Consider the various ways that the communities you are working with have been (mis)measured? How does measurement type influence the construction of social issues and the ways we address them? How might you measure things in an ethically responsive way?
Blog Post Rubric
Posts will be due by Friday of the same week they are assigned on Wednesday. You are expected to respond to your peers posts in a way that enhances our understanding of the subject. Please see the rubric below:
| Criteria | Full Participation Credit | Partial Credit |
|---|---|---|
| Blog Posts | Discussion prompts are answered fully and includes information from the readings, for example: 1. List 1-3 “social worker takeaways” you gained from the reading; or 2. Ask 2 questions you have connecting the reading to social work, or 3. List 1 interesting quote from the reading. | Discussion prompts are sparsely answered with no reference to the readings. |
| Engagement | Over the course of semester, the student has responded to at least 3 other student’s posts. The posts are related to the course texts and discussion content. | Over the course of the semester the student has responded to 1 or fewer student’s posts |
| Response Quality | The student’s responses thoughtfully build upon other’s perspectives and deepen the discussion. The responses include evidence from one of the below categories: 1. The readings 2. Social work practice (internship/work) 3. Professional and self-growth | The student’s responses do not thoughtfully build upon other’s perspectives, nor do they deepen the discussion. The responses do not include evidence from one of the below categories: 1. The readings 2. Social work practice (internship/work) 3. Professional and self-growth |
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
In my first-year placement, at Brooklyn Defender Services, I worked with parents who were involved in family court and had ACS cases opened against them. The child welfare system was built on the premise of protecting children from abusive or neglectful homes, but it has more recently been termed the “family regulation system” (Roberts, 2021). The legal standard for neglect broadly encompasses, among other things, the inability to provide sufficient food, clothing, or childcare (OCFS, 2021). The majority of families involved in the child welfare system are poor, Black families who are subject to multiple forms of systemic oppression and lack of supportive social service interventions (Roberts, 2002). The child welfare system rests at the intersection of numerous social issues. Child abuse and neglect is one of these, and I don’t mean to discount it. Yet, measuring neglect on purely “observational terms” (DeCarlo, 2018, p. 224) obscures the intersecting social issues that contribute to the circumstances under which neglect is observed.
I am sure that there has been much research on which the design and implementation of child welfare policies and programs have been built, and I cannot adequately speak to the methods of measurement involved in its design. But the child welfare system itself subjects parents to a pseudo-research process in which they are “measured” according to certain terms outlined by ACS and informed by social policy. Rittel and Weber (1973) describe an environment, in which our social safety net and a plethora service agencies developed, where the “professional’s job was…seen as solving an assortment of problems that appeared to be definable, understandable and consensual” (p. 156). Regardless of intent, the child welfare system, and the practice of mandated reporting, have manifested in treating child welfare as a “tame problem” rather than a “wicked one” (Rittel & Weber, 1973). Alternatively, Teichman (2017) defines epistemological oppression as occurring when “certain groups of peoples ability to participate in the gathering and sharing of knowledge is systematically undercut” (8:08-8:15). There is a wealth of alternative, subjugated knowledge that has been built by parents whose lives have been impacted by the family regulation system (for example: RISE, PLAN). While these knowledges are not professionalized or scientific in the traditional sense, they are important to include in our understanding of the goals and methods of child welfare as a social institution.
DeCarlo, M. (2018). Scientific Inquiry in Social Work. Open Social Work Education.
Office of Children and Family Services. (2021). Summary guide for mandated reporters in New York State. New York State Office of Children and Family Services. https://ocfs.ny.gov/publications/Pub1159/OCFS-Pub1159.pdf
Rittel, H.W.J. & Weber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), pp. 155-169.
Roberts, D. (2020). Abolishing policing also means abolishing family regulation. The Imprint. https://imprintnews.org/child-welfare-2/abolishing-policing-also-means-abolishing-family-regulation/44480
Roberts, D. (2002). Shattered bonds: The color of child welfare. Basic Books.
