Successful Structural Social Work: Strategies for Modern Day Practice

Setting and Recruitment

The research recruitment process began in April 2022. Working at a Structural School of Social Work, the research poster and call for participants were distributed via our e-mail list. In addition, the poster and call were distributed to all registered social workers via the governing body/association in each Atlantic Canadian province, including: New Brunswick (NB), Nova Scotia (NS), Prince Edward Island (PEI), and Newfoundland and Labrador. The poster and information were shared on the University’s website and social media accounts, as well as being shared via personal social media networks. We also recruited via snowballing, as participants shared with others whom they thought would be well suited for the research. The requirement to participate was that the individuals identify as “structural social workers.” The invitation was left open for social workers to self-define the term SSW, given the parameters and purpose of the research. Participants’ suitability for the research based on their initial understanding of “SSW” was explored and considered when they contacted the researcher. In all cases, the participants could articulate a passion for, and understanding of, SSW in their own words, for example, describing the impact of systems on individual experiences, discussing the importance of challenging systems, highlighting the importance of consciousness-raising, and so on. If a participant would not have been able to contextualize “SSW,” the researcher would have explored this with the individual and explained that the research project may not be the right fit for them at this time. This, however, did not occur. Participants were given the option to do the interview in-person or via MS Teams/Zoom based on preference.

Ethics Approval

This study was approved by the St. Thomas University Research Ethics Committee (approval no. REB#2022-10) on January 19, 2022. Written and verbal consent were sought and granted by each participant prior to beginning the interviews. Consent included permission to use anonymized transcribed components of the interviews in knowledge dissemination outputs.

Participants

Twenty-eight social workers were recruited to participate in the research. One from PEI, two from NS, and 25 from NB. The Structural School of Social Work is situated in NB, and the researchers work in NB, which arguably would result in higher numbers of structural social workers in the province, and easier recruitment through professional connections, which likely speaks to the increased participant representation from this province. Two interviews were conducted in-person, one by telephone, and the remaining 25 virtually. Participants had between 2 and ≥40 years of social work experience, with an average of 17.5 years. Cumulatively, participants had over 494 years of practice experience. Sixteen participants had Master of Social Work (MSW) degrees, two were MSW candidates at the time of the interviews, and the remaining 10 participants had BSW degrees. All participants were registered social workers in their respective provinces at the time of the research. Registration occurs through the provincial governing bodies and/or colleges and often consists of providing educational documents, references, and payment for registration dues. For most of the participants, the majority of their practice experience had taken place in publicly (state) funded organizations such as regional health authorities (policy, hospital and health, palliative care, mental health and addictions, rehabilitation, psychiatry, grief/bereavement); department of social development (child and adult protection, policy, employment assistance programs, government leadership, disability services, outreach, housing, intimate partner violence); department of education (outreach, integrated service delivery, counseling); the criminal justice system (rehabilitation, addiction and mental health services, outreach); and the Canadian Armed Forces. This lends well to their ability to speak to effective SSW strategies in conventional workplace settings. However, participants also brought experience in nonprofits (policy and advocacy, housing, disability, mental health and addictions) and self-employment (private practice, advocacy, policy).

Although there was additional interest in the research, the researchers recognized that we had reached data saturation, often defined as information redundancy, as participants continued to share repetitive information and no new code themes were found (Braun & Clarke, 2019).

Research Design and Data Analysis

Because it can be difficult to practice structurally in conventional settings, there is the risk that interviewing individuals about SSW will elicit negative discussion focused on barriers. Given the focus of the research, to inspire and provide tangible ways to embody SSW successfully, the research questions were framed as appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005) to generate open-ended and constructive discussions and to inspire action about the maintenance of SSW (Bellinger & Elliott, 2011; Hung et al., 2018; Teater & Carpenter, 2017). The interviews began by asking participants to “explain or describe what SSW is in their own words.” The remaining research questions included: What do you believe works well as a structural social worker in predominantly conventional settings? What practical advice do you have to offer to future social workers striving to maintain structuralism in conventional settings? What inspires you to continue working from a structural lens? What would SSW look like if it could be fully implemented in your current work setting? How do you navigate risk well in practicing SSW? What does “good” advocacy look like?

