1065708

research-article2021
ISW0010.1177/00208728211065708International Social WorkKR et al.

Article i s w

International Social Work

1­–14
The art of not-knowing: Valuing © The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
diversity and intercultural sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00208728211065708
https://doi.org/10.1177/00208728211065708
competences in international social journals.sagepub.com/home/isw

work education

Anish KR
Rajagiri College of Social Sciences (Autonomous), India

Stefan Borrmann
University of Applied Sciences Landshut, Germany

Ngan Nguyen-Meyer
Fulda University of Applied Sciences, Germany

Yan Zhao
Hilde Berit Moen
Nord University, Norway

Weihua Liu
Wuhan University of Technology, China

Abstract
The article focuses on how international social work education can enable students to become
culturally competent social workers. It follows the idea that the vital aspect of internationalizing
social work education is not about structural prerequisites. Rather, it is in the specific role of
intercultural perspectives and how these perspectives can be integrated into structural frameworks
for internationalizing social work education. It is highlighted that the acceptance of not-knowing
and not-understanding provides the basis of cultural awareness or global mindedness. Therefore,
a model for the development of intercultural competence in social work is presented.

Keywords
Art of not-knowing and not-understanding, global mindedness, intercultural competences,
international social work, social work education, valuing diversity

Corresponding author:
Anish KR, Department of Social Work, Rajagiri College of Social Sciences (Autonomous), Kalamassery, Kochi, KL
683104, India.
Emails: anish@rajagiri.edu; anishkrk@gmail.com
2 International Social Work 00(0)

Introduction
The aspect of education is a significant theme in the literature about international social work.
Most of the articles in the SAGE Handbook of International Social Work mentioned the concept of
education along with a detailed account in the article on social work education by Hokenstad
(2012). A brief literature review of the journal International Social Work has shown that the term
education is mentioned in 2602 articles of the 3447 articles published till 2019. Education is men-
tioned in 409 abstracts, and in 225 titles of all articles published in this journal and the term cur-
riculum is mentioned in 792 articles (Borrmann, 2021b). Most of the books on international social
work have a distinct chapter about education (i.e. Borrmann et al., 2007). Hokenstad (2012) names
the dimensions involved when speaking of International Social Work education. His article focuses
on the structures (i.e. International Association of Schools of Social Work {IASSW}), the curricula
(on a national and global level), the history (four phases of internationalization of Social Work
education are described), and the challenges of International Social Work education.
The most prominent example of a resource to build on when writing about International Social
Work education, however, is the ‘Global Standards for the Education and Training of the Social
Work Profession’ (IASSW, 2020; Sewpaul and Jones, 2004). The first version from 2004 consisted
of nine standards, including several substandards written to secure the quality of social work edu-
cation on an international level. The Global Standards were widely discussed and criticized (for a
summary on this, see Akintayo et al., 2018). One prominent critique has been that formulating
global standards means ignoring the widely different traditions and cultures of ethnic groups in
different societies and within societies (Gray and Webb, 2017). It seemed to be a ‘one size fits all’
approach which is not adequate for multicultural societies. However, even this first version of the
Global Standards included in its eighth standard a mechanism to avoid these kinds of intercultural
blindness. They included developing intercultural competence in the Global Standards:

The Global Standards has also asserted that students should have the opportunity to develop self-awareness
concerning their cultural values, beliefs, traditions, and biases, and understand how these might influence
their interactions with diverse populations. This realization will minimize group stereotypes and prejudices
and reduce ethnocultural bias in social work policies and practices. (Akintayo et al., 2018: 397)

The recently revised version of the Global Standards from 2020 (IASSW, 2020) takes this
approach of valuing diversity more than one step further. In the updated version, a rationale is
presented initially, in which nine realities of social work around the globe were considered in creat-
ing the updated version. Six of the nine realities mentioned are specifically about valuing diversity
in social work. Nevertheless, the question remains on how this process can work. How can social
work education – especially international social work education – enable students to become cul-
turally competent social workers?
The resources on international social work education mentioned so far show a bias toward a more
structural view in establishing international social work through education. The understanding of this
article, however, is that the vital aspect of internationalizing social work education is not about struc-
tural prerequisites, but rather it is in the specific role of intercultural perspectives and how these
perspectives can be integrated into structural frameworks to internationalize social work education.
Therefore, this article looks at international social work education and tries to understand the
competencies required for a social worker to be an intercultural competent social worker and how
they can be acquired through social work education. To this end, a theoretical framework for the
inclusion of intercultural competencies in international social work education is first presented
(Akintayo et al., 2018) and this framework is adjusted from a structural perspective to a personal
KR et al. 3

