| Literature DB >> 33808847 |
Abstract
Professional development has been recognized as one of the strategies to effectively combat sexual prejudice and negative attitudes against lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning/queer (LGBQ+) individuals and sexual minorities. Nevertheless, studies related to LGBQ+-inclusive training are rarely found in the Chinese Hong Kong context, where sexual prejudice still prevails without the establishment of antidiscrimination law. Sociocultural considerations, such as religious and parental influences, are obstacles to discussing the reduction of sexual prejudices, both within wider society and social work organizations, without institutional support. This paper aims to understand social workers' perspectives on prejudice reduction training themes and perceived cultural barriers through qualitative in-depth interviews with 67 social workers. Qualitative thematic analysis yielded the following themes: (1) understanding sexuality; (2) initiating training legitimately; (3) contesting religious and cultural assumptions; (4) resolving value and ethical dilemma; (5) selecting relevant knowledge; (6) implementing diverse training strategies. The study suggests that social workers and service providers need to understand how sexual prejudice is manifested in Hong Kong through unique cultural forces. LGBQ+-inclusive content, addressing updated concepts and prejudice-free language, should be incorporated into the training curriculum. Intergroup contact, professional reflection, and experiential learning are suggested as training strategies (190).Entities:
Keywords: Chinese social workers; LGBQ+; heterosexism; sexual prejudice; social service; social work training
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33808847 PMCID: PMC8003609 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18063208
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Informant demographics (N = 67).
| Characteristic | % | ( |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 31.3 | (21) |
| Female | 68.7 | (46) |
| Sexual orientation | ||
| Heterosexual | 77.6 | (52) |
| Homosexual | 11.9 | (8) |
| Bisexual | 4.5 | (3) |
| Age group | ||
| 21–25 | 26.9 | (18) |
| 26–35 | 49.3 | (33) |
| 36–45 | 22.4 | (15) |
| Religious affiliation | ||
| No religious affiliation | 47.8 | (32) |
| Christian | 41.8 | (28) |
| Catholic | 6.0 | (4) |
| Buddhist | 1.5 | (1) |
| Muslim | 1.5 | (1) |
| Service group | ||
| Children and youth service | 23.8 | (16) |
| School and college service | 22.4 | (15) |
| Family and residential service | 15 | (10) |
| Sexual-health- and diversity-related service | 15 | (10) |
| Rehabilitation and medical service | 11.9 | (8) |
Note. Percentages may not add up to 100% because not every informant provided answers to each question and because of rounding.
Figure 1Quotes from informants’ transcripts.