Routledge International Handbook of Social Work Education-Routledge (2016)

ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK
OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
The Routledge International Handbook of Social Work Education is both about international social work
education as well as social work education as it is practised in a wide range of countries, enabling an
opportunity to consider national differences as well as shared cross-national concerns.The overall aim of
the editors is to further develop pedagogic research and scholarship for social work education. Drawing
on medical education as an exemplar, the editors view social work education as a specialism and a field
of research and theory based knowledge that counts in the same way as research programmes in other
fields of social work practice.
The chapters are concerned with the theory and practice of social work education at all levels; our
aim is to be accessible, conceptually clear, research based where appropriate, critically reflective and
ethically underpinned. The Handbook is organised into six sections:
• social work education in context: the Western drivers

• emerging and re-emerging social work education
• the scholarship of learning and teaching
• new insights into field education
• new directions in learning and teaching
• future challenges in social work education.
This Handbook, authored by both current and incoming leaders in social work education, presents a
contribution to the process of exchange and dialogue which is essential to global social work education.
It brings together professional knowledge and lived experience, both universal and local, and will be
an essential reference nationally and internationally for social work educators, researchers, students and
professionals.
Imogen Taylor is Emerita Professor of Social Work at the University of Sussex, England, where she was
Head of Department of Social Work for seven years. She worked previously at the Universities of Bristol
and Toronto. Imogen has researched extensively into the pedagogy of professional social work education.
Marion Bogo is Professor at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Can-
ada. She is the former Dean and first appointee to the first Endowed Chair in Social Work. Her research
focuses on social work education, including field education and the conceptualisation and assessment
of professional competence.
Michelle Lefevre was Head of the Department of Social Work at the University of Sussex, England.
Michelle has practised as a social worker and arts psychotherapist in frontline child protection, in a
specialist setting with children and families where there was abuse and neglect, and as an independent
expert witness.
Barbra Teater is an Associate Professor at the College of Staten Island, City University of New York,
USA, where she is Program Director of the Bachelor of Science in Social Work and the minor in Disa-
bility Studies. She spent eight years in UK social work education at the Universities of Bath and Bristol.
“This outstanding collection presents in-depth analysis and debate concerning all the key issues
in social work education. It addresses detailed questions of learning and teaching in action
through to broader issues of global dynamics and relationships, bringing to each topic a critical
and perceptive awareness that challenges preconceptions and invites us to re-examine our
current theories and practices. This volume will prove an invaluable resource for educators,
practitioners and students.”
—Richard Hugman, Professor of Social Work, University of New South Wales, Australia
“This volume is the most comprehensive text on social work education to date.The contributors
from five continents and a broad variety of countries analyze critical topics relating to what is
taught, how it is taught, and what its impacts are. It is a “must have” for social work educators
interested in a global perspective of their field, as well as improving their own pedagogy.”
—Susan Mapp, Professor, Elizabethtown College, USA
“This handbook brings together a wealth of knowledge, derived from research, scholarship
and their experience as social work educators from around the world. Its 34 chapters provide
readers with information and ideas about the Western drivers of social work education; case
studies of newly emerging or re-emerging developments; selected issues in both pedagogy and
field education; and ‘new directions’ and future challenges for the discipline and profession.
While recognising the impact of global factors, the 72 authors provide thought-provoking
commentaries on their task and give fascinating glimpses into the varied national socio-
economic and political contexts for which they must prepare future professionals.”
—Karen Lyons, Emeritus Professor, International Social Work,
London Metropolitan University, UK
“Edited by leaders in social work education, this book provides a diverse array of perspectives
and approaches regarding social work education from across the globe. Not shying away from
controversy, authors eloquently discuss the manner in which core social work values of social
change, cohesion and empowerment are applied in local contexts – shaped by cultural history,
economic, political and environmental crises, and local systems for addressing human struggles
and tragedy. A must-have resource for all social work educators preparing students for practice
in our global environment.”
—Cheryl Regehr, Professor, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work,
Vice-President and Provost, University of Toronto
ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL
HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL
WORK EDUCATION
Edited by Imogen Taylor, Marion Bogo,

Michelle Lefevre and Barbra Teater
First published 2016
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group,
an Informa business
© 2016 I. Taylor, M. Bogo, M. Lefevre and B. Teater
The right of the editor to be identified as the author of the editorial
material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been
asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Taylor, Imogen, editor. | Bogo, Marion, editor. | Lefevre,
Michelle, editor. | Teater, Barbra, editor.
Title: Routledge international handbook of social work
education / edited by Imogen Taylor, Marion Bogo,
Michelle Lefevre, and Barbra Teater.
Other titles: International handbook of social work
education | Routledge international handbooks.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge,
2016. | Series: Routledge international handbooks | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2015040358 | ISBN 9781138890237
(hardback) | ISBN 9781315712536 (ebook)
Subjects: | MESH: Social Work—education.
Classification: LCC HV11 | NLM HV 11 | DDC 361.3—dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015040358
ISBN: 978-1-138-89023-7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-71253-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
CONTENTS
About the contributors ix