perspective. It is highlighted that the valuing of not-knowing and not-understanding provides the
basis of cultural awareness or global mindedness (Anand and Das, 2019). Culture-reflexive com-
petence – one of core intercultural competences – is defined as a developmental goal to be a profes-
sional social worker concerning the work of Nazarkiewicz (2016, 2018). Culture-reflexive
competence is currently an emancipatory approach in intercultural education and research. This
approach is based on an open, power-critical, and decolonizing definition of culture in contrast to
an essentialistic definition of culture (more in part ‘A reflexive and open definition of culture’).
Thus, these terms ‘cultural competence’, which is mostly based on an essentialistic definition of
culture (Johnson and Munch, 2009), and ‘culture-reflexive competence’ are not the same. If social
work values diversity, and there is consensus that social workers need intercultural competences to
do so, there needs to be a clear understanding of the process of acquiring these competencies in
social work education. Therefore, a model for the development of intercultural competences in
social work is presented. It is argued that models and approaches must be developed within these
possible frameworks and methods that enable social work students to acquire intercultural compe-
tences as described. To highlight that such processes are not just about learning differences, we
have included examples of the re-development of social work in China. Western ideas have partly
influenced this, but these ideas were adapted to the Chinese context. We have included one exam-
ple of an intercultural project in international social work education at the end. The example
focuses on learning differences through an exchange program between Norway and China and
acculturates personal competences for an intercultural understanding. This understanding leads to
recognizing the importance of local contexts for social work and recognizing their international
influences.

Frameworks to develop personal competences in international

social work education
International Social Work education is defined as all efforts to internationalize social work educa-
tion, usually focused on a national, regional, or local context. The content of the education is aimed
at social workers working in these national, regional, or local settings. Hokenstad (2012: 171)
states the different opportunities concluding that ‘models and opportunities for International Social
Work education include “infusion” through regular courses; specialist options and degree-bearing
programs; and students and faculty exchange’. The following paragraph refers to this summary of
possible opportunities for international social work education. It examines whether these options
are useful beyond presenting internationally related content, to promote the students’ intercultural
competences. We have added a fourth model to this list, which can be seen as a framework for
international social work education to enhance future social workers’ global mindedness.

Infusion through regular courses

The following models and examples are specifically developed and written for curricula and programs
in international social work. However, as Estes (2010) mentioned in their frameworks (see below),
there can also be an ‘infusion’ of international aspects in regular curricula. The international topics are
most likely taught in many social work degree programs, although this is mentioned neither in the
course syllabus nor the module description. The Global Standards themselves and many national core
curricula (i.e. Borrmann, 2016) integrate aspects related to different special levels. The standard 2.7. of
the first version of the Global Standards, for example, indicates that ‘As social work does not operate
in a vacuum, the program should take account of the impact of interacting cultural, economic, com-
munication social, political and psychological global factors’ (Sewpaul and Jones, 2004: 4).
4 International Social Work 00(0)

Specialist options and degree-bearing programs

Of course, there can be specialized programs for international social work, which can have different
structural forms. According to the work of Estes (2010: 15–16), there can be three different
approaches on how to integrate international aspects into social work curricula. First, within the
‘Selected Approach’, international perspectives focus on domestic problems and their international
dimensions. Second, the ‘Concentrated Approach’ views International Social Work as a discrete
field of Social Work practice. Students may select international social work as their primary or field
of specialized study. Third, the Integrated Approach focuses on a highly specialized program to
educate practitioners for leadership positions in national and international organizations. It usually
includes cross-sectoral perspectives concerning social work and its practices throughout the world.

Student and faculty exchange

Staff and student exchange is an essential aspect as it enables staff and students to get firsthand
experiences with other cultures and therefore enhance global mindedness. The last part of this
article will refer to empirical data from a project with such an objective. It will thus provide insights
into whether student exchanges can indeed play the role that Hokenstad assumes.

The EHT model as a framework for international social work education

However, all three forms of international social work education – infusion through regular courses,
specialized programs, and exchange programs – can only work if a prerequisite is met. Models on
how to enhance the intercultural competence of students have to be included. In 2018, Akintayo
et al. introduced a new theory and practice model, which is called the EHT model. They strived to
promote multiculturalism – as they called it – in social work curricula to reduce marginalization
and encourage social inclusion, social justice, and respect of people’s rights in ethnically diverse
communities:

Ethnocultural diversity (E) symbolizes the need for social workers to acquire an in-depth understanding of
their clients’ culture and traditions through formal and informal education before providing services.
Human rights and social justice (H) symbolize the imperative for social workers to consider their
multicultural clients’ rights within a social justice framework when providing services or conducting field
research on client situations. For example, as related to the principles of the casework relationship by
Biestek (1961) and professional social work values, as stated in IASSW and IFSW (2004). Themes in
strategic statements (T) symbolize how social work practice in multicultural settings should reflect the
overall aims, objectives, mission, vision, and goals within their social contexts as reflected in their
educational curricula, which by extension are reflecting the social policy of the country or community in
which the practice occurs. (Akintayo et al., 2018: 405–406)

This is a goal that should be shared, but it is not entirely clear what exactly (Akintayo et al.,
2018) mean by the term multiculturalism and how to achieve the common goal ‘for social workers
to acquire an in-depth understanding of their clients’ culture and traditions through formal and
informal education’ as they put it.
The next part of the article will therefore go one step further in reintroducing the culture-reflexive
competence model of Nazarkiewicz (2016) as the theoretical basis for the following brief presenta-
tion of one framework for enhancing the intercultural competencies of social work students through
education and an empirical study to evaluate the effect of intercultural exchange programs. We
present these two as examples of how the EHT model can work in social work education.
KR et al. 5

