Umeå University's logo

This article presents an outline of a theory of stigmatization, consisting of theoretical propositions and a graphic model, which can help describe and explain stigmatization processes in the personal social services. The building blocks of the theory originate from existing theories and previous empirical research including our own study of stigmatization processes among social workers in Sweden and the United States. Pattern matching methodology was key to identifying a need for a new theory. Contributions to existing theory and potential implications for policy and practice are discussed, especially in relation to social work in the personal social services. The outlined theory contributes to existing stigma theory in several ways, of which three key findings are highlighted. The theory suggests: 1) that stigmatization processes can go in several directions, sometimes simultaneously; 2) that stigmatization processes can involve mutual reinforcement which can develop into a negative spiral; 3) that stigma can be placed upon social work as an institution. The outlined theory can be used as a starting point for analysing stigmatization processes in social work in several contexts, such as different institutional or organizational settings. We argue that existing stigma theory does not always provide sufficiently deep or specific explanations that are appropriate for the uniqueness of different settings. Thus, there is a need for a theory that is more precise and adapted to such a setting. The framework can be useful for researchers and university students that need a theory when studying stigma processes in social work practice. 

This paper investigates how social workers within the social services, in different welfare regimes, comprehend social stigma. This is important since stigmatized social workers can affect clients and the social work negatively, i.e. poorer quality of interventions and poorer quality of results. Two types of theory was used: social stigma, and Esping-Andersen’s typology of welfare regimes. Sweden and the United States was studied, since they represent opposite types of welfare regimes: Social Democratic (Sweden) and US (Liberal). Comparison of social stigma among social workers in two welfare regimes enabled us to study how values, social policies and institutions influenced stigmatization processes. Data was collected through focus group interviews: three in Sweden and three in the United States. Data were analyzed with a conventional content analysis.

Results show significant differences between Sweden and US regarding: 1) how social workers experience that society views social work, 2) what society’s view of social work mean for social workers’ self-perception, 3) how social workers experience that society views the social service clients, 4) what society’s view of clients mean for social workers’ client work. Differences are mainly due to dissimilarities between the various welfare regimes, where stigma is an inherent part of the liberal welfare regime.

For social workers to be able to promote dignity and worth of people, they themselves must experience dignity and worth in their professional role. A fundamental prerequisite for this is welfare systems’ recognition of the importance of trusting human relationships. 

This paper investigates how social workers in Sweden and the United States perceive the impact of social stigma, based on their experiences within a social service job. This is important because when social workers feel stigmatized (defined in this context as describing or regarding something, such as a characteristic or group of people in a way that shows strong disapproval (Merriam-Webster, n.d.)), they can affect clients negatively, i.e. poorer quality of interventions/results. Comparison of feelings of stigmatization among social workers in these distinct cultures enabled us to study how values, social policies and institutions influence stigmatization processes. Focus group data shows significant differences between Sweden and the U.S. regarding: 1) how social workers experience their society‘s view of social work, 2) what society’s view of social work means for social workers’ self-perception, 3) how social workers experience their society‘s views of clients, 4) what society’s view of clients means for social workers’ client work. Differences are mainly due to dissimilarities between the programs and institutions within each system. Findings indicate that promotion of the dignity and worth of people requires social workers to also experience dignity and worth in their professional role. 

Stigma is a theoretical concept widely used in different disciplines. Yet, previous theoretical outlooks on stigma have been fairly general. This means that existing stigma theory can be used in different settings, but it does not always provide sufficiently specific explanations. We argue that it is possible to develop a more specific theory of stigma. 

Our paper will outline a theory that describes and explains stigmatization processes in social work practice.This effort emanates from previous research experiences when we conducted an empirical study of stigmatization processes in social work in Sweden and the United States. The paper will focus on two questions:

• Which theoretical propositions must be included in a theory able to describe and explain stigmatization processes in social work practice?

• How should these theoretical propositions be transformed into a graphic model in order to illustrate the dynamics of stigmatization processes in social work practice?

We will present a stepwise description of our work to outline a theory of stigmatization processes in social work practice. The building blocks of this theory originate from existing theories and previous empirical research, including our own study of stigmatization processes among social workers. The paper will therefore include parts of our empirical study of social workers in Sweden and the USA (Carpholt, Blom & Krull, 2021). The outline is presented as theoretical propositions and as a graphic model.

Finally, we discuss contributions to existing theory and potential implications for policy and practice, especially in relation to social work in the social services. 

Background: This paper investigates how social workers within the social services, in different welfare regimes, comprehend social stigma. This is important since stigmatized social workers can affect clients and the social work negatively, i.e. poorer quality of interventions and poorer quality of results.

Theory and method: Two types of theory was used: social stigma, and Esping-Andersen’s typology of welfare regimes. Sweden and the United States was studied, since they represent opposite types of welfare regimes: Social Democratic (Sweden) and US (Liberal). Comparison of social stigma among social workers in two welfare regimes enabled us to study how values, social policies and institutions influenced stigmatization processes.

Data was collected through focus group interviews: three in Sweden and three in the United States. Data were analyzed with a conventional content analysis.

Findings: Results show significant differences between Sweden and US regarding: 1) how social workers experience that society views social work, 2) what society’s view of social work mean for social workers’ self-perception, 3) how social workers experience that society views the social service clients, 4) what society’s view of clients mean for social workers’ client work. Differences are mainly due to dissimilarities between the various welfare regimes, where stigma is an inherent part of the liberal welfare regime.

Conclusion: For social workers to be able to promote dignity and worth of people, they themselves must experience dignity and worth in their professional role. A fundamental prerequisite for this is welfare systems’ recognition of the importance of trusting human relationships.