The Shades of Bias
On 12 November, attendees joined us for “The Shades of Bias” presented by ShoLove Pascoe as part of the Black Voice of Social Work discussion group with the Developing Together Social Work Teaching Partnership.
The presentation explored common unconscious biases in social work including confirmation, affinity, cultural, gender, and racial bias, alongside the halo and horn effects. With these biases names we examined how they appear in everyday practice, such as Black parents being labelled “aggressive” rather than assertive, Black children being adultified whereas white children are infantilised. ShoLove introduced the “Shades of Bias” framework, a relational tool applicable to both professional practice and personal relationships, structured around five reflective stages: Context, Impact, Reflection, Learning, and Action. Emphasising the power of social work language on family perceptions and outcomes, ShoLove encouraged practitioners to replace immediate assumptions with professional curiosity and profoundly noted that ‘“if you feel cautious, you should get curious”. Attendees also participated in offering in individual reflections on personal assumptions made in past cases and how those scenarios were resolved and how this becomes a positive learning experience for not only the individual but those this experience is shared with to inform practice.
Attendees went into breakout rooms to apply the Shades of Bias framework to a comparative case study:
Case study comparison: Both Family A and Family B present with the exact same safeguarding concerns; domestic abuse, emotional harm, and poor school attendance yet professionals perceive them differently.
- Family A is financially stable, has private counselling, and receives considerable support from grandparents. Because the mother attends every meeting, is polite and articulate, and speaks confidently, professionals describe her as “engaging, insightful, and cooperative”.
- Family B is led by a lone parent working night shifts with no nearby family support and struggles with transport costs. Because the mother has missed several meetings, appears frustrated during visits, challenges recorded information, and states she feels judged by services, professionals describe her as “resistant, difficult to engage, and lacking insight”.
Points given for breakout group discussions:
- What assumptions might professionals make about each family?
- Are the descriptions “engaging” and “resistant” objective facts or professional interpretations?
- What biases might influence our view of each parent (affinity bias, confirmation bias, class bias, cultural bias, halo effect, horn effect)?
- Would we assess risk differently for these families, and if so, why?
- What evidence would you need before reaching a conclusion?
- How might anti-oppressive practice change the assessment?
Follow-up whole-group reflection questions:
- If Family A and Family B presented the exact same level of risk, which family would you instinctively feel more positive about, and what evidence supports that feeling?
- Would your opinion on each family change if they were a White vs. Black family?
The themes from these breakout rooms and group discussions were as follows:
- Halo vs. horn effect and objective risk assessment: Attendees recognized how the “halo effect” can lead practitioners to minimize abuse in Family A because they appear “put together” and well-resourced, while the “horn effect” frames Family B through a deficit lens. Groups stressed that both families carry the exact same level of risk, and bias should serve as an indicator to look closer rather than reach a conclusion. Rather than deciding who is the “better” parent, practitioners emphasised gathering objective evidence—such as maintaining a clear chronology, triangulating information with other professionals (like counsellors), and thoroughly assessing wider support networks, including grandparents’ safeguarding capacity.
- Deconstructing language and trauma-informed curiosity: Discussions challenged subjective labels like “engaging,” “resistant,” and “hard to reach,” questioning whether these describe family behaviour or reflect systemic barriers and practitioner assumptions. Instead of taking missed appointments at face value, attendees advocated for motivational interviewing and trauma-informed curiosity, exploring what a mother has experienced to make her feel judged, celebrating existing strengths in both families, and considering the lasting impact deficit-heavy language has when families later read their assessments.
- Race, stigma, and workload allocation: When reflecting on which family attendees assumed was Black versus White, the general consensus initially pointed to Family B as Black, driven by the deficit-heavy language frequently used in media portrayals of Black communities compared to the more favourable framing often afforded to White individuals. However, this assumption was challenged on two key fronts: first, that Family A could equally be Black, as Black families frequently feel pressured to appear overly compliant to counteract racial stigmas in professional spaces whereas White or middle-class presentation can mask underlying risk; and second, that practitioners’ assumptions are heavily shaped by the primary demographics of the boroughs they work in. Attendees also explored how affinity bias and cultural context inform professional understanding, emphasising the need to challenge affinity bias within organisational culture, particularly around how cases are allocated.
To close the session, ShoLove emphasised that because we are conditioned by society and personal experiences, holding bias is not evidence of bad character. Rather, unexamined bias is a risk to good social work, and ongoing self-reflection is an essential safeguarding tool.
