Because of the large sample

size, in which even very small differences

may be statistically significant, we used as

our criteria of significance only p<,001. In

addition, effect sizes were calculated to deter-

mine the magnitude of the differences. Fol-

lowing this, paired comparison tests accord-

ing to Student-Newman-Kuels (SNK) were

conducted to determine the precise sources of

the differences. The results are presented in

Table 4,


"90

e

(A«U

a

II

n(A

Ie

o

<0

III U

— S5

.a-a .

o g

gS

inA

>2,3

>4

rH

mCMA

COA

5>4>

1

AtN

CMA

•1>4

>5

A

l-H

A

>2>5

,3

LnA

CO

A

CNrH

>5>3

>

in

co"'AtNI-H'

A

l>2,

3,5

mA

>3>2

,4

rH

CMA

>1>

4,5

CO

^.

co"ArH

O N t ^ ^ C OC O C O C O C O

OCNj

( N O O O f ^ O O N r H i — ( S O C N O N C Or H T-H T-H T-H T—I T-H

LO LO ^ 00 CN 00 LO ^ ^ CO ^ CO^ 00 LO T-H T-H \O ^ LO ON 00 rH cNC O C O ' ^ ' ^ ' ^ C O C N O J C O C O C O ' ^

O C O C O O f N T - H C O C N O ^ t N C O

L r » i > N T - H \ £ > o o i C i — I O N T — i c o o o o

^ C O O O O O < J N < ^ O N ^ < ^ T — ' C O O N

DN, ^^ '^O CN] ^ ^ C^l r H f ^ T-H T-H 0 0 ^»D

ON CO Qs Csl O ON ON CO ON CO O COU ^ T ^ c H C O C M O N ^ O O O N r H O N ^ OO 00 -̂t ^ "O '^ tv fN| O T-H ^ CO^^ CO LO CO "̂JH ^^ r—H CO ^^ ^^ O*J 7̂̂

ON 00 ON ^O 00 ^^ 00 CO 00 O^ ^^ 00r-5 ' ' T-H *

L O ^ C N ' ^ ' ^ t N . C N O N r H C N ' ^ O^ t N O O O O N O D ^ C N C N O N l S ' ^^d^ ^ ^ CO LO CO LO ^H CO ^^ ^^ CO ^^

•I

1

01bO

o

X!

I

en

O)

•42

O

-d

g•43

I

01

sCH

g

3

01

i73

V.a,.


Statistically significant differences betweenthe five client groups were found with regardto all the independent variables. The effectsizes varied, however. They were very low forthree variables (the nature of the students'field work experience, their education, andtheir perceptions of employer demand), andonly slightly higher for another two (per-ceived clinical therapeutic intervention andpotential professional growth). In otherwords, the students' views on these variablesvaried very little over the different clientgroups. The remaining six variables showedmoderate or high effect sizes (work character-ized by brokering and administrative tasks,perceived public perception that social workpractice requires a high level of expertise, per-ceived social stigma, perceived potential forchange, aversion toward the group, andexpected remuneration). In other words, withregard to these variables, the students' viewsvaried more substantially over the differentclient groups.

Significant differences were found in thestudents' interest in working with the fiveclient groups. The favored group was childrenand adolescents. This was followed, indescending order, by (a) the poor and unem-ployed and adults with emotional difficulties,(b) criminal offenders and addicts, and (c)people with disabilities and elderly, at the bot-tom of the list. The effect size was low (.17),however, indicating that the differences in thestudents' levels of interest in working with thevarious groups were not very substantial.

A two-way ANOVA (Demographic Fea-ture X Client Group) with repeated measureson the client groups was carried out to exam-ine the association between the students'

interest in working with the different clientgroups and their demographic features (gen-der, marital status, parental status, ethnicity,and religiosity). No significant differences orinteractions were found. In addition, Pearsoncorrelations were calculated between the stu-dents' age and their interest in working witheach of the five client groups. The correlations,which ranged from -.04 to .02, were very lowand nonsignificant.

The second phase of the analysis exam-ined associations between the eleven inde-pendent variables and the level of interest inworking with the five client groups. Pearsoncorrelations are presented in Table 5.