Valuing diversity: Not-knowing and not-understanding as a basis

for global mindedness
One of the critical aspects of global mindedness in international social work is ‘fostering an
appreciation of difference and diversity’ or ‘engaging with and embracing diversity’ as Anand
and Das (2019: 24, 30) noted. Furthermore, valuing diversity could mean knowing and under-
standing one’s own culture and those of others and being aware of cultural differences, as
highlighted in a later part of the article. Kirsten Nazarkiewicz’s ‘culture-reflexivity approach’
elaborates a process for acquiring intercultural competences through intercultural learning
based on a flexible definition of culture itself and (self-)critical thinking (Nazarkiewicz, 2016),
which is tightly connected with her approach of not-knowing and not-understanding
(Nazarkiewicz, 2018).

A reflexive and open definition of culture

Nazarkiewicz’s definition of culture is partly based on three steps of the transformative learning
theory of Mezirow, namely, (1) content reflection, (2) process reflection, and (3) premises reflec-
tion (1997, cit. from Nazarkiewicz, 2018: 88, 2016), and includes three meta-perspectives:

1. Interpreting with the natural worldview,

2. Systemic-constructivist perspectives of diversity,
3. Deconstructing relationships of power.

The first meta-perspective comprises all closed notions of culture that work with interpretations
based on the culture as defined collectives, for example, language communities or national socie-
ties. Such a definition is comprehensible in day-to-day life. Schütz and Luckmann (1979, cit. from
Nazarkiewicz, 2016: 26) call this ‘natürliche Weltanschauung’ [natural worldview]. This perspec-
tive highlights the importance of available cultural knowledge for an individual and is used to
understand any situation (Nazarkiewicz, 2018: 88). In this way, it identifies and acknowledges
cultural differences as well as habitualized knowledge and practices.
Nazarkiewicz’s second meta-perspective deals with ‘systemic-constructivist’ aspects in terms
of Luhmann’s systemic theory. In contrast to the first meta-perspective, the second one also refers
to differences. However, here, culture is conceived in a relatively pluralistic manner as a differen-
tiator between self-referential collective entities such as families, organizations, or milieus
(Nazarkiewicz, 2016: 27). Thus, an analysis with Nazarkiewicz’s approach deals with more than
just a monolithic national culture. The notion of culture moves from closed to a multiple, interde-
pendent, and complex perspective.
The third meta-perspective is based on an approach toward the concept of culture that is critical
toward ideologies and relations of power. This perspective contains elements of an intersectional-
ity approach. It considers the overlap of various social identities as determinants for social inequal-
ities as well as the co-constitutions of different power relations in producing and reproducing social
inequalities: age; sexual preferences; gender; color; socioeconomic background, for example,
income and wealth; and sociocultural features like religion, language communities, social strata,
milieus, and others. From this perspective, predistributed privileges, including the privileges of
whiteness, gendered biases, and other forms of privileges, should be deconstructed in a way that
proceeds cautiously toward power relations and ideologies inherent in any kind of applied knowl-
edge (Nazarkiewicz, 2016: 28, 2018: 88). So decolonizing methodologies in terms of Anand and
Das (2019: 8) could be specified through Nazarkiewicz’s approach.
6 International Social Work 00(0)

The gist of Nazarkiewicz’s approach of culture-reflexivity lies first and foremost in considera-
tion of the knowledge we are (not) using and in a combined utilization of all these three meta-
concepts in a flexible manner, thus obtaining a greater diversity in theory and practice, yet without
neglecting significant cultural differences and similarities. This can solve the problem of ambiva-
lences when regarding cultural parameters.
Nazarkiewicz’s definition of culture can provide globally-minded social workers with the fol-
lowing intercultural competences, which are closely connected with Anand and Das’s approach of
global mindedness in international social work:

1. valuing cultural diversity, systems-oriented differences, and diversity of social identities;

2. opening critical views toward ideologies;
3. analyzing and deconstructing privileges and relationships of power and finally ‘to uncover
underlying assumptions and see relationships of power and dominance locally and glob-
ally’ as Anand and Das (2019: 30) wrote; and
4. ‘commitment to critical self-reflection and reflexivity’ (Anand and Das, 2019).

