Person-In-Environment In a Polarized World: Social Workers’ Experiences of Graduate Training for Political Content In Clinical Practice

Background/Rationale: The NASW Code of Ethics (Section 6.04) encourages social workers to promote equity and challenge injustice through social and political action. However, this guidance is framed primarily at the level of professional and societal responsibility, leaving ambiguity around direct political engagement in therapy sessions. Today’s clinical practice unfolds amid intensified political polarization, with issues such as racial injustice, reproductive rights and climate anxiety, frequently arising in psychotherapy. Prior research finds clients are increasingly distressed by political conditions (McCarthy & Saks, 2019) and over half of clients and therapists discuss politics in sessions (Solomonov & Barber, 2018). Political discourse is also entering supervisory and training contexts, with many trainees reporting discussions about the political climate’s effects on their clinical work (McCarthy et al. 2022). Despite these trends, it remains unclear how well graduate training prepares therapists to handle political issues in clinical practice. This study examines how social work therapists perceive their graduate training’s effectiveness in developing the skills needed to navigate political topics in therapy.

Methods: This paper analyzes qualitative data from social work therapists (n = 49) recruited as part of a larger study of therapists across licensure backgrounds (N = 82; LCSWs/LICSWs, n = 49; LCPCs/LPCs, n = 21; PsyDs/PhDs, n = 12) on navigating political issues in therapy. One-hour semi-structured videoconference interviews occurred between June and October 2025, with purposive and snowball sampling to increase political and religious diversity. Interview questions focused on therapists' perspectives regarding how graduate training had prepared them to address political content and what support might increase their confidence and competence. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Nowell et al., 2017) and abductive reasoning (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012), informed by post-structuralist and social constructionist frameworks.

Findings: Clinicians described graduate training as largely omitting preparation for addressing political issues in therapy. Multiple participants reported that “we didn’t talk about it at all,” describing politics as an “elephant in the room,” with programs emphasizing social justice rhetorically but offering little practical guidance for operationalizing these concepts clinically.

Therapists also reported being taught to deflect clients’ political questions and avoid political self-disclosure, often leaving them feeling that expressing any political stance might cross a professional line. However, several therapists acknowledged that rigid boundaries around political expression could serve as buffers against rupture, which participants reported as increasingly common. Still, many stated that training in cultural competence had not equipped them with practical strategies for navigating political disagreement. For example, while therapists reported being encouraged to be aware of their biases in graduate programs, they were not shown how to use that awareness in the moment, leaving it as internal reflection rather than clinically actionable.

Conclusion: These findings reveal inadequate preparation for addressing political material in therapy. This paper proposes curricular innovations including simulations of political conflict, facilitated dialogue across differences, and structured training on political self-disclosure and political countertransference. These approaches aim to equip social work graduates with concrete relational tools for ethical and competent practice in a polarized world.