Social work journals and the disciplinary production of alternative knowledge(s)

Abstract

Disciplinary knowledge is reflected, legitimated, and replicated in academic journals, social work knowledge reproducing mainly Western knowledge(s). Hence, there has been an increase in the calls for a stronger articulation and inclusion of critical alternatives. Using a critical social work lens, we explored whether and how social work journals reproduce alternative knowledges. We developed a novel global list of all 272 social work journals and invited journal editors to respond to a virtual, exploratory qualitative survey. Through our reflexive thematic analysis, we identified two core themes in the 31 responses – the journal editors’ attachment to dominant, white, western social work knowledge and values, and their rhetorical inclusion of alternative knowledges. Alternative knowledges were seldom constructed as subjugated voices, but rather as innovation, gaps, or international perspectives. Despite agreeing that social work journals should include of a variety of knowledges, few journals created intentional space for subordinated knowledges. A disciplining mechanism that excludes/minimizes the alternative voices, and invalidates their experience was used to avoid attention to marginalized and silenced perspectives. Such processes impoverish social work knowledge. To enrich social work knowledge, journal editors should act intentionally, collectively, and critically to identify critical alternative knowledges and facilitate their inclusion in the social work canon.