Not-knowing and not-understanding as a basis for global mindedness

Concerning the three meta-concepts mentioned above, Nazarkiewicz – implicitly and explicitly –
provides definitions of different versions of not-knowing and not-understanding and ideas on cop-
ing with them as well as benefiting from them. Until now, ‘not-knowing’ and ‘not-understanding’
have not been focused in the discourses on the professionalization of social work and even on
intercultural competences. Only a few scholars highlight both these aspects explicitly, for example,
as a vital attitude of social workers (Anderson and Goolishian, 1992; Kleve, 2011; Kraus, 2017;
Nörenberg, 2007; Schmid, 2001; Wong, 2004) or as an intercultural competence in terms of ‘com-
petence of incompetence’ (‘Kompetenzlosigkeitskompetenz’) in the migration pedagogy (Mecheril,
2013). Thus, the focus on not-knowing and not-understanding in this article continues this already
started development in the discourse on intercultural competences, professionalization of social
work, and international social work education.
In view of Nazarkiewicz’s first meta-perspective, cultural knowledge is used to understand situ-
ations – this means that not-knowing and not-understanding in terms of ‘the unknown’ is to have a
lack of knowledge regarding interpretations and routines and regarding meaning in the view of
other perspectives and thus to be dealt with in an enlightening and explanative manner. At best,
background knowledge of cultural differences could help mitigate uncertainties, yet it could not
annihilate them (Nazarkiewicz, 2013: 55).
The second meta-perspective focuses on comprehending the inner dynamics of particular sys-
tems like families, teams, or groups, which implicitly defines not-knowing and not-understanding
as irritations by diverging ‘rules of the game’ of other systems. That means no one could really
understand others because of these inner dynamics of the systems in which others are involved.
Not-knowing and somehow not-understanding too is a key element of the second perspective.
From a systemic perspective, interdependencies overlook and glue us to complex problems (like
misunderstanding). Instead, fostering understanding methods should inspire wondering and aston-
ishment (Nazarkiewicz, 2016: 27; 2018: 82 et seq. & 88).
From the third meta-perspective and the second one, global-minded social workers should be
aware of their not-knowing and not-understanding, that is, question concepts of normality, and the
manifest power in seemingly proven knowledge should be challenged. Every speech act is power
related (no matter if it is unintentional). This fosters critical thinking toward ideologies and at the
same time the reflexivity on power relations regarding social inequalities and unequal power of
KR et al. 7

interpretation. As to developing intercultural competences in the postcolonial context, these two

perspectives are also related to the critical race theories, particularly to the naturalized privileges
and power relations connected to whiteness, which is not only about skin color, but more ‘a set of
normative cultural practices’ (Frankenberg, 1993: 228) .
Besides implicit definitions of not-knowing and not-understanding, Nazarkiewicz explicitly
defines not-understanding. It is based on Wong, Scharmer, and Rosa’s argumentations as a ‘crea-
tive approach’ in modifying attention, awareness, and communication. For her, not-understanding
is not necessarily the same as to forego knowledge. It could as well be a kind of amazement
(Nazarkiewicz, 2018: 83). So not-understanding and not-knowing have explorative characteristics.
They are an essential starting point for a process of intercultural learning and understanding that
critically analyzes and deconstructs relations of power. They are also helpful to create open-
minded-ness and curiosity. These utilities of not-knowing and not-understanding are highlighted in
the ‘Valuing diversity and intercultural understanding in social work curricula’ section as intercul-
tural competencies.
When dealing with not-understanding, such explorative characteristics regarding one’s patterns
of interpretation and ideological conceptions show that routine patterns of action are interrupted to
perceive and deal with one’s own ‘inner emptiness’.
Hands-on refers to posing questions to encounter uncertainties and not-understanding and deal
with them in a mindful and culturally reflective manner (Nazarkiewicz, 2018: 98f). The focus lies
on the ‘search for qualitative new approaches’ in terms of ‘the unavailable, the new, and the other’
(Nazarkiewicz, 2018: 98f).
Nazarkiewicz’s culture-reflexivity approach provides globally minded social workers with the
aforementioned intercultural competences equivalent to Anand and Das’s approach. It also clari-
fies that we can only acquire intercultural competences if we reflect on our not-knowing and not-
understanding before we try to understand others.
Nazarkiewicz (2018) proposes an uncomfortable but reflexive and potentially sustainable way
to reach the goal: to acquire competences for dealing with intercultural challenges. Her approach
offers a flexible but complex definition of culture with many perspectives. It requires self-reflex-
ivity about – inter alia – one’s not-knowing and not-understanding by interrupting routine patterns
of action perceiving one’s own ‘inner emptiness’. This explorative nature of Nazarkiewicz’s
approach could be a chance to open curious ears to listen to others and oneself, learn about them-
selves, acknowledge and co-create a common world with more justice, as Wong puts (2004) it:
‘Knowing through discomfort’.
So, Nazarkiewicz’s approach indicates its potential as a profound theoretical framework for
acquiring intercultural competences in general.

Valuing diversity and intercultural understanding in social work

curricula
As shown earlier, the most critical prerequisite for internationalizing social work education is that
students and educators can have the opportunity to acquire intercultural competencies, for exam-
ple, power deconstructing, self-reflexivity, curiosity and discovery, and mindfully listening in the
way described. Social work education has a pivotal role in building cultural competence and inter-
national outlook among students (Palattiyil et al., 2019) to engage with clients of diverse back-
grounds. The internationalization of social work education also requires students and faculties to
have a deep understanding of intercultural competences. Looking at Nazarkiewicz’s meta-perspec-
tives, it becomes clear that international social work education cannot end with the question of how
a social work curriculum is structured or what kind of concept it is based on. It starts by
8 International Social Work 00(0)

acknowledging that personal and cultural beliefs have a tremendous impact on how we teach and
how we learn. Venkat Pulla (2017: 2) draws this conclusion from his teaching experiences:

Reflexivity, positionality, privilege, situated knowledge and perceptions are intrinsically woven and that
the profession of social work has an inbuilt capacity for the self-reflective process. Our thoughts on our
world and our knowledge and experiences appear to influence our responses to our clients.