Given the critical, radical foundations of SSW theory, this research adopts a critical theory methodology. Critical theory aligns well with the core values of SSW, positing that social issues and societal structures are inextricably connected (the personal is political; Agger, 2006), and that structural oppression must be challenged and eliminated (social justice orientation of social work). Furthermore, critical theory suggests that individuals are not only shaped by society, but that they too have the agency to create change (empowerment and consciousness-raising; Agger, 2006; Peters, 2012). A critical theoretical approach to research recognizes the effects subjectivity and current ways of knowing will have on the research, appreciating the larger context in which research evolves (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005; Peters, 2012). A critical theory approach requires researchers to question and consider language and discourse (Foucault, 2002), positionality (Weekes, 2023), reflection (Ferguson, 2018), and dialogue as means to transform power structures and societal systems.

Twenty-eight individual, semistructured interviews each between 60 to 90 minutes were audio and/or video recorded and transcribed verbatim by researchers. The interviews were then analyzed using inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis “is a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 6). Adopting a bottom-up approach of thematic analysis aligns well with the goals of the research, as well as with social work values generally, as the findings transmit participants’ perceptions and opinions without trying to align with preexisting coding frames or preconceived theoretical underpinnings (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Labra et al., 2019). Labra et al. (2019) highlight how this approach to thematic analysis results in a “speech act” that respects core social work values such as social justice and self-determination. To ensure trustworthiness, importance is placed on the process of engaging in thematic analysis, which includes six phases: (a) familiarize self with data, (b) generate initial codes, (c) search for themes, (d) review themes, (e) define and name themes, and (f) present and discuss results (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Labra et al., 2019). These phases are iterative and fluid, requiring the researchers to critically engage with the data, coding, and thematic development. Successful and meaningful social work research has been published using thematic analysis (see: Caplan et al., 2017; Clark et al., 2023; O’Connor, 2020; Phillipowsky, 2020; Sen et al., 2022).

The principal researcher worked closely with two BSW student research assistants on the project. The BSW students observed some of the interviews and engaged in transcription. They also helped to code/analyze the transcripts. Given the nature and purpose of the research, it was important to the principal researcher to have BSW students actively involved in each stage of the work. MAXQDA software was used to support the qualitative data analysis, organizing coding, conducting data analysis, generating code families, and storing notes to ensure consistency and streamlined coding between researchers. Transcripts were predominantly coded by the principal researcher and one research assistant. Initial coding was conducted by coding all relevant data to the research questions, which were later recoded and organized into code families and themes. Any transcripts coded by student research assistants were reviewed and edited by the principal researcher to ensure consistency. Transcripts were reviewed and coded at least twice, engaging in iterative and consistent coding throughout. At times transcripts were recoded collaboratively, as an active learning process for student research assistants, thus also allowing for reflexivity and transparency in the data analysis process. Once all transcripts were coded (and recoded), we began to search and organize codes into themes. Braun and Clarke (2006) explain “a theme captures something important about the data in relation to the research question and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set” (p. 10). In this phase, we analyzed and reviewed codes to see which might be combined to form main themes (key findings) and subthemes, while also considering which codes did not fit. Codes deemed not to fit meant that they did not align with any themes and thus were not consistent enough throughout the data to emerge as a significant finding. During the review phase, we returned to each theme and subtheme to ensure all the included codes aligned to create a pattern (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