Introductionxxiii
SECTION 1
Social work education in context: the Western drivers 1
1 ‘Think globally and locally, act globally and locally’: a new

agenda for international social work education 3
Mel Gray
2 Social work education and the challenge of race equality 14

Charlotte Williams
3 Understanding and assessing competence: challenges associated

with the competency-based approach to social work education 27
Jo Ann R. Coe Regan and Alan J. Detlaff
4 Whose curriculum is it anyway?: globalisation, social work

education and knowledge 38
Imogen Taylor
5 The academisation of social work: Sweden – a case study 51

Peter Dellgran and Staffan Höjer
6 Social work education and the borderless university experience 59

Ira Colby
v
Contents
SECTION 2
Emerging and re-emerging social work education 71
7 Development of social work education in China in an era of rapid

reform and transformation 73
Wang Si Bin and Yuen Tsang Woon-ki, Angelina
8 Treading the long path: social work education in Malaysia 84

Jonathan Parker, Sara Ashencaen Crabtree and Azlinda Azman
9 Creating social work education in the Republic of

Georgia96
Mark Doel, Iago Kachkachishvili, Jo Lucas,
Salome Namicheishvili and Natia Partskhaladze
10 Education for social development: the case of India 107

Vimla Nadkarni, Geeta Balakrishnan and Ronald Yesudhas
11 Developing social work education in Africa: challenges and

prospects119
Rodreck Mupedziswa and Kefentse Kubanga
SECTION 3
The scholarship of learning and teaching 131
12 Developing learning and teaching about diversity and social

justice133
Lorraine Gutiérrez and Robert Ortega
13 Research teaching and learning in qualifying social work

education144
Elaine Sharland and Barbra Teater
14 Teaching and learning for ethical practice in social

work education 157
Eleni Papouli
15 Developing research and scholarship in law teaching for

social work education 171
Suzy Braye and Michael Preston-Shoot
16 Evaluating the outcomes of social work education 183

John Carpenter
vi
Contents
SECTION 4
New insights into field education 195
17 Practice learning: challenging neoliberalism in a turbulent world 197

Linda Harms Smith and Iain Ferguson
18 Aspirations and realities in delivering field education in a

developing country context: learning from Papua New Guinea 209
Catherine Flynn, Dunstan Lawihin and John Kaupa Kamasua
19 Contesting field education in social work: using critical

reflection to enhance student learning for critical practice 220
Christine Morley and David O’Connor
20 Fluidity and space: social work student learning in field supervision 232
Phyllis Chee
21 Italian and English practice educators’ experiences of working

with struggling or failing students in practice placements 243
Jo Finch and Alberto Poletti
22 Group supervision in social work field education: the

perspective of supervisors 254
Miriam Schiff and Anat Zeira
SECTION 5
New directions in learning and teaching 263
23 Using simulation in teaching and assessing social work competence 265

Marion Bogo and Mary Rawlings
24 Political conflict and social work education 275

Jim Campbell, Joe Duffy and Mark Simpson
25 Service user and carer assessment of social work students 286

Ann Anka
26 Suitability, gatekeeping and social work education 298

Cath Holmström
27 Social media in social work education: developing

teaching and learning strategies 310
Joanne Westwood
vii
Contents
28 Web-based social work education in the United States 323

Jo Ann R. Coe Regan
29 Artifacts or catalysts? Moving doctoral dissertations from

the shelf to the community 331
Lucyna M. Lach, Sacha Bailey, Aline Bogossian, and David Rothwell
SECTION 6
Future challenges for social work education 341
30 Educating resilient practitioners 343

Liz Beddoe and Carole Adamson
31 Developing the social work academic workforce: profiles from

the United Kingdom and the United States of America 355
Barbra Teater, Michelle Lefevre, and Hugh McLaughlin
32 Back to the future: the role of the academy in social

work education 370
Martin Webber, Ian Shaw, Simon Cauvain, Mark Hardy,
Mirja Satka, Aino Kääriäinen and Laura Yliruka
33 Social work education: the challenge of neoliberalism 382

Karen J. Swift, Luann Good Gingrich and Michael Brown
34 The place for a global and holistic environment: international