For the most part, the correlations werehighly consistent across all the client groups.That is, most of the independent variableswere either correlated or not with all the fiveclient groups. Five variables were signiticantlyassociated with interest in working with all thefive client groups: perception that social workpractice with client group is characterized byclinical-therapeutic interventions, perceptionsof the client group's potential for change, aver-sion toward the client group, quality of fieldwork experience with the client group, andperceived potential contribution of workingwith the client group to student professionalgrowth. The more the students perceivedsocial work with the client group as character-ized by clinical-therapeutic intervention, themore they perceived the client group as havingpotential for change, the better their field workexperience with the client group, and the morethey expected working with the client group tocontribute to their professional growth, themore interested they were in working with thegroup. Conversely, the more revulsion or


repugnance they felt toward a client group, theless interested they were in working with it. Ofthese variables the highest correlations werewith negative feeling and perceived contribu-tion for self-growth. In addition, one variable,the students' education in working with thevarious client groups, was positively asso-ciated with their interest in working withall the client groups except the poor andiinemployed.

In addition, two variables were associatedwith interest in working with specific clientgroups. The perceived public perception thatsocial work practice with the client grouprequired a high professional expertise waspositively associated with working with thepoor and unemployed, persons with disabili-

ties and the elderly. Student perception ofpotential remuneration was positively associ-ated with their interest in working with adultswith emotional difficulties, with criminaloffenders and addicts, and with people withdisabilities and the elderly.

No significant correlations were foundbetween perceived brokering and administra-tive tasks or between perceived social stigmaand students' interest in working with any ofthe five client groups. Perceived employerdemand was found associated with interest inworking with only one client group, childrenand adolescents, and only weakly at that.

Five multiple regressions were conductedto examine the total and unique contributionsof all the independent variables to the vari-

TABLE 5. Pearson's Correlations Among the Independent Variables and StudentInterest in Working With the Five Ciient Groups (N=521)

Variable

Clinical interventionsAdministrative tasksProfessional expertise

Social stigmaPotential for changeNegative feelingsEducationQuality of field workProfessional growthRemunerationEmployer demand

Childrenand

Adolescents

.33*

.12

.14

.09

.25*

-.42*

.27*

.36*

.45*

.13

.16*

Client Population of Interest to

Poor andUnemployed

.23*

.07

.18*

.03

.26*

-.27*

.13

.25*

.43*

.14

.03

Adults WithEmotional

Difficulties

.32*

.13

.06

.06

.19*

-.37*

.25*

.39*

.50*

.22*

.13

Students

Addictsand

CriminalOffenders

.31*

.07

.14

.10

.29*

-.56*

.29*

.35*

.55*

.22*

.11

PersonsWith

Disabilitiesand theElderly

.25*

.11

.27*

.11

.34*

-.52*

.35*

.37*

.48*

.25*

.15

*p<.001.


ance in the students' interest in working witheach of the five client groups. These analyseswere conducted to assess the unique contribu-tion of each variable, independent of the othervariables, to the student interest in workingwith each of the five client groups, and tocompare these results across the models. Theresults of these regressions are presented inTable 6.

As can be seen by the R' values, the inde-pendent variables account for relatively highproportions of the explained variance in stu-dent interest in working with all five clientgroups. They explain the most variance in thestudents' interest in working with addicts andcriminal offenders (.48) and people with dis-abilities and the elderly (.47); somewhat less

of the variance in their interest in workingwith children and adolescents (.41), adultswith emotional problems (.39); and the least,but still substantial, variance in their interestin working with the poor and unemployed(.27).

Similar to what was found in the correla-tions, the two variables irvfluencing studentinterest in working with all five client groupswere (1) aversion toward the client group and(2) perception of the contribution that work-ing with the client group would make to one'sprofessional growth. As can be seen by theBeta coefficients, the greater their aversion,the less their interest in working with theclient group; the higher their expectations ofprofessional growth, the greater their interest.