Constantly engaging in reflexivity and being mindful of one’s subjectivity are critical components of rigorous thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Labra et al., 2019). Reflexivity in research can be defined as, “a way of articulating, and therefore acknowledging and scrutinizing, the tacit knowledge of the researcher” (D’Cruz et al., 2007, p. 78). In our data analysis and research processes, reflexivity was used to explore and consider our, and participants’, assumptions, generated knowledge, and ways of knowing. Doing so allowed us to question and destabilize these notions. As D’Cruz et al. (2007) highlight, reflexivity is a process of looking “outward to the social and cultural artifacts and forms of thought which saturate our practices (White, 2001, p. 102) and inward to challenge the processes by which we make sense of the world” (p. 78). These practices also align with social work values, recognizing we each carry our own values, biases, beliefs, and subjectivities into the process. To ensure transparent, rigorous, and strong research, we must be aware of how these aspects of ourselves may be influencing the process and outcomes to actively attempt to check and balance this. The benefit of working with social work student researchers is that we were able to engage in an on-going, reflexive dialogue surrounding the coding and thematic process. For example, we questioned what was flagging as themes for each other, and why. We were particular about thematic naming and language choice, understanding the importance of language in knowledge creation and power generation (Peters, 2012), and we explored our resistances toward themes (e.g., the principal researcher was hesitant to accept “barriers to structural practice” as a key finding). In this way, we were able to provide accountability to one another. The iterative and reflexive process of thematic analysis resulted in rich and insightful findings of how one might successfully embody SSW in conventional settings.

Defining SSW

By not providing a specific definition prior to the interview, participants were able to self-identify and present their own understandings of the term, leading to a richer and broader conceptualization of SSW in practice. According to participants, SSW is rooted in engagement in social justice and change-making. This notion of SSW echoes scholarly understandings of structuralism, as historically, SSW arose from critical, radical, and social justice theories (Peters, 2012). What is unique about the social justice component in this understanding of SSW compared to the literature is that the conceptualization of social justice among participants tended to focus predominantly on “smaller” acts of social justice, grounded more in social worker action than that of service-users. This somewhat deviates from M. Moreau’s (1979) articulation of the central goal of SSW, framed as assisting service-users to “develop social praxis” (p. 82) so that they can engage in social justice and change, as well as radical emancipation (Peters, 2012). Participants explored how seemingly “small” structural actions can accumulate (SSW003) and influence systemic change, as well as individual lived experiences. This participant shares how smaller acts can be meaningful:

For you saying like, “Oh well, that wasn’t a big deal, it’s just a few phone calls.” But for that client, that might have been everything for them. And you may say, well, I didn’t change the whole system, but if you could take that macro level and say, but on a personal level that person now has something that they never would have been able to achieve. (SSW016)

Aligning with the seemingly “smaller” acts of SSW, participants also discussed finding ways to implement “nuggets of activism” (SSW001), explored how structural actions have a “domino effect” (SSW002), and highlighted the importance of “finding the little things” (SSW021) to persevere. This “smaller” or more micro understanding of social justice provides a more practical avenue for engaging in meaningful activism, challenging systems and power relations, while also protecting social workers (M. Moreau, 1979). Often in SSW literature, social justice and change efforts are explored as larger sociopolitical, or macro-level, efforts (Carniol, 1992; M. Moreau, 1979). However, participants shared more subtle instances of resistance and activism (Weinberg, 2008), which arguably better aligned with their 21st-century practice settings, parameters, and restrictions. As M. Moreau (1979) said, “an agency-based social worker can only bite the hand that feeds him and get away with it for so long before being reprimanded, if not fired” (p. 88).

While the emphasis seemed to be on “smaller” acts of social justice and change, participants also shared the importance of maintaining the connection between macro and micro practice through “large” and “small” acts. For example, participants shared that resisting or challenging rigid agency guidelines for funding, and approving requests for service-users within their discretion, would be considered a “small” act (micro level). However, they stated the importance of expanding on this micro action with larger acts (macro) of advocacy, such as letter-writing and larger policy development initiatives. Both were seen as necessary in SSW.

Aligning with the micro/macro importance of social justice acts, it was noted that successful SSW does require social workers to always look for, and be able to make, connections between the personal and political to identify opportunities to affect change. This idea is deeply rooted in SSW theory. M. J. Moreau (1990) posits that SSW in practice should primarily involve an examination of service-users’ personal problems as they relate to various structures in their lives. SSW suggests that the organization of our society and the resultant structures and systems fundamentally need to be challenged and reorganized to better meet the needs of the collective in meaningful ways.