There is a need for social work education to develop intercultural competence in the era of
increasing mobility of people and to work in the context of internationalization and cultural diver-
sity (CSWE, 2015). Saunders et al. (2015) discussed the development of cultural competence as an
elusive journey and emphasized the role of schools of social work in developing their students’
cultural competence through a systematic process.
The researchers developed a model for acquiring intercultural competences as part of a research
project funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC-India) and German Academic
Exchange Programme (DAAD) to develop social work education’s capabilities providing the
required competencies to students. Anish et al. (2019) designed a framework for developing social
workers’ intercultural competency through the conscious effort embedded in the curricular pro-
cesses in social work education. The framework discusses how intercultural competency can be
integrated into social work education. The research team from India and Germany formulated the
framework for developing intercultural competence among social workers based on scoping
review, expert consultations, and focus group discussions with stakeholders.
The researchers reviewed the social work programs’ curriculum in India and Germany and
explored social work students and practitioners’ perspectives to validate the framework. The
framework (Figure 1) discusses the evolution of intercultural competence among social workers,
which leads to the effective delivery of services to people from diverse cultures. The reflective
process embedded in social work education in the teaching and learning processes and field practi-
cum experiences would contribute to developing the requisite knowledge, skills, and attitudes to
develop intercultural competence among social workers. The framework assumes that a curricu-
lum embedded with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes along with various pedagogical approaches
such as international social work exposure (Das and Anand, 2014; Harris et al., 2017; Pawar, 2017;
Thampi, 2017), reflective practice during field practicum (Cleak et al., 2016), and classroom learn-
ing lead to the development of intercultural competence (Anish et al., 2019).
It is argued that within these frameworks there is a third level needing to be involved. It is about
methods that must be included that allow social work students to acquire cultural competences.
We have presented an example of providing students with cultural competencies through an
exchange program between Chinese and Norwegian Universities. A brief overview of the develop-
ment of social work in China is given before presenting the student exchange program example.

The international dimension of Chinese social work education

The development of Chinese social work in the last decades results from an international exchange
between Chinese sociologists and social work experts from outside Mainland China. In China,
disciplines like sociology and social work were interrupted in the 1950s due to political reasons.
Only in the 1980s, the reestablishment of social work started with sociologists’ help and with
strong international support from the IASSW and social work experts from Hong Kong (Wang
et al., 2014). In 2006, the Chinese government issued a document, Contemporary System for
Recognizing the Professional Qualification of Social Workers, which indicated that social work as
a profession was officially accepted in China. However, although the development of social work
KR et al. 9

Figure 1.  Framework for developing intercultural competence in social work (Anish et al., 2019,
International Summer University in Social Work, Kochi, India, 2–12 July 2019).

in China has a strong international influence, ‘Chinese characteristics’ is a critical discourse in

social work in China that cannot be ignored. China’s primary concern is how social work can be
integrated into its existing welfare system and what role social workers can take in providing social
services. There are a variety of factors, such as the politics of socialism with Chinese characteris-
tics, traditional culture, and social work educators mainly from the field of sociology that contrib-
ute to Chinese social work with noticeable local features. During teaching, Chinese educators and
students would emphasize the theoretical understanding of international social work knowledge on
the one hand and remind themselves of indigenization on the other. Chinese social work education
deals with the international dimension to adapt the knowledge produced in the West to the reality
of Chinese society. Accordingly, Chinese social work aims to train qualified social workers to pro-
vide quality social services for local social problems. So the integration process of international
social work into Chinese social work is more appropriate to the Selected Approach identified by
Estes (2010) (see ‘Specialist options and degree-bearing programs’ section).
A challenge for Chinese social work is that local people know little about social work and are
not yet convinced that social work can help people’s everyday lives. One way to address this chal-
lenge is to learn how international social workers are involved in social discourses in their respec-
tive countries. The Wuhan University of Technology, where social work education began in 2000,
established exchange programs with the University of Utah College of Social Work from 2015 and
the Macau Society of Neighborhoods from 2009 onward. Some students were involved in exchange
programs and took part in courses at these universities or were doing an internship in professional
agencies for one semester abroad. These kinds of exchange programs, which can provide experi-
ences that can be reflected upon based on Nazarkiewicz’s concept of culture and three meta-per-
spectives, provide students opportunities to analyze American social work and Macau social work
and reflect on how Chinese social work should develop in the future. By learning about and under-
standing social work in other places, these students can transform their internal outcomes learned
through international exchange, such as appreciating cultural diversity, situated knowledge and
perceptions and practice skills across cultures, into their local professional practice.
10 International Social Work 00(0)