TABLE 6. Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Interest inWorking With the Five Ciient Groups (/V=521)

Variable

Clinical interventions

Administrative tasksProfessional expertiseSocial stigmaPotential for changeNegative feelingsEducationQuality of fieldworkProfessional growthRemunerationEmployer demand

R'

PersonsWith

Disabilitiesand theElderly

.07

.06

.02

.04

.10

-.35*

.12

.13

.25*

.06

-.04

.47*

Client Population of Interest

Addictsand

CriminalOffenders

.10

.02

-.01

.03

.05

-.34*

.06

.09

.30*

.07

-.02

.48*

Poor andUnemployed

.11

.04

.01

.03

.07

-.17*

.00

.12

.31*

.07

-.08

.27*

to Students

Childrenand

Adolescents

.19*

.05

-.02

.04

.08

-.28*

.02

.19*

.26*

-.02

-.00

.41*

AdultsWith

EmotionalDifficulties

.16*

.10

-.09

.03

-.08

-.24*

.04

.19*

.33*

.02

-.01

.39*

*p<.001.


Along with this, while expectations of profes-sional growth similarly influenced theexplair\ed variance in interest in working witheach client group, the reported rates of aver-sion varied from one group to another. Therate of aversion affected most the interest inworking with people with disabilities and theelderly and with addicts and criminal offend-ers, less the interest in working with childrenand adolescents and with adults with emo-tional difficulties, and least of all the interestin working with the poor and imemployed.

In addition, a somewhat different patternwas evident in the variables associated withthe explained variance in student interest inworking with persons with disabilities andthe elderly, the addicts and criminal offenders,and the poor and unemployed, on the onehand, and with children and adolescents andadults with emotional difficulties on the otherhand. Only two variables, aversion and per-ceived contribution to professional growth,showed correlation with the explained vari-ances in interest in working with the firstthree named groups. In contrast, working withchildren and adolescents and adults withemotional difficulties was influenced by theaversion and perceived contribution to profes-sional growth as well as by two other vari-ables: perceived clinical-therapeutic interven-tions and the quality of field work. The impactof the latter two variables was lower in com-parison to the first two variables.

Discussion

Like previous studies, this study too found thatsocial work students ranked children and ado-lescents at the top of their client group prefer-ences, and addicts and criminal offenders, fol-

lowed by people with disabihties and the eld-erly, at the bottom Qack & Mosely, 1997; Kane,1999; Limb & Orgarusta, 2003; Rubin et al.,1986; Weiss et al., 2004; Weiss et al., 2003).Somewhat surprisingly, the poor and unem-ployed ranked in the middle, along with adultswith emotional difficulties, in the students'client preferences. This finding suggests, on theone hand, that social work students have notabandoned the poor, as sometimes claimed inthe literature (Specht & Courtney, 1994; Walz &Groze, 1991), but, on the other hand, highlightsthe marginalization of persons with disabilitiesand the elderly, who are the most needy usergroups (Blanchette & Flynn, 2001; Carlton-LaNey, 1997).

Based on the findings, the 11 factors pre-dicting interest in working with the variousclient groups that were examined in this studycan be divided into three groups: six variablesthat were significantly associated with the stu-dents' preferences for working with all fiveclient group categories; three variables thatwere associated with their preferences forworking with some of the client groups; andtwo variables that were not associated withinterest in working with any of the groups.This pattern of findings suggests that most ofthe variables behave consistently across theclient groups, while only three of them playdifferential roles that vary with the clientgroup.

The six variables associated with the levelof preference for working with all the clientgroups were, in roughly descending strengthof association, perceived potential contribu-tion to the students' professional growth,aversion toward the client group, quality offield experience with the client group, educa-


tion, perceptions that practice with the groupis characterized by clinical-therapeutic inter-vention, and the client group's perceivedpotential for change. The more professionalgrowth the students expected to gain in work-ing with the group and the less aversion theyfelt toward the group, the more interestedthey were in working with it. The better theirfield work experience with the group, themore they learned about it, the more they ex-pected to be able to employ clinical-therapeu-tic interventions with it, and the more poten-tial for change they believed the group had,the more interested they were in working withthat group. The six variables that were foundto be most significant reflect the four theoreti-cal explanations: the desire for professionalstatus, social values, social work education,and the desire for rewards and good workconditions. These representations of the fourtheoretical explanations suggest that the fac-tors affecting social work preferences are com-plex and not one-dimensional.