Participants also shared that SSW requires critical thinking and self-reflection. This allows social workers to make the necessary connections between the personal and the political, though also encourages self-awareness. M. Moreau (1979) posits that self-awareness assures “that in the end the worker’s activities are geared exclusively and totally to the client’s interests, not to the worker’s own personal needs and agenda” (p. 90). Participants in this study echo these sentiments, as they describe being structural as requiring all decisions and actions to be centered around service-users, rather than being grounded in an effort (subconsciously or consciously) to protect systems. Participants also described using service-user needs as the focus and catalyst for social justice/change action. Participants discussed feeling as though they had no other choice than to practice structurally as they felt it to be the most ethical, authentic, and comprehensive approach to practice. In other words, “to be a social worker is to be a structural social worker” (SSW026).

. . . I think where I’m at in my journey and career . . . there really is only two choices of becoming a structural social worker or leaving the profession . . . working within the conventional systems and the way that they operate conventionally is further perpetuating a lot of the issues and in my view, further oppressing the client. (SSW014)

Similarly, SSW was said to be the most aligned with the core values of social work and calls for social workers’ decisions and actions to be informed by the needs of service-users.

Furthermore, participants identified SSW as being more of a “calling” than a “job” (SSW026). Many participants recalled feeling a significant tie between who they are, their personal values, and the overall values of SSW. One participant stated, “it’s embedded in my cells, in my heart, my soul” (SSW015). The research found that social workers must be passionate and have a “fire” for the work, though participants stressed that personal values and passion were not enough on their own to meaningfully practice structurally. It was stated that “going in on fire” (SSW004) or being too passionate without other skills or knowledge could pose a barrier. Because of this, the first key theme, adopting a strategic approach, was echoed within and across interviews.

Adopting a Strategic Approach

The theme of adopting a strategic approach was one of the richest and most complex themes identified in the data. Participants consistently shared different strategies to engage in successful structural practice. Ten strategic approaches emerged, including: asking strategic questions, remaining curious, engaging in active listening, knowing “how to sell it,” knowing the systems, critically understanding policy, observing workplace dynamics, providing solutions and ideas, accepting that a strategic approach and structural change is incremental, and engaging in ways you can control. Each strategy will be explored below.

By asking questions and engaging in curiosity, participants aimed to “interrupt the autopilot” (SSW001) of narratives and practices often implicated in the regular functioning of institutions. Through being curious and asking questions in polite and professional ways, participants were able to call into question and disrupt the practices of those around them without “coming in with a hammer” (SSW007). One participant highlighted their “play dumb technique,” which involved feigning curiosity to encourage others to explain and support their positions:

So, I ask another question and then I ask another question. And so, it’s very non-threatening, this “play dumb” technique . . . I remain very polite, very professional, but at the same time very curious . . . So, “is that written somewhere? Can I see where that’s written?” Those kinds of questions, you know. Just that will get you very far. (SSW018)

Similarly, the importance of knowing how to “deliver” or “sell” structural ideas strategically was discussed. Identifying that not everyone shares a structural mind-set, participants voiced that it is important for structural social workers to find palatable ways to present their ideas to increase the chance that they will be accepted. As this participant shared:

None of us feel very good when someone just tells us we’re doing something wrong, and there’s a human attached to every role in this. So, again, it’s using good social work skill. Engaging folks, being respectful, understanding the perspective may be different but I’m going to offer you mine. (SSW025)

Participants shared the importance of providing solutions rather than merely complaining or identifying problems; you need to “have a plan” (SSW010), “find those opportunities to present it and your solution ready,” (SSW019), and at times need to act “like a salesperson” and “talk it up” (SSW028). As one participant eloquently summarized, “calling attention to problems without having systemic solutions isn’t helpful to anyone, but especially in terms of the work that you hopefully intend to do” (SSW026). Another participant emphasized the importance of sympathizing with those in management, highlighting that they, too, are often doing their best and are overburdened by the system. They shared:

When you advocate or raise issues, go into the situation with some solutions in mind, because to empathize with the supervisors, manager, and the directors, each of them is in survival mode generally. You know, and they just want solutions and so if you can come to them with some ideas, that makes a huge difference. (SSW024)

Participants also described the importance of becoming critically familiar with the policies and systems one is working in. Without knowing the guidelines, resources, and limits that inform the work one is doing, finding ways to implement structural change becomes more difficult. Understanding relevant policies, being conscious of common procedure, and knowing the Code of Ethics were all identified as critical to successful SSW. Participants shared that when you truly understand and can critically interpret policy, it provides power and freedom. As one participant shared, “what’s our barrier here? Is there another way of looking at this or using it because that wording, that’s open to interpretation for me, I think this could give us a foot in the door to try ABC” (SSW005).