Setting an example: An international exchange program between

China and Norway to raise personal competences
With regard to the exchange of faculties and students mentioned in the ‘Student and faculty
exchange’ section, it becomes clear that teaching in the context of International Social Work educa-
tion should not be a one-way street. Since Chinese social work has developed partly based on
western knowledge and was then adapted to the Chinese context, it would be helpful to introduce
models on how this process can be turned toward exchanging ideas.
Models for doing so have been developed by several scholars, including Chau (1990) or Fraser
and Baker (2014). Nord University, Norway, developed another model, in collaboration with
Chongqing University, China (Zhao and Moen, 2019), who created a short-term exchange pro-
gram for their master’s students in social work. The exchange program was part of a collaboration
project funded by the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement
in Higher Education (DIKU). The exchange program aims to provide the students of both univer-
sities with international and intercultural experiences that they believe can enhance the students’
competence to be social workers. Within the exchange program framework, a group of Chinese
students and a group of Norwegian students met twice during 2019, 6 months apart, once in
Norway and once in China, with 1 week of intense joint teaching activities at both sites. The joint
teaching programs did not offer separate study points but were incorporated as part of the two
universities’ respective courses. The two parallel teaching weeks in Norway and China included
(1) 1-day lectures/seminars on contexts of social work, understanding of social problems, and the
Nordic/Chinese model of welfare and social policies; (2) 2-day field visits to social work institu-
tions (three in Norway and four in China) where the students are invited to have direct dialogues
with the social work practitioners; (3) 1-day student group work (each group is mixed with both
Chinese and Norwegian students) related to the lectures/field visits; and (4) a final oral presenta-
tion by the student groups on the last day. The content of the exchange program, including the
topics of lectures, choice of social work institutions for field visits, and tasks for group work, was
collectively developed by teaching staff from both universities involved, through their mutual
visits the year before.
What is unique in this exchange program is that it shapes spaces for collective intercultural
learning of the two groups of students. The model presented in this program can be said to comply
with the three culture-reflexive meta-perspectives by Nazarkiewicz. First, concerning the first
meta-perspective (interpreting with the natural worldview), the two groups of students have,
through the lectures, acquired knowledge about each other’s welfare systems and social politics in
which the profession of social work is framed. In addition, through the traveling and field work,
and experiencing cultural difference, they have acquired cultural knowledge and its relevance to
social work practice.
Second, the field visits did trigger questions, wondering, or astonishment for students, espe-
cially the guest students, as part of the ‘not-knowing’ and ‘not-understanding’ proposed by
Nazarkiewicz (2016). The questions from guest students formed a good point of departure for
the following mixed student group work, in which the guest students and host students could
engage in a collective process of doing critical reflections. As a matter of fact, the questions from
the guest students framed in another social and cultural context also made the host students
uncertain, which led to deconstructions of cultural differences, that is, how certain observed
cultural differences are socially and institutionally constructed and how social, institutional, and
even physical contexts are intertwined with the issue of culture (Zhao and Moen, 2019). One
example of such deconstruction concerns the cultural practice of care within the family (e.g.
grandparenting) as framed differently in the two welfare regimes. The deconstruction of cultural
KR et al. 11

differences echoes thus the second meta-perspective (systemic-constructivist perspectives

diversity).
Third, in this exchange program, the students are not only made aware of their uncertainties
coming from ‘not-knowing’ and ‘not-understanding’, but are also given spaces for working mind-
fully with their uncertainties through the intercultural group work. That the discussions are driven
by uncertainties from both sides has to some extent challenged the uneven power relations existing
between the west and the east, which paved the way for equal and fruitful discussions. Through the
embodied experiences of ‘not-knowing’ and ‘not-understanding’ during the field visits in another
social and cultural context, and through the intercultural collective reflections, both groups of stu-
dents have enhanced their self-reflexivity, particularly concerning the meaning of the social con-
texts in shaping their understandings of social problems and social work practice, as well as how
they are positioned in these contexts along with various sets of intersecting power relations. For
example, the embodied experience of being uncertain in a starkly different Chinese context made
the Norwegian students have a better understanding of their potential power in defining the prob-
lem and situations that are faced by newly arrived migrants in Norway. The critical aspect of power
relations thus reflects the third meta-perspective of Nazarkiewicz (deconstructing relationships of
power).
In addition to the three meta-perspectives of culture-reflexive competence, the students also
reported on the positive development of their intercultural communication skills, especially through
the students’ group work. Both Chinese and Norwegian students described a process of how the
dynamics in the group discussions and teamwork evolved from initial uncertainty on both sides to
finally being able to find a comfortable way to do the intercultural communications.