Teichman, M. (2017). Episode 92: Kristie Dotson discusses epistemic oppression [Audio podcast]. University of Chicago. https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/elucidations/2017/01/14/episode-92-kristie-dotson-discusses-epistemic-oppression/
Bhrahmagupta, Ramanujam, and others dared to see the true value of infinity in Zero. Similarly, in Mayan Mathematics, Zero equaled infinity (Kosheleva & Kreinovich, 2013). Yet seldom have we found studies referring to these ancient cultures and their profound findings.
The scale of measurement defaults to a White man’s standard of what can be valued and what must not count, and to this effect, has also either usurped findings or relegated them to an unfounded status. Therefore their conduct of enquiry suggests a mis-measurement, which further suggests an unconscious error rather than a deliberate omission, and may indicate a need for validation of the omitted data first, before the data can be measured as part of a collective reified reality. How does one measure things that aren’t observational/seen/realized/accepted, and shouldn’t we start by accepting them first, or how does a people who masterminded and engineered Zero, and its infinite potential as everything, be disqualified from mathematical discourse? As leading a question as this might seem, in order to push against the existing and meek acquiescence and social desirability bias, I would hope that it might bring our attention to “what exists in the real world”.
A Null Hypothesis therefore may present the possibility of a Construct that is yet to be uncovered. Judging by a gross need for inclusivity in qualitative research, there has been little, or Nothing, that has been validated thus far on the issues that warrant the critical race theory and why it has become necessary to allude to it as though it were the original theory of everything. Mathematics in the West has primarily alluded to quantifiable numbers. The deeper concepts within an accepted manner of life and the interpretation of Others’, seem to be corroborated in this way as well, wherein an aspect or a thing is only valuable if it acquires and is addressed a quantifiable worth – ‘shared understanding’ between those with a stake in research. But if we were to consider the reasons behind omitted data, the Zero/Null, by itself, may have the potential to elucidate a value that is tantamount to everything, or at least most things, in our unfairly researched world. In this case the Zero can be the value, of the myriad layers, of the conceptually-multidimensional critical race theory, that it aspires to bring to light, can it not?
I wonder then if a Boolean search strategy could include operationalizing Unknowables, and if not, whether the creation of a system of conjoiners, that allow for not just the truth and false, the AND, OR, and NOT – which give the researcher an overview of what is already included- but also of the Exhaustive omitted probabilities of what comprised of a SUBSTITUTION perhaps, or the consequent explanation of the reasons for a substituted piece of data MORESO, and the possibilities to make a substitution or incomplete data a whole YET TO BE. Within this paradigm, one might have to consider mapping concepts through the lens of the unknowable zero, rather than attach it to a recognized scale – a quantifiable entity teeming with convergent validity – and try and synthesize data that is relegated thus far psychically, normatively, culturally, politically, spiritually and optically, to a negative space – visible but capitalized as untouchable – by the sheer weight that it has amassed, much like the elephant in the room, a room teeming with white men, poorly deciding on the voter rights of the marginalized Black. Additionally, via Cameron and Stinson’s (2018) who study the measurements of gender and sex – which I interpret as a deliberate thwarting of the possibilities of expansive expressions, as once recognized by ancient cultures and traditions (Pape, 2019) – “prefer to not say” may as well translate to “we prefer you not say”.
By what measurement do we qualify the obvious, or the imbecility in its omission? Would not a kind of Zero cancel another and prove that only in the inclusion of discriminant variables is there any hope for research?
Measuring poverty, for example, by comparing it to an aspirational quantity, would no doubt concentrate on the lack of/in the impoverished rather than the reasons behind these circumstances. Upon close reading, as social workers, can we afford to be afraid of looking at the blatant hegemonic placement of one type of information over the displacement of another? Further, the data that has been normatively persuaded to be omitted/nullified must gain a value larger than that which is normally quantifiable, because social ills, and omitted aspects can accrue a cumulative value over time (Gilborn, 2010), and may become worse than before, if left unchecked. Hence the power of all Zeroes, in the realm of critical race theory, in an unfair society, remains uncombed, and also questions exponentially the very idea of what is real and what we are coached to measure as valuable.