Part of becoming familiar with policies and systems is observing workplace dynamics and engaging in active listening among colleagues; while active listening is also an essential skill in direct social work practice with service-users, participants explored active listening as a strategy to better understanding workplace dynamics, process, and possible allyship. In this way, active listening is proposed as a critical technique in preparing oneself for successful structural advocacy while working within systems. Participants acknowledged the value of “coming in as an observer” (SSW002), and taking a step back, gathering information, and “testing the waters” (SSW012) were also identified as important. One participant summarized this process, saying

I think something I would suggest to people is when you’re entering a new work environment, I think it’s helpful at first to just really try to take everything in. I think sometimes we feel guilty if we’re not addressing things like right away as they come up, and it’s okay to take a step back, observe, take it all in, gather information and then, once you feel a little more grounded in what’s going on, then choose how to respond. (SSW023)

Each of these techniques was recognized as being subtle and taking time. While conventional social work practice with individuals can also be considered incremental, participants explicitly explored how enacting systemic and social change through “small” and “large” acts (micro/macro efforts) from a structural approach does not happen quickly. Participants voiced the importance of being flexible and patient, as progress can be tedious:

I think just that addressing structural issues takes time and it takes longer to see the results of your efforts . . . So I think because of that you have to keep in mind that it is like a marathon, not a sprint, because if you expect it to be a sprint, you’re gonna start to feel really defeated or maybe think that you’re not doing a good job . . . It’s like that cheesy, like, quote about how it’s really beautiful when someone plants a tree knowing they’ll never live to sit in its shade, right? (SSW023)

Other phrases used to describe this concept included “baby steps” (SSW010) and “not looking for big leaps and bounds” (SSW015). While acknowledging that structural change often takes time and planning, social workers can, and should, continue to actively prepare for structural shifts, planting seeds of change, and pushing boundaries. Participants highlighted the importance of social workers focusing on what they can control, including being purposeful with documentation, proposing solutions to the right people, bringing structural theory into interactions with service-users, and seeking opportunities to influence systems, such as joining committees. As one participant stated, “I’m not naïve to think that we’re anywhere near changing some of these institutions or organizations, but you do what you can, right? . . . I slept at night knowing that I’d done what I could” (SSW028). Similarly, another participated shared the importance of enacting structural practice with service-users directly as a means of what one can control in practice (smaller acts on the micro level), as slower interventions and efforts toward larger change (macro level) also occur:

Because that’s where I think structural social work makes a difference. Because when you’re working one on one with people, that’s one hundred percent in your control, so you shouldn’t have to struggle too much with that in the sense of how you treat people with respect and dignity . . . How you deal with people is within your control one hundred percent. It’s the system that you’re working within, when it’s acting in a way that we learn in school is oppressive to people, it’s being able to speak and name that and say, “that’s not okay and what can we do?” (SSW011)

Aligning closely with the theme of adopting a strategic approach is the importance of gaining competency and credibility as key components to being able to find opportunities to execute structural strategies.

Gaining Credibility and Competency

Participants reported that it is difficult to advocate for structural change, to push boundaries, or to be taken seriously until one has had the opportunity to build a credible and positive professional reputation. As one participant said,

I also think authority figures are more likely to listen to you when it’s clear that you know what you’re talking about, so if you take the time to really do the work and understand the impact and know the back story and all of that, then when you go to them, that’s going to come across and they’re going to be more likely to listen to you. (SSW023)

This was described as especially true for new social workers. Participants shared how “it takes time to figure out who you are in that agency” (SSW010) and that “doing the work and showing that you’re genuine, showing them that you don’t feel like you’re smarter than them, being humble, and knowing that you have things to learn” (SSW007) will result in greater success than “jumping in before you really fully understand the way it works” (SSW023). This was particularly relevant, as new structural social workers were often described as engaging in radical or “aggressive” social justice efforts before familiarizing themselves with the system(s) or having any practice experience. Participants discussed that new social workers often emerge into practice with a level of passion that can outweigh their level of competency. While being passionate is certainly a positive, new structural social workers were cautioned that credibility and the ongoing pursuit of training are necessary for the maintenance, growth, and impact of their passion.