Conclusion
Acculturating intercultural competences are not only a question of personal prerequisites but also of
providing opportunities for it (Borrmann, 2021a). For this, social work needs a framework for inter-
national social work education that integrates models and approaches and methods. Such a frame-
work was introduced based on Estes’ (2010) work and extended by the component of methods. The
students’ experience of the exchange model between China and Norway supports the argument that
internationalization of social work education does not necessarily contradict the emphasis that social
work is always ‘local’ and contextual (Cleak et al., 2016; Das and Anand, 2014; Harris et al., 2017;
Pawar, 2017; Thampi, 2017) and that intercultural competence in social work can be achieved through
internationalization of social work education, as demonstrated in particular in Zhao and Moen’s pro-
ject, through practice-based intercultural teaching activities. However, one needs a comprehensive
model of cultural diversity in general, which was introduced in the second part of this article, and of
culture-reflexive competences in social work, which were listed in the third part of this article.
Acculturating cross-cultural competences are not only a question of personal prerequisites but also of
providing opportunities for it. The article has shown that there are examples of how these opportuni-
ties can be created and that every learning experience starts with the acknowledgment that personal
and cultural beliefs have a tremendous impact on both how we teach and how we learn. Reflexivity,
positionality, privilege, situated knowledge, and perceptions are intrinsically woven (Pulla, 2017). To
challenge one’s own belief system has to be the starting point of every learning experience and it
might start with the acknowledgment of not-knowing everything.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
12 International Social Work 00(0)

ORCID iDs
Anish KR https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3445-564X
Stefan Borrmann https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9515-6440
Yan Zhao https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9129-2763
Hilde Berit Moen https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3358-5810

References
Akintayo T, Hämäläinen J and Rissanen S (2018) Global Standards and the realities of multiculturalism in
social work curricula. International Social Work 61(3): 395–409.
Anand JC and Das C (2019) Global Mindedness in International Social Work Practice. London: Macmillan
Education UK.
Anderson H and Goolishian H (1992) The client is the expert: A not-knowing approach to therapy. In:
McNamee S and Gergen KJ (eds) Therapy as Social Construction. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, pp.
25–39.
Anish KR, Pfaller-Rott M and Anil J (2019) Refugees and migration issues: Evidence building through inter-
national networks. In: International Summer University in Social Work, Kochi, India. 2–12 July 2019.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14616.11529
Biestek F (1961) The Case Work Relationship. Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press.
Borrmann S (2021a) The interdependency of global social work thinking and local education: How personal
experiences of social work educators influences their teaching. Social Work Education. Epub ahead of
print 04 May 2021. DOI: 10.1080/02615479.2021.1924662
Borrmann S (2021b) Personal and structural prerequisites for international social work education. In:Rosskopf
R and Heilmann B (eds) International Social Work and Forced Migration. Development in African, Arab
and European Countries. Leverkusen: Barbara Budrich Publishers, pp. 43–52.
Borrmann S (2016) Bachelorstudiengänge Sozialer Arbeit an Hochschulen für angewandte Wissenschaften.
Ergebnisse einer Curriculaanalyse. Neue Praxis 1(16): 83–97.
Borrmann S, Klassen M and Spatscheck C (eds) (2007) International Social Work, Social Problems, Cultural
Issues and Social Work Education. Leverkusen: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Chau KL (1990) A model for teaching cross-cultural practice in social work. Journal of Social Work Education
26(2): 124–133.
Cleak H, Anand J and Das C (2016) Asking the critical questions: An evaluation of social work students’
experiences in an international placement. The British Journal of Social Work 46(2): 389–408.
CSWE (2015) Educational policy and accreditation standards. Available at: https://cswe.org/getattachment/
Accreditation/Standards-and-Policies/2015-EPAS/2015EPASandGlossary.pdf.aspx (accessed 10 July
2020)
Das C and Anand JC (2014) Strategies for critical reflection in international contexts for social work students.
International Social Work 57(2): 109–120.
Estes RJ (2010) United States-based conceptualization of international social work. Available at: https://
repository.upenn.edu/spp_papers/181 (accessed 23 March 2018)
Frankenberg R (1993) White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. London: Routledge.
Fraser H and Baker JL (2014) Innovative teaching in social work with diverse populations: Critical reflections
from South Australia. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change 1(3): 96–113.
Gray M and Webb SA (2007) Global double standards in social work: A critical review. Social Work and
Society, 8 March. Available at: http://www.Socmag.Net/?p=56 (accessed 5 June 2015).
Harris N, Miles D, Howard E, Zuchowski I, et al. (2017) International student exchange in Australian social
work education. Australian Social Work 70(4): 429–440.
Hokenstad T (2012) Social work education: The international dimension. In: Lyons K, Hokenstad T, Pawar
M, Huegler N, et al. (eds) The Sage Handbook of International Social Work. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE,
pp. 163–178.
KR et al. 13