References
Cameron, J.J., Stinson, D.A., (2019). Gender (mis)measurement: Guidelines for respecting gender diversity in psychological research. online library.wiley.com. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12506
Decarlo, M., (2018). Scientific Inquiry in Social Work.
Gillborn, D. (2010). Reform, racism and the centrality of whiteness: assessment, ability and the “new eugenics.” Irish Educational Studies, 29(3), 231–252. https://doi-org.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/10.1080/03323315.2010.498280
Kosheleva, O., & Kreinovich, V., (2013). Why in Mayan Mathematics, Zero and Infinity are the Same: A Possible Explanation. citeseerx. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.381.874&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Pape, M. (2019). Expertise and Non-binary Bodies: Sex, Gender and the Case of Dutee Chand. Body & Society, 25(4), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X19865940
During my tenure in fieldwork and employment in the field, I have had the opportunity to see the various ways different communities are measured, catalogued, and quantified. Cameron & Stinson (2019) brought forth an example of how a population is measured in research can bring harm and limit the credibility of the study findings. Cameron & Stinson (2019) discussed how the social norms and perceptions regarding gender identity have developed over time. Unfortunately, it appears that much of the research literature presented in the field of psychology has not quite kept pace. Cameron & Stinson (2019) noticed that in their literature review that a vast majority of the research either quantifies their data along the binary of male/female or offers questionnaires, surveys, or assessments that only offers the clients a choice of male/female. They may also just add an “other” option that lumps a vast group of varying identities together also known as “othering”. The obvious point being made is that non-binary and transgender individuals therefore are left underreported, misrepresented, or overshadowed by the findings in the psychological research (Cameron & Stinson, 2019).
The article reminded me a great deal of one of the points that I made in my article critique paper. I am currently working at the VA and so have been focusing a great deal of my attention this academic year on clinical work with vets. However, what I am finding from looking over the research literature and the verbiage at my placement, there is a similar binary descriptor of our clients. The literature and the agency refer to our clients simply as “vets” and using this as an umbrella term which homogenizes the clients the VA works with. By “homogenizing”, I mean that just because two individuals served in the military and perhaps were deployed to the same region, does not predetermine that their identities, experiences, and reactions are the same. However, the research that I have gathered for my article critique and term paper concerning vets is that additional identities concerning sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, income, etc. are not generally addressed or taken into account within the text of the studies. This creates an assumption that the millions of different individuals that have been employed by the military are so similar that they can be measured into a single identity. Obviously, from my experience in the field this is far from true. For example, I have several vets that I work with who carry a PTSD diagnosis that is connected to their experience in the military. Vets have reported the origin of their PTSD from exposure to combat, sexual assault, bullying/hazing, and racist abuse. Although all of the vets share a similar occupation and mental health diagnosis, they manifest in different ways. I think the most ethical and accurate method would be to not group vets along the single category of being employed by the military. But viewing them more as individuals with varying identities that impact the nature of the work in clinical social work. Using the PTSD example, research on vets should distinguish gender identity, race, income status, etc. amongst the study population to ensure that certain identities aren’t underrepresented or misrepresented. Furthermore, the results would likely be more accurate since all additional variables would be accounted for that may influence the results of the research.
Hi Nick,
I really appreciate your thorough reflection on the idea of measurement in regards to how vet’s should not be grouped just based on combat or location of which they were deployed. It is indeed a much more multi-faceted situation in which we should not be so quick to generalize a person. A family member of mine is diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, during his most recent outpatient program he was to attend weekly groups before ever seeing a counselor one on one. This created a bigger issue, because he was placed in a generalized group with other people who were diagnosed with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. He became extremely concerned after the first few sessions, claiming his symptoms were not as severe as some of the other members. There were may times he wanted to quit, and as a family we had to convince him to stick it out, as it was necessary for him to stay in the outpatient program. As someone who experienced psychosis with delusions, he became fearful he would experience some of the extreme hallucinations some of these other members were speaking about. He became frightened and extremely hopeless about his future. Group psychotherapeutic treatments are known to improve negative symptoms and social functioning deficits for schizophrenia, especially in the way that they are a helpful resource for for certain coping mechanisms, but on the other hand, it can be harmful to place someone in a group like this when they are first accepting the diagnoses, especially when they are also suffering from major depressive disorder.