However, of these variables, the greatestmotivators in the students' interest in workingwith each client group were perceived contri-bution to the student's professional growthand aversion. That is, student preferenceswere most strongly affected by their expecta-tion of intrinsic reward, on the one hand, andtheir desire to avoid what they expected to beunpleasant, distasteful contact, on the other.The strong effect of these variables suggeststhe centrality of the self in students' clientgroup preferences. A similar centrality of theself in students' professional motives wasfound in a variety of studies. Several studiesof student motives for studying social workfound that personal growth, self-fulfillment or

expression, and need to understand the selfstood out as major motivating factors in dif-ferent countries (O'Connor, Dalgleish, &Khan, 1984; Hackett, Kuronen, Matthies, &Kresal, 2003; Limb & Organista, 2003; Marsh,1988; Pearson, 1973). Golden, Pins, and Jones(1972) found that self-growth aims wereamong the main factors influencing thepractice orientation of graduates of MSWprograms. Albeck (1987) found that self-actualization was the main professional re-ward expected by students in a variety offields, including social work and psychology,and, moreover, that social work students weremore inclined than others to report that theyexpected their professional work to enablethem to express and develop their personalqualities. The importance of the self in studentpreferences reflects both the centrality of theself in Western culture and the emphasis onself-development in social work education,where students are repeatedly told that theirmost important professional tool is them-selves (Ringel, 2003; Strozier & Stacey, 2001).

The importance of education and field-work experience, in the students' client grouppreferences is consistent with Litwin's (1994)findings that the number of courses studentstook in gerontology and their having had afield practicum in the area of aging were pos-itively correlated with their rating of the pro-fessional standing of work with older people.The finding that field experience was morestrongly associated with their preferencesthan classroom education is consistent withJack and Mosely's (1997) findings that place-ment experience had a greater impact on stu-dents' client group preferences than teachers,lectures, seminars, and tutorials, as well as


with findings that social work students regardfield work as the most important part of theircurriculum (Raskin, 1989; Tolson & Kopp,1988).

Finally, the more potential for change thestudents viewed the group as having, themore interested they were in working with it.The importance of perceived potential forchange may be anchored in the natural desireto regard one's efforts as worthwhile and tosee them bear fruit. Student perception thatthe elderly and disabled are less capable ofchange than other client groups (see Table 4) isquestionable, however. The quality of life ofthe elderly can be improved with betterhealth care and social services, opportunitiesfor socializing, and greater resources, all areasthat come under the province of social work(Rosen & Levy-Zlotnik, 2001; Takamura,2001). Similarly, even if a particular disabilityis permanent, the person can be helped to livewith it better and external conditions can bemade more amenable. The perception thatolder people and persons with disabilitieshave low potential for change seems to reflectthe erroneous stereotypes of these groups inIsrael and the rest of the Western world(David & Patterson, 1997).

The three variables that were significantlyassociated with interest in working with par-ticular client groups were perceived publicperceptions that work with the group re-quired high professional expertise, expectedremuneration, and expected employer de-mand. The more students believed that socie-ty viewed working with older people and per-sons with disabilities as requiring high profes-sional expertise, the more interested they were

in working with these groups. The higher theremuneration they expected from workingwith adults with emotional difficulties, withcriminal offenders and addicts, and with peo-ple with disabilities and the elderly, the moreinterested they were in working with thesegroups. In other words, the expectation of theextrinsic rewards of money and prestigeapparently increased student interest mainlyin working with the less preferred clientgroups. These findings are consistent withLitwin's (1994) finding that one of thestrongest predictors of students' positive eval-uation of gerontological social work was theirperception that their peer group regardedsuch work as prestigious. The students mayperceive the extrinsic rewards as compensa-tion for work that they view as less desirable.

The relatively limited importance ofexpected remuneration is of note. It may beascribed to the fact that social work in Israel,as elsewhere, is a profession with a large pre-ponderance of women, as reflected in thecomposition of the study sample. Studiesshow that men are traditionally more con-cerned with income, job opportunities, andopportunities for advancement than women(Betz & O'Conell, 1989; Hanson & McCuUagh,1995).

In addition, the findings showed a veryweak association between expected employerdemand and the student interest in workingwith children and adolescents, but not withany other group. This is consistent withSchwartz and Dattalo's (1990) finding thatemployer demand was only moderatelyimportant in social work students' choice ofspecialization.


