The search identified 18 articles that met our criteria. The process of analysis was inductive and interpretiveâas any analysis of concepts must be, given they are implicit and inferred. Analysis was informed by a meta-ethnographic method (Noblit & Hare, 1988) in which an interpretive paradigm is extended to literature review. This allowed for a reconceptualization of the original questions addressed in research (Neal-Jackson, 2018). This meant identifying concepts that were influential in the articles but neither explicit nor the objects of inquiry. Practical methods employed to achieve this were initial reading of all articles, noting key themes and the concepts of racism used, developing and, finally, refining the analysis of recurring concepts through re-reading and discussion.
Our review identified a number of significant terms and concepts in the literature, which were undefined and presented as self-evident in most texts. This finding is important in itself, and contrasts with discussions about the same topic in other countries (see, for example, Jeffery, 2005; Razack, 2001). In what follows, we discuss four recurring and central concepts in the literature: subtle racism, institutional racism, cultural difference and pedagogical solutions.
Subtle racism
A recurrent concept in the literature is the subtlety of the racism experienced by BME social work students. For example, Masocha (2015, p. 638) notes that racism âpermeates through everyday life, social structures and practicesâ, and this enables it to operate in âsubtle and insidious waysâ, most of which are ânot readily recognizableâ. In their discussion of BME social work studentsâ experiences in Scotland, Hillen and Levy (2015, p. 793) give a number of examples of the âcomplexities and subtletiesâ of racism: BME students âbeing laughed at for their pronunciationâ in class and being rejected by potential placement providers âin ways that suggested discriminationâ (Hillen and Levy p. 793). Similarly, Thomas et al. (2011, p. 47) article on supporting BME students in practice placements discusses how subtle aspects of social interactions work to marginalize students. They give examples of âirritation in the tone of voice being used, being ignored within the team, or not greeted as other members of staff areâ as ways that BME students are marginalized. âOvert and subtle processesâ are also an overarching theme in the Goldsmiths study of diversity on eight social work programmes (Bernard et al., 2011, p. 25).
Subtle racism is not seen as a lesser form of racism but as a primary mode through which racism operates. For example, Tedamâs discussion of Black African studentsâ experiences of racism on placement (2014b, p. 139) refers to the significance of âsubtle put-downs ⌠used as a means to perpetuate disregard for, and to undermine, minority groupsâ, while Thomas et al. (2011, p. 47) refer to the ââdripping tapâ effectâ of repeated differential treatment, leading to âappalling experiencesâ for some BME students, who fail placements because of racist treatment. Focusing on subtle racism enables authors to find evidence of the pervasiveness and normalization of racialized inequalities in BME studentsâ everyday experiences on social work programmes.
Social changes across the West since the 1970s, such as anti-racist activism and legislation outlawing some expressions of racism, have had a significant influence on how racism is manifested and experienced. Consequently, the subtlety of modern racisms has become a major focus of research in the social sciences, such as the subtle ways through which white identities continue to have privileged status, the invisibility of systems that reproduce racial inequalities, the promotion of superficial diversity as evidence of racial equality and the re-articulation of racism as justifiable concern about cultural differences (Bonilla-Silva, 2001). However, these aspects of subtle racism are not explored in most of the literature reviewed. Instead, the focus is more often on the subtle ways BME students are marginalized, demeaned or have their identity negated in social interactions, showing the influence of recent writing on microaggressions (e.g. Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, & Torino, 2007). This literature makes two central assertions: that subtle forms of hostility can be more damaging than overtly racist statements, and that microaggressions occur whenever the victim experiences an interaction as about racism. Microaggressions literature is explicitly referenced by Masocha (2015) and Tedam (2014a, 2014b), but other authors similarly focus on subtle features of social interaction that are used to exclude, demean or negate BME people.
Microaggressions as a concept has been heavily criticised, by those who are dismissive of work on racism more generally (e.g. Nagai, 2017) but also writers concerned about its effectiveness as a frame for analysing the subtlety of contemporary racism (e.g. Lilienfeld, 2017; Wong, Derthick, David, Saw, & Okazaki, 2014). These critiques identify the lack of rigorous methodological grounding or evidence base for the concept, its use of âaggressionâ as a frame for interpreting interpersonal relations even when racializing behaviors are unintentional, its focus on reports by victims as the sole required evidence of microaggression and its alleged effect of encouraging a âvictim cultureâ. In our view, microaggression is an inadequate frame for conceptualizing subtle racism in social work education because it does not account for the significance of social and institutional contexts and, on its own, fails to encapsulate the many ways that contemporary racism operates in liberal institutions. Key elements in the microaggressions literature â the emphasis on psychological harm caused by subtle racism, the requirement to identify victims and perpetrators and the significance given to victim experience as the determining factorâpervade most of the literature we reviewed. Focusing on these elements shifts attention away from the subtle ways racism occurs in social work education in the UK. Examples are the mundane talk about cultural difference that is normative in many social work contexts, which does not feature clear victims or perpetrators, and practices that...