Credibility is huge . . . You need to build credibility. I would never say that someone shouldn’t come into the field with a lot of passion and the desire to shake things up. Like, that’s a good thing. There’s no two ways about that, that’s a good thing. It’s just important to know that if you want to have success with that, you really need to build credibility and what I mean by that is like pursue training. (SSW024)

On-going professional development through training and learning was identified as crucial to developing credibility and competency. One participant said, “training, training, always, always, always do training!” (SSW026), and another echoed this sentiment when they expressed, “always have that continuous knowledge, seeking out ongoing learning” (SSW021). Participants shared that while formal on-going learning and professional development are important, so too are more flexible methods of engaging in learning, such as reading, podcasts, and/or mentorship. Participants consistently said that to successfully push boundaries and advocate for change, the social worker needs to be capable, competent, and proven in their role. As one participant summarized, “if you’re going to bite the hand that feeds you, you better be able to do your job at the same time” (SSW010). This sentiment is in direct correlation to M. Moreau’s (1979) perspectives on engaging in structuralism, outlined in his seminal text 45 years ago. Similarly, other participants shared these views on credibility and competency:

You get some experience and then you speak from that place of experience, then your voice can be louder. Because you’re coming from a place where you know and you’ve earned that respect . . . Be open, check yourself, investigate. (SSW002)

If you’re just going to go, pardon the expression, piss in the pickles, nothing is going to happen. You’re just perceived as obstructionist. So, a lot of being able to do these things depends on your value to that workplace and that system. And if you are viewed as having value, that is your own reputation precedes you always, is it the person that we normally listen to? Do they make sense? So a lot of it is you’re riding on your own professional reputation. (SSW009)

Building Relationships and Rapport

To engage in successful SSW long term, participants cautioned against trying to work in silos, expressing there is power in numbers and strength in collaboration. This connects to SSW roots, which focused on community action and collaboration toward change (M. Moreau, 1979). Working in groups can mitigate feelings of isolation while also presenting more powerful, and coordinated, advocacy opportunities. Building relationships and rapport extended beyond the walls of individual workplaces and included the importance of building structurally focused networks with interdisciplinary partners and agencies. One participant noted, “nobody does this [structural social work] by themselves” (SSW009), while another shared

you can’t work in isolation, you got to work with other people, you got to work with other agencies, and doing that, and collaborating together, and coming up with kind of an integrated approach, you can come up with some really creative things. (SSW004)

Many participants stated that it is crucial to find allies and like-minded individuals to help with advocacy and to explore structural options. It was noted that structural allies may not always be other social workers, as this participant highlighted:

Well, allies are everything really. . . . But even if people haven’t been trained in social work or they haven’t been trained in structural approach are still open to analyzing things and understanding things better. So, you know, we have allies in the occupational therapists or the psychologist or certain doctors . . . So, allies become very important, especially when you have to be finding solutions to a problem that is very complex. (SSW018)

Similarly, this participant notes that establishing rapport and allyship should be a fundamental component of structural work:

And then making sure as part of your work, you are developing relationships with people in and out of the system who can potentially be used as allies, right? Or as system changers without even their awareness. (SSW026).

It is important to note that building relationships and rapport was not only discussed as necessary among like-minded people, but as essential with all colleagues, to earn trust and respect. As this participant voiced, relationships are fundamental to gaining support and enacting change: “People aren’t going to buy in to whatever you’re wanting to change if they don’t have a relationship with you. So, building relationships with colleagues is really important” (SSW012).