Perceived brokering and administrativetasks and perceived social stigma were notsignificantly associated with students' interestin working with any of the client groups. Thisis of interest because the findings show thatthe students' did perceive certain clientgroups to be more stigmatized than others(e.g., the poor and unemployed, addicts andcriminal offenders) and work with certaingroups entail more brokering and administra-tive tasks (poor and imemployed, elderly anddisabled) than work with others. This findingsuggests that, in contrast to claims in the liter-ature, the social stigma of the client group andthe expectation of doing administrative andbrokering tasks were not deterrents to interestin working with any of the client groups. Thisfinding is also a bit surprising because itseems inconsistent with the finding, discussedabove, that the expectation of being able to dodirect practice augmented interest in workingwith a client group.

The study findings have several implica-tions for social work education, certainly inIsrael, but probably elsewhere as well.Although the study was conducted in Israel,the issue examined—interest in working withmarginalized and deprived client groups—isan issue of concern for social work and socialwork education in many countries (Weiss etal., 2003). As such, the study's findings and,hence, the recommendations we offer on thebasis of the findings may have applicationbeyond Israel's borders.

To begin with, the paramount importanceof professional growth to students' clientgroup preferences suggests that students maybe encouraged to work with the most margin-

alized populations if they were helped tounderstand how work with those groupscould enhance their professional developmentno less than, say, work with children.

The major role of students' personal feel-ings in their client group preferences suggeststhat if they are to be encouraged to work witholder people and persons with disabilities,social work education must find ways of mod-ifying their aversion to these groups. This maybe done by giving students the opportunity toexpress their feelings in the safe environmentof the classroom, while exploring the sourcesof those feelings.

The importance of education and fieldwork means that educators should considerways of increasing both classroom instructionand, especially, field work with less preferredpopulations. Preferably, all students shouldhave a tum at field work with less favoredclient groups and efforts should be invested toensure that their placement can provide themwith a positive experience, both through thequality of the work the agencies do with thepopulation group and the quality of thesupervision they offer the students.

The above recommendations all followthe students' preferences, in the assumptionthat it is better to go with those preferencesthan against them. This does not mean, how-ever, that social work programs should notstrive to influence the factors that mold stu-dents' client preferences. Social work educa-tion must strive to strengthen students' com-mitment to marginalized client groups, evenwhen these appear to lack high potential forchange, or work with them is not perceived tobe professionally advantageous. Efforts should


be made to enlist the students' idealism and to

augment students' sense of social responsibili-

ty to disadvantaged social groups.

This study has several limitations. First,

the analyses present cross-sectional, static

results from a single point in time. Second,

although the study sample is large and

diverse, it is not a random sample, but was

dependent on the willingness of faculty mem-

bers to distribute the questionnaire and stu-

dents to return it. Third, while the self-report

method of data collection is adequate and

appropriate for querying personal preferences

and perceptions, more objective measures of

the quality of classroom and field work educa-

tion would have been desirable. However ob-

taining objective measures of such variables is

extremely difficult. Fourth, there is a question

of the generalizability of the findings to social

work students in other countries. Fifth, sever-

al factors that might affect client group prefer-

ences (e.g., ideological commitment, desire for

private practice, gender role socialization)

were not queried. These limitations notwith-

standing, the study contributes to our under-

standing of the important and under-

examined area of the factors that contribute to

students' client preferences. Notably the fac-

tors examined explained nearly 50% of the

variance in the preference for working with

four out of the five client groups.

Further study that examines more factors

and compares the role of the factors in differ-

ent countries is recommended. Further study

is also recommended to examine the behavior

and preferences of working social workers.

Still in question are what factors affect the

service and hence client groups with which

students are employed and whether these fac-

tors are the same or different from those that

govem students' theoretical preferences.

References

Abramovitz, M. (1998). Social work and social

reform: An arena of struggle. Social Work,

43, 512-526.

Albeck, S. (1987). Expectations from the select-

ed profession. Society & Welfare, 8, 24-32.

(Hebrew)

Alexander, P. M. (1987). Why social workers

enter private practice: A study of motiva-

tions and attitudes. Journal of Independent

Social Work, 1, 7-18.

Aviram, U., & Katan, J. (1991). Professional pref-

erences of social workers: Prestige scales of

populations, services, and methods in social

work. International Social Work, 34,37-55.

Bar-Zuri, R. (2004). Social workers in Israel:

Review of the developments 1990-2002.