I work primarily with children and adolescents, and the majority of them identify as black. Unfortunately, the thing that comes to mind when considering “mis-measurement” of the black community is the number of black Americans affected by police violence that go unreported. According to an article recently published in The Guardian, between 1980 and 2018, more than 55% of deaths, over 17,000 in total, from police violence were either misclassified or went unreported. The study also discovered that Black Americans are more likely than any other group to die from police violence and are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white Americans.” Another area of horrible mis-measurement occurs when black women go missing. Their disappearance often goes unreported or ignored by the media. The recent case surrounding Gabby Petito that took the internet by storm highlighted this, a phenomena labeled “missing white women syndrome”. The concept underlines the predisposition our society has to showing substantially more care and concern when a young, attractive, typically upper/middle class white woman goes than it does when a non-white or non-cis female person disappears. While these examples do not necessarily fall into a category of measurement type, they certainly represent the lack of proper measurement.
To fight these disparities, it is important to encourage and engage in dialogues about them.Additional awareness will hopefully lead to a rise in research surrounding the issue which will undoubtedly result in a better idea of what issues need to be tackled specifically.
Diversifying newsroom staffs and encouraging news and media companies to take ALL missing persons stories equally as seriously is another immediate task that can be addressed. Additionally, it is important for us to make sure that law enforcement is reporting non-cis-white-female missing persons cases equally as often. These ideas and steps are hardly groundbreaking, but they are actionable.
As far as underreported and racially driven police violence goes, again, I wish I had better more groundbreaking thoughts. Defunding (or abolishing) the police is something that seems far fetched but could massively improve the issue by allocating the funds to preventative social welfare programs and public safety units that focus more on community support and the delivery of services than punitive incarceration. Our country is racist, as it is literally built on racism and genocide, so I fear the root of the issue is something that must be tackled at all angles: in our politics, policies, social relations… all of it.
Hi Erika! I too primarily work with children and adolescents. It’s horrifying how over half of the deaths of black individuals were either misclassified or went unreported at the hands of the police. When you brought up the topic of black women going missing it reminded me of the case of Gabby Petito. She was a white girl who went missing and the whole country was concerned and doing their own “investigations” while so many black children and women are missing and people turn a blind eye.
One mis measurement I thought of was how young transgender women of color often experience extreme marginalization in shelters, housing programs, and social services because of their gender identity, race, sexual identity, class, and age. They are more likely to experience these things than any other individual.
There 100% needs to be more research on these disparities within the black community and more educational resources. A huge problem is that there are so many people who are uneducated about these disparities and have not had them brought to their attention. The implementation of education on these topics can be a huge starting point.
I am working with people who are charged with felonies and diverted to our Alternative to Incarceration court program. I would not consider our participants to be a community because individuals do not have contact with another, though they are certainly part of often-overlapping communities of people who share a rehab service provider, or come from the same neighborhood, or were held in terrible conditions in Rikers. Regardless and more importantly, my participants constitute a demographic group that has been mismeasured in complex ways that I am just starting to learn about. I mostly learn about program monitoring and evaluation from a researcher who does not have any direct contact with the clients, and the formal assessment tool I use for intakes, called the CCAT, has a lot of puzzling measurement mechanisms and leaves out many valuable person-in-environment topics. We cover nominal data including gender, pronouns, race and ethnicity; likert-type questions rating impulsivity and criminality through a spectrum of agree-disagree for ordinal data; and technically since the entire assessment is a point-value system with a numerical score output, it might qualify as interval data (DeCarlo, 2018).
The most astounding information that is not covered in any meaningful way in the assessment is the indirect observable of income, and the construct of a person’s relationship to poverty, financial security, and class mobility factors (DeCarlo, 2018). I thought that this would be a critical aspect of the assessment’s function in referring people to services. We have a question to gauge interest in public benefits, but a person’s financial backdrop is so much more complex than whether or not they might want food stamps, and does not build in social education about the misconstrued topic of welfare, which might mean a missed opportunity.
