Respond to at least two of your colleagues who identified and selected a power resource different from the one you selected. Address one of the following:
Explain how the power resource your colleague selected would strengthen or challenge your ability to advocate for policy regarding the social problem you selected to use for your Final Project in the course, the Social Change Project.
Explain how the power resource you selected might impact your colleague’s work.
1-Nicole-
Post a brief description of why it is important for social workers to be familiar with power dynamics when working with decision makers. In your description, address the following:
Power dynamics are a pivotal part of policy advocacy. Social workers know these dynamics shape resources, relationships, institutional contexts, and public engagement (Jansson, 2018). Successful advocacy requires an awareness of these dynamics to strategically influence transactional relationships with stakeholders. A conscientious advocate will avoid coercive power, or threats, in favor of ethical efforts such as power that derives from expertise, authority, or values (Jansson, 2018).
Identify the power resource you selected for use in your practice and advocacy.
Value-based power is an important resource for advocacy practice. It focuses on a shared commitment to an outcome.
Explain the resource you selected.
While people may come at an issue from different perspectives, they can share a desired outcome. Even cultures or groups with differing political identities can find a common core orientation (Miltz & van den Hoogen, 2023). A foundational benefit, such as public health, can have nearly unanimous public agreement even when its reason may differ (Farazmand et al., 2024). Stakeholders like public officials will likely follow the value-based policy to stay in public favor.
How does this power resource work to influence decision makers?
Value-based advocacy seeks to influence the public and, thereby, public officials by finding shared values. An advocate will appeal to the values of different groups, such as equality for liberals and individual rights for conservatives (Jansson, 2018). For example, a policy advocate working to give tax breaks to green energy companies may gain value-based favor from liberals by describing the environmental benefits while reaching conservatives with job creation and reduced costs of energy. The values are different in each group, yet they amount to support for the same policy. A policy advocate appeals to the benefits that matter to different groups, promoting broad support that will influence decision-makers.
Why is this power resource more appropriate for your approach to practice and advocacy than others?
Value-based advocacy is similar to substantive power. It adjusts the working of a policy, or in this case, policy messaging, to solicit agreement from those who might otherwise oppose the policy (Jansson, 2018). I live in a state where there is a liberal majority, and value-based messaging is a powerful way of reaching people, as it appeals to a desire for social justice and equality. While the conservative minority is not likely to be swayed by the same message, an advocate can support the benefits that are important to those communities as well.
Describe the ethical issues or concerns in using the type of power resource you selected.
A value-based approach appeals to the greater benefit of a policy rather than coercive, or threatening people (Jansson, 2018). It focuses on the positive attributes of the proposed change rather than relying on fear. It seeks to create community through commonality rather than dividing people. Social workers support policies that support vulnerable populations (Rocha et al., 2010). Value-based advocacy does this by demonstrating the ways that benefit everyone. An advocate will need to be careful not to adjust the messaging so much to each group that it becomes manipulative (Jansson, 2018). While the reason for backing a policy differs, and therefore, the messaging differs depending on the group for which it is aimed, the policy being described must remain transparent. An advocate cannot manipulate different groups by describing different versions of the policy or inaccurately representing what the policy does.
2-Tarshera-
Identify the power resource you selected for use in your practice and advocacy.
Social workers are historically more politically active than the general population (Rocha et al., 2010). The power resource that aligns best with my practice and advocacy is information power, which is the capacity to provide evidence that can be used to shape policy decisions and advocacy initiatives (Jansson, 2018).
Explain the resource you selected, how the power resource works to influence decision-makers, and why it is more appropriate to my practice and advocacy than others.
Information power can be used to use data and research to strengthen arguments with policymakers, identify specific needs of communities, raise awareness, and build credibility when persuading legislators to vote for a specific policy. Information power could make it harder for decision-makers to dismiss the importance of specific issues, especially if backed by an affiliation with recognized groups or affiliation. Recognized groups or coalitions can mobilize external pressure (Jansson, 2018). Information power is particularly matched to my practice because it signifies evidence-based advocacy. Social work is grounded in principles that promote social justice and drive change through interventions supported by research and evidenced-based frameworks and interventions.
Describe the ethical issues or concerns in using the type of power resource you selected.
One ethical issue with information power is the concern regarding how data and confidentiality are managed, particularly in establishing informed consent. Clients have the right to understand how their sensitive information will be used. Additionally, there is a risk of data manipulation, which raises ethical concerns. For instance, the suppression or selective presentation of data can distort the reality of a situation, undermining the integrity of advocacy efforts (Jansson, 2018).