Jerusalem: Ministry of Industry, Trade

and Employment. (Hebrew)

Betz, M., & O'Connell, L. (1989). Work orien-

tations of males and females: Exploring

the gender socialization approach. Socio-

logical Inquiry, 59, 318-330.

Blanchette, P., & Flynn, B. (2001). Geriatric

medicine: An approaching crisis. Genera-

tions, 25, 80-85.

Borsay, A. (1989). First child care, second men-

tal health, third the elderly: Professional

education and the development of social

work priorities. Research, Policy & Plan-

ning, 7(2), 22-30.

Butler, A. C. (1990). A reevaluation of social

work students' career interests. Journal of

Social Work Education, 26, 45-56.

FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENT CLIENT INTERESTS 4 6 1

Butler, A. C. (1992). The attractions of private

practice. Journal of Social Work Education,

28,47-60.

Carlton-LaNey, I. (1997). Social workers as

advocates for elders. In M. Reisch & E.

Gambrill (Eds.), Social work in the 21st centu-

ry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

David, G., & Patterson, G. (1997). Productive

aging: 1995 White House conference on

aging, challenges for public policy and

social work practice. Journal of Geron-

tological Social Work, 27(3), 9-25.

Etzioni, A. (1969). The semi-professions and their

organization. New York: Free Press.

Enoch, Y. (1989). Change of values during

socialization for a profession: An applica-

tion of the marginal man theory. Human

Relations, 42, 219-239.

Golden, D., Pins, A. M., & Jones, W. (1972).

Students in schools of social work: A study of

characteristics and factors affecting career

choice and practice concentration. New York:

Council on Social Work Education.

Hackett, S., Kuronen, M., Matthies, A., & Kresal,

B. (2003). The motivation, professional

development and identity of social work

students in four European countries.

European Journal of Social Work, 6,163-178.

Hanson, J. G., & McCullagh, J. G. (1995).

Career choice factors for BSW students: A

10-year perspective. Journal of Social Work

Education, 31, 28-37.

Hartford, M. (1985). Understanding normal

growth and development of aging. Journal

of Gerontological Social Work, 8, 37-54.

International Federation of Social Workers.

(2000). International definition of social work.

Montreal: Author.

Israeli Association of Social Workers. (1994).

Codes of ethics. Tel-Aviv: Author.

Jack, R., & Mosley, S. (1997). The client group

preferences of diploma social work stu-

dents: What are they, do they change during

programs and what variables affect them?

British Journal of Social Work, 27, 893-911.

Jayaratne, S., Siefert, K., & Chess, W. A. (1988).

Private and agency practitioners: Some

data and observations. Social Service

Review, 62, 324-336.

Kane, M. N. (1999). Factors affecting social

work students' willingness to work with

elders with Alzheimer's disease. Journal of


Limb, G. B., & Organista, K. C. (2003).

Comparisons between Caucasian stu-

dents, students of color, and American

Indian students on their views on social

work's traditional mission, career motiva-

tions, and practice preferences. Journal of


Litwin, H. (1994). The professional standing of

work with elderly persons among social

work trainees. British Journal of Social

Work, 24, 53-69.

Macarov, D. (1991). Certain change: Social work

practice in the future. Silver Spring, Mary-

land: NASW Press.

Marsh, S. R. (1988). Antecedents to choice of a

helping career: Social work vs. business

majors. Smith College Studies in Social

Work, 58, 85-100.

National Association of Social Workers. (1999).

Codes of ethics. Washington, DC: Author.

O'Connor, I., Dalgleish, L., & Khan, J. (1984).

A reflection of the rising spectre of

conservatism: Motivational accounts of


social work students. British Journal of

Social Work, 14, 227-240.

Pearson, G. (1973). Social work as the priva-

tized solution of public ills. British Journal

of Social Work, 3, 209-227.

Perry, R. (2003). Who wants to work with the

poor and homeless? Journal of Social Work

Education, 39, 321-341.

Peterson, D. A. (1990). Personnel to serve the

aging in the field of social work: Implica-

tions for educating professionals. Social

Work, 35, 412^15.

Raskin, M. S. (1989). Empirical studies in field

instruction. New York: Haworth.

Ringel, S. (2003). The reflective self: A path to

creativity and intuitive knowledge in

social work practice education. Journal of

Teaching in Social Work, 23(3/4), 15-28.