IASSW (2020) The updated global standards for social work education and training: The new chapter in
social work profession. Available at: https://www.iassw-aiets.org/featured/5867-announcement-of-the-
updated-global-standards-for-social-work-education-and-training-the-new-chapter-in-social-work-pro-
fession (accessed 16 December 2020)
Johnson Y and Munch S (2009) Fundamental contradictions in cultural competence. Social Work 54(3):
220–231.
Kleve H (2011) Das Wunder des Nichtwissens: Vom Paradigma der professionellen Lösungsabstinenz in der
Sozialen Arbeit. Kontext 42(4): 338–355.
Kraus B (2017) Nicht-Verstehen als professionelle Kommunikation-Kompetenz. Kommunikationstheoretische
Konsequenzen einer systemisch-konstruktivistischen Lebensweltorientierung. In: Hoburg R (ed.)
Kommunizieren in sozialen und helfenden Berufen. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, pp. 48–66.
Mecheril P (2013) Kompetenzlosigkeitskompetenz. Pädagogisches Handeln unter Einwanderungsbedingungen.
In: Auernheimer G (ed.) Interkulturelle Kompetenz und pädagogische Professionalität. Wiesbaden: VS
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 15–35.
Nazarkiewicz K (2013) Interkulturalität als immanenter: Faktor in Coaching und Training – konzeptionelle
Überlegungen. Intercultural Journal: Online Zeitschrift Für Interkulturelle Studien 12(20): 47–67.
Nazarkiewicz K (2016) Kulturreflexivität statt Interkulturalität? Interculture Journal: Online Zeitschrift Für
Interkulturelle Studien 15(26): 23–32.
Nazarkiewicz K (2018) Nicht-Verstehen als Chance für die interkulturelle digitale Kommunikationskompetenz.
In: von Helmolt K and Ittstein D (eds) Digitalisierung Und (Inter-)kulturalitätformen, Wirkung Und
Wandel Von Kultur in Der Digitalisierten Welt. Stuttgart: Verlag, pp. 81–104.
Nörenberg M (2007) Professionelles Nicht-Wissen. Sokratische Einredungen zur Reflexionskompetenz in der
Sozialen Arbeit. 1. Aufl. Heidelberg: Verl. für Systemische Forschung im Carl-Auer-Verl.
Palattiyil G, Sidhva D, Pawar M, Shajahan PK, et al. (2019) Reclaiming international social work in the con-
text of the global agenda for social work and social development: Some critical reflections. International
Social Work 62(3): 1043–1054.
Pawar M (2017) Reflective learning and teaching in social work field education in international contexts. The
British Journal of Social Work 47(1): 198–218.
Pulla V (2017) Educating students to work with diverse communities – building reflexive practice [paper pres-
entation]. In: Building Networks and Frameworks for International Social Work, Landshut, Germany,
19–21 June 2017.
Saunders JA, Haskins M and Vasquez M (2015) Cultural competence: A journey to an elusive goal. Journal
of Social Work Education 51(1): 19–34.
Schmid PS (2001) Comprehension: The art of not-knowing. Dialogical and ethical perspectives on empathy
as dialogue in personal and person-centred relationships. In: Haugh S and Merry T (eds) Empathy. Ross-
on-Wye: PCCS Books, pp. 53–71.
Sewpaul V and Jones D (2004) Global standards for the education and training of the social work profession.
Available at: http://cdn.ifsw.org/assets/ifsw_65044-3.pdf (accessed 23 March 2018)
Thampi K (2017) Social work education crossing the borders: A field education programme for international
internship. Social Work Education 36(6): 609–622.
Wang S, Yuen A and Shi B (2014) The Development of Social Work Education in Mainland China. Beijing:
Peking University Press, pp. 18–25.
Wong YLR (2004) Knowing through discomfort: A mindfulness-based critical social work pedagogy. Critical
Social Work 5(1): 1–9.
Zhao Y and Moen HB (2019) Shaping transnational learning positions and understanding social work in
context. In: 4th International Symposium on Global Social Work, Wuhan, China, 09–12 October 2019.

Author biographies
Anish KR holds an M Phil and Ph D degree in Social Work and is an assistant professor of social work at
Rajagiri College of Social Sciences, Kerala, India. His research interests include social work education,
14 International Social Work 00(0)

intercultural competence, migration and mental health social work practice. He is also Vice President of the
Kerala Association of Professional Social Workers and Association of Schools of Social Work in Kerala.
Stefan Borrmann is a professor of international social work research at the Faculty of Social Work at the
University of Applied Sciences Landshut in Germany. He is also a board member of the German Association
of Social Work (DGSA)
Ngan Nguyen-Meyer is doing her PhD project at Fulda University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Social and
Cultural Sciences. She is currently a lecturer of intercultural research at this university and has been a lecturer
of social work science at Munich University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Applied Social Sciences since
2010. Her research area includes culture-reflexive Not-Understanding in child protection, intercultural com-
petences, theories of social work, decolonial transnational knowledge production in social work education in
Vietnam and social work in Vietnam and East Asia
Yan Zhao holds a PhD degree in sociology, and she is an associate professor in social work at the Faculty of
Social Sciences, Nord University, Norway. Her research area includes migration, aging and intergenerational
relationships, race and natiom, feminist and postcolonial studies.
Hilde Berit Moen holds a PhD degree in sociology, and she is an associate professor in social work at the
Faculty of Social Sciences, Nord University, Norway. Her research area is within medical sociology and
health services, particularly concerning mental health, illness experiences, and eating disorders as a social
phenomenon.
Weihua Liu holds an MPsych degree and is an associate professor in social work at the School of Law,
Humanities and Sociology, Wuhan University of Technology, China. His research areas include theories of
social work practice, field education of social work, and mental health social work.