Participants also stated the importance of observing and connecting with mentors who share structural goals. Participants described mentors as also helping them find “balance” (SSW002) and guiding them as they “walk through fire” (SSW005). This participant encompassed the ethos of the subtheme of mentorship well in saying,

You should find someone who is structuralist who has been in for a long time and like saddle up to them and just become, you know, you’re like the little grasshopper and they’re going to teach and you’re going to learn by them modeling it. Or you can learn, be reignited in terms of your passion, in terms of hearing what they have done, alright? But you’ve got some kind of mentorship, some kind of sounding board so you’re not alone. (SSW026)

Navigating Risk

Participants stated there are often situations where structural social workers are compelled to speak out against conservative practices to advocate for service-users. Consequently, to act outside of these systems can result in a level of personal and professional risk. One participant described risk as being inherent to practicing structurally, stating “if you’re going to be structural and a social worker, you will be at risk” (SSW010). The idea of “picking your battles” was discussed throughout the interviews, meaning that not every issue is worth taking a risk for. As this participant shared, “I mean picking your battles for sure, people get fed up with you if everything is a cause. I guess it’s just learning when to speak up and when to maintain those relationships” (SSW012). To make this decision, participants highlighted how they would consider the seriousness of the issue, who the issue was impacting, and/or the well-being of the worker. Participants discussed the reality that there are many injustices, and that one social worker is not able to champion them all. One participant stated, “it’s a judgment call. Did I mount a campaign over everything I didn’t like? Absolutely not. I only went for the things that I thought I could win by being very strategic about it” (SSW009). Another participant shared this:

So many issues are important to me, and I think I can’t do them all. I’m exhausted when I do and I’m not sure I’m good to any of them when I do, so kind of just narrowing your focus. Supporting other ones in the way you can, but also, kind of figuring out which ones are most relevant and important to your practice is an important part of it . . . Figuring out, where do I want to fight the fight? What do I want to let go? What feels important to me? (SSW014)

Although picking your battles was explored, so too was the concept of having “a hill to die on.” This refers to an issue that a social worker may encounter that they simply cannot ignore or justify not championing. One participant described this as an issue they would “put my neck out” for (SSW002). “Hills to die on” were often issues related to a direct conflict between personal or social work values and what the workplace is asking, or egregious ethical concerns or injustices. As this participant said,

Sometimes there are those things for us in our careers where it’s like, no, this injustice I’m not willing to live with, I’m going to do this whether I’m fired or not. Those are different, those are moments that you just kind of have to take a stand if you’re willing to do so and just risk your job. (SSW013)

Similarly, another participant discussed the interconnection between strategy and navigating risk in saying, “you have to decide is this the hill you’re going to die on? There’s lots of things I could have done. Perhaps maybe I should have done, but I didn’t because I didn’t think I could make the kind of impact I needed. So be strategic, you’re not going to win everything” (SSW009). In terms of personal risk, practicing structurally was brought forward as sometimes resulting in feeling lonely given the potential to be perceived as a “whistleblower” (SSW011) or “squeaky wheel” (SSW001). One participant voiced:

Sometimes you have to choose, am I going to be lonely or am I going to go against my values? And I always said that being lonely is better for me than doing something that I don’t think is right . . . Be okay with being the loner sometimes, it’s okay to be the loner sometimes. We don’t have to be liked all the time. You have your family, your friends for that. Your co-workers don’t have to like you all the time. They have to respect you, but they don’t have to like you. (SSW017)

The themes of building credibility, competency, relationships, and rapport were also interwoven and stressed in discussions of navigating risk. Participants shared that these components and skills help to form a foundation on which workers may be able to take more risks in their small and large acts of resistance and social justice/change. Participants also expressed the importance of recognizing possible barriers to structural practice and being inventive in the face of this to maintain successful structural practice.