Rosen, A. L., & Levy-Zlotnik, J. (2001). Demo-

graphics and reality: The "disconnect" in

social work education. Journal of Geronto-

logical Social Work, 36(3/4), 81-97.

Rubin, A., Johnson, R J., & DeWeaver, K. L. (1986).

Direct practice interests of MSW students:

Changes from entry to graduation. Journal of

Social Work Education, 22(2), 98-108.

Scharlach, A., Damron-Rodriguez, J., Robin-

son, B., & Feldman, R. (2000). Educating

social workers for an aging society: A

vision for the 21st century. Journal of Social

Work Education, 36, 521-538.

Schwartz, S., & Dattalo, P. (1990). Factors

affecting student selection of macro spe-

cializations. Administration in Social Work,

14(3), 83-96.

Skidmore, R. A., Thackeray, M. G., & Farley,

O. W. (1991). Introduction to social work.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Smaller, M. D. (1987). Attitudes toward pri-

vate practice in social work: Examiiung

professional commitment. Journal of

Independent Social Work, 1, 7-18.

Specht, H., & Courtney, M. E. (1994).

Unfaithful angels: How social work has aban-

doned it's mission. New York: Free Press.

Strozier, A. L., & Stacey, L. (2001). The rele-

vance of personal therapy in the educa-

tion of MSW students. Clinical Social Work

Journal, 29,181-195.

Takamura, J. C. (2001). Towards a new era in

aging and social work. Journal of Geronto-

logical Social Work, 36(3/4), 1-11.

Tolson, E. R., & Kopp, J. (1988). The practicum:

Clients, problems, interventions and

influences on student practice. Journal of

Social Work Education, 2,123-134.

Toren, N. (1972). Social work: The case of a semi-

profession. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Walz, T., & Groze, V. (1991). The mission of

social work revisited: An agenda for the

1990s. Social Work, 36, 500-504.

Weiss, I., Gal, J., Cnaan, R. A., & Maglejlic R.

(2002) Where does it begin? A compara-

tive perspective on the professional pref-

erences of first year social work students.

British Journal of Social Work, 32, 589-608.

Weiss, I , Gal, J., & Cnaan, R. A. (2004). Social

work education as professional socializa-

tion: A study of the impact of social work

education upon students' professional

preferences. Journal of Social Service Re-

search, 31,13-31.

Weiss, I., Gal, J., & Dixon, J. (Eds.). (2003).

Professional ideologies and preferences in

social work: A global study. Westport, CT:

Auburn House.


Accepted: 10/05

Michal Krumer-Nevo is lecturer, Spitzer Department of Social WorK and academic coordinator ofthe Israeli Center for Qualitative Methodologies, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.Idit Weiss is senior lecturer, Bob Shapell School of Social WorK Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Israel.

Address correspondence to Michal Krumer-Nevo at Spitzer Department of Social WorK Ben-GurionUniversity of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel; e-mail: [email protected].

SOCIAL SCffiNCES - Assistant Professor at Cal Poly State University, San LuisObispo, California. Full-time, academic year, tenure-track position to teachSociology/Social Work beginning September 10, 2007. Salary is commensuratewith qualifications and experience. Duties and responsibilities include teachingundergraduate courses in Social Work and managing internships in the SocialServices' concentration in the Social Sciences BA degree. Duties also includeteaching foundation courses in sociology. Ability to offer courses in introductionto social work, social welfare institutions, and social work methods is required. ADSW or Ph.D. degree in sociology with an MSW is required by the time ofappointment. ABD's who will have their degrees posted by September 2007 areencouraged to apply. Teaching experience is preferred. To apply please visitWWW.CALP0LYJ0BS.ORG to complete a required online faculty applicationand apply to Requisition #101011 by the closing date of 12-15-06. Please attachto your online application a letter of interest and curriculum vitae. Three currentletters of reference, transcripts (unofficial acceptable initially) and relevantsupporting documents should be mailed to the Sociology RecruitmentCommittee, Social Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University,San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0329. Closing Date: December 15, 2006. Cal Poly isstrongly committed to achieving excellence through cultural diversity. Theuniversity actively encourages applications and nominations of all qualifiedindividuals. EEO

factors affecting the interest of israeli social work students in working with different client...

Documents