The measurement device absolutely reflects the prerogatives of the Center for Court Innovation as a dual research/direct service organization that is mostly focused on reform through precise adjustment of the criminal legal system, not abolition or even necessarily holistic client quality of life. The CCAT asks the client for their perspective on the past, present, and future of their education, employment, housing, physical and mental health, substance use, trauma, significant relationships, impulsivity, criminality, and connection to other social services. But the framing of the questions in each category is not necessarily strengths-focused. This fundamentally shifts the conversation into a problem-finding mission, where we see whether we can connect each topic as a potential contributing factor to criminality. My supervisor appreciated this point when I made it two weeks ago, and thought I might bring up to the research team.
Though I do achieve a fairly thorough picture of the client by the close of a 1.5-2 hour video conversation, the rapport building is constrained by the necessity of an almost interrogative Q&A format to squeeze all the questions into the time period. I know that there will be future calls and touchpoints to share a little more organically with the client, but that presents the inverse problem. When all ensuing conversations are both informal and an opportunity for measurement as a means of surveillance relative to program compliance, that is a difficult situation for data collection as well. Plus, when we count things like a client’s skipped tox date as cumulative, zero-sum ratio level data, we are stripping the measurement of context like the fact that the client had a scheduling conflict with their child’s school schedule, for example. Luckily, the judge that reviews all court updates will ask for context beyond what is captured by the official measurement and reporting tools about client progress. But the research team’s job of then aligning the data to match the complex reality of completion and attrition dates is all the less enviable.
DeCarlo, M. (2018). Scientific Inquiry in Social Work. Open Social Work Education
Hi Jackie,
I really appreciate your insight regarding the lack of information being gathered and measured when it comes to your field placement and the construct of this population’s relationship to poverty, financial security, and class mobility factors. I think it’s a really good point you make about how a person’s financial situation could be much more complex than whether or not they need a food stamp program. At my program we do a thorough intake that helps us have a much greater understanding of what a teacher might be going through in their lives. This helps us understand and helps to remind our members they are more than just a teacher/union member. Your post reminded me of a situation at my placement (the UFT members assistance program) where my supervisor had us interns ask our members during call-backs why they were at home during work-hours to get a better idea of who was returning to work, and who was not due to covid mandated vaccines. This was not an accurate depiction, and felt it was not benefitting our members in any way, nor was it direct enough to come to any sort of conclusion. It is truly unfortunate that those who are struggling with finical hardships, after being convicted as felons are not being examined in a more in-depth way. If we want to help those who are attempting to get back into society after unfortunate situation, we must do better at understanding the bigger picture of their past and present.
-Elena
Consider the various ways that the communities you are working with have been (mis)measured? How does measurement type influence the construction of social issues and the ways we address them? How might you measure things in an ethically responsive way?
I am currently working at the New York Center for Affirmative Psychotherapy where I am providing 45 minuet weekly therapy sessions to a caseload of about 6. There are a few things that come to mind when reflecting on how this population has been potentially mismeasured. First off, being that NYCAP works to provide services on a sliding scale fee, there is some type of measurement tool used to determine the payable amounts so there could be potential for mismeasurement. I have not enquired about this process but I am assuming that it is measured in an affirmative way being that this practice is actively anti-oppressive. I do sometimes wonder about the white folks who are actively seeking treatment from a practice that explicitly provides services to marginalized folks and what the potential is there for mismeasurement. Luckily my supervisor at this job introduced this as something to think about when considering countertransference.
Secondly, I am thinking about my non-binary and trans clients and how they have had to actively seek out affirmative care due to the amount of mismeasurement and misgendering that happens in the majority of spaces ( even healing spaces). Many of these client has to take into consideration the level that they will be mismeasured in society even before leaving the house.
Within both of these realms it is important for me to practice cultural humility as well as intersubjectivity un order to pay careful attention to how I am impacting the therapeutic dyad. Additionally, I assist my clients in connecting with resources that can help lesson this experience or provide assistance or support navigating these systems that perpetuate mismeasurement.