Recognizing Barriers and Being Inventive

The notion of barriers to structural practice is not surprising given the literature and personal stories of structural social workers; some of these barriers are explored in the Introduction section (see, e.g., Carniol, 1992; Chan, 2018; M. J. Moreau, 1990; Mullaly & Dupré, 2018; Peters, 2012). However, what was insightful and unique about this finding is that participants did not predominantly explore the recognition of barriers as a deterrent, per say, but rather simply as a reality that one must accept and prepare for as part of successful SSW. As this participant highlighted,

but we’re working for a system that does not believe that way, and they’re our employer. So, if we want to have money in our account every two weeks then we have to think of a different way to respond or react, or try to make the system more accommodating. (SSW027)

Often, the barriers participants described were factors related to neoliberal and capitalistic ideals, such as limited or rigid resources, limited personnel, lack of funding, managerialism, and hierarchical structures. One participant described attaining physical and personnel resources as “pulling teeth” (SSW002) and another shared how bureaucratic barriers often result in “staying late or coming in on weekends” though continued to say “that’s not a sustainable approach . . . there’s not enough hours in the day to get it all done” (SSW015). These elements were stressed as reflecting broader social injustices and as often outside of individual control. However, participants explored how these barriers can lead to experiences of burnout and moral distress. Burnout was predominantly explored as a concern when working in environments that contrast with the values of SSW, particularly when individuals felt they had little to no opportunities to engage in any strategic structural work. Participants voiced how you cannot successfully advocate or be structural if “you’re just in survival mode” (SSW023). Staying grounded and healthy to maintain a structural perspective was also discussed (SSW020).

In light of possible barriers, participants explored the importance of resilience and maintaining structural roots. Celebrating any “wins” and focusing on what makes the work worthwhile were discussed as motivation:

Structural social work can feel like that, like you’re planting a lot of seeds and you’re like, Oh my gosh, I don’t see any sign of growth. It’s so discouraging, but you have to remember, I’m not planting these trees for myself, right? I’m doing it for the betterment of something much bigger than myself and keeping that perspective. (SSW023)

Finding ways to continue in the face of common barriers, complications, or mistakes was stated as critical to maintaining both personal and professional well-being. As this participant said,

I know there are ways to feel pretty fulfilled as a structural social worker. Not everyday . . . but at the end of the week, if you can look back and say, by god, on that Wednesday morning, that was a great meeting, and in the meantime, you’re doing good work with the folks that you’re responsible for. (SSW025)

Aligning with the recognition of barriers, participants also identified the importance of being inventive. Other terms used to describe this included “working in the grey” (SSW021), “blurring the lines” (SSW025), “thinking outside the box” (SSW004), and “being creative” (SSW026). The literature explores creativity as a means of structural practice (Barnoff et al., 2006; Chan, 2018; Lundy, 2011; Spencer et al., 2017), though in adopting a critical theory approach to the research and being mindful of language, the term “inventive” was adopted here, as in my experience students often understood “creativity” as applied arts (e.g., art therapy) rather than adopting unique approaches to engaging in structural work. While there are a variety of policies and guidelines that social workers are often required to abide by, participants described having the ability to interpret these expectations in structural ways to best meet the needs of service-users. As this participant shared, “I guess part of the creative piece of it is, just because something hasn’t been done before doesn’t mean that it can’t be done, right? Like, it doesn’t really ever hurt to ask for things” (SSW012). Within the theme of inventiveness, participants discussed “asking for forgiveness instead of asking for permission” (SSW014), “ticking the right boxes” (SSW013), and “carving out spaces for structural social work” (SSW024). Being inventive was discussed as requiring significant advocacy. Furthermore, social workers must always be able to justify, explain, and ground their work in social work values and the code of ethics; being inventive is not akin to “going rogue.” Participants expressed that SSW must center decisions and advocacy around the needs of service-users, as well as the overall community:

And I think any time you can tie it to clientele need- it is coming from their voice? And you are the conduit of that voice but everything you’re bringing is very reflective. Any time you have evidence of any kind, in terms of, like, what the community is telling you, the groups that you need to run, what’s happening in terms of individual sessions and you’re bringing this constantly. It becomes not your voice, but community voice, and that is a lot harder to brush under the rug in most contexts. And it also depersonalizes it. This is not me, this is not mine, but you’ve hired me to do this role and then here’s what I’m hearing. And so, then it’s about pushing that voice through. (SSW026)