challenges and opportunities for social work education
in the twenty-first century 394
Shari E. Miller, R. Anna Hayward-Everson, and Joel Izlar
Index405
viii
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS
Editors
Imogen Taylor, MSW (Toronto), PhD (Bristol), is Emerita Professor of Social Work at the
University of Sussex, England, where she was Head of Department of Social Work for seven
years. She worked previously at the Universities of Bristol and Toronto. Imogen has researched
extensively into the pedagogy of professional social work education. Her most recent pub-
lications (Taylor, 2013; Taylor & Bogo, 2013) examined the effects of government policy on
professional education and training. In 2005, in recognition of her pedagogic research, she was
appointed by the UK Higher Education Funding Council to the Social Work and Social Pol-
icy sub-panel of the Research Assessment Exercise (2007–8) and to the subsequent Research
Excellence Framework Panel for Social Work and Social Policy (2012–14) and elected Deputy
Chair of the Panel. She co-directed the UK Higher Education Funding Council Learning and
Teaching Support Network Subject Centre for Social Policy and Social Work (2001–5). In
2003, in recognition of her demonstrable teaching excellence and influence on social work
education nationally, Imogen was the first social work academic to achieve a UK National
Teaching Fellowship. When Imogen was Editor-in-Chief, Social Work Education:The International
Journal (2009–14), her priority was to develop the journal’s international profile. Internation-
ally, Imogen has been invited to lead programme reviews in Ireland, the West Indies and Hong
Kong (she is a member of the Social Workers Registration Board, 2006–16). She has presented
on social work education at many international conferences and has been a Visiting Professor
at City University and Baptist University, Hong Kong. In 2014, Imogen was elected as Fellow
of the UK Academy of Social Sciences.
Marion Bogo is Professor at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of

Toronto, Canada. She is the former Dean and first appointee to the first Endowed Chair in
Social Work. Her research focuses on social work education, including field education and the
conceptualisation and assessment of professional competence. She has published over 100 jour-
nal articles and book chapters, and 5 books. Professor Bogo is a member of numerous journal
editorial boards and was Associate Editor North America for Social Work Education: The Interna-
tional Journal. She has consulted to schools of social work in North America, Asia and Europe.
In 2013 she was awarded the Significant Lifetime Achievement in Social Work Education Award from
ix
About the contributors
the Council of Social Work Education, USA, in recognition of her contributions to social work
education and to improving assessment of professional competence. In 2014 she was appointed
as an Officer of the Order of Canada for her achievements in the field of social work as a scholar
and teacher, and for advancing the practice in Canada and abroad.
Michelle Lefevre was Head of the Department of Social Work and Social Care at the University
of Sussex, England. Prior to her academic career Michelle practised as a social worker and arts
psychotherapist. She worked in frontline child protection settings, in a specialist setting with
children and families where there were issues of abuse and neglect, and as an independent expert
witness and psychotherapist. Michelle ran the continuing professional development courses at
Sussex for social workers and other professionals between 2003 and 2011 and led the Doctor
of Social Work programme from 2012 to 2014. She has additionally taught and tutored on the
BA and MA Social Work courses, focusing particularly on methods and skills, and on ‘direct
work’ with children. In 2016, the Higher Education Academy, supported by the Higher Educa-
tion Funding Councils for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, awarded Michelle awarded a
prestigious National Teaching Fellowship, recognising her excellence in teaching and her work
inspiring colleagues in the profession. Michelle’s key research focus has been on how social
workers develop effective engagement and communication with children and young people.
She has published a number of journal articles reporting her research on this topic as well as a
single-authored book and an edited anthology aimed at developing social workers’ practice with
children. Michelle is Editor-in-Chief of Child and Family Social Work.
Barbra Teater is an Associate Professor at the College of Staten Island, City University of New
York, USA, where she is Program Director of the Bachelor of Science in Social Work (BSSW)
and the minor in Disability Studies. She spent eight years in social work education in the UK,
where she taught at the Universities of Bath and Bristol. Her teaching interests include research
methods, social work theories and methods, and social work with older adults. Dr. Teater’s
research interests include social work education, research methods for social work, and the health
and well-being of older adults, particularly the promotion of active aging through preventative
programmes. She is a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Policy Practice and Journal of Social
Service Research and is on the advisory board for Open University Press, Social Work Skills in Practice
Series. She served on the board of Social Work Education: The International Journal for eight years.
Dr.Teater has authored or co-authored over 40 peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and
books including the bestselling text, An Introduction to Applying Social Work Theories and Methods.
Contributors
Carole Adamson is a Senior Social Work Lecturer in the School of Counselling, Human Services
and Social Work at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, where her research and teaching
focuses on mental health, trauma, resilience and stress. She has research interests in developing
resilient practitioners and in social work curriculum for stress, trauma and disaster preparation
and response. A major focal point in her work is the articulation of theoretical perspectives and
frameworks for social work practice that can integrate current, contextually aware best practice
and which can enable social work students to be effective practitioners in complex environments.
Ann Anka, DSW, is a Lecturer in Social Work at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, En-
gland. Her main areas of research interest include the involvement of people who use services
and carers in social work education and the assessments of social work students; working with
x
students deemed as marginal or failing, and adult social work law, policy and practice. Ann is
a Practice Educator; she also works for The Open University as a distance learning tutor. She
is a registered social worker, and her specialist areas of practice include social work with older
people and palliative care.
Azlinda Azman, PhD, is Associate Professor and Head of Social Work, School of Social
Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia. She is a Visiting Fellow at Bournemouth University, UK.
She published widely in the area of social work education and practice.
Sacha N. Bailey, MSW, is a doctoral candidate in the School of Social Work, McGill University,
Canada. She has earned a BSc in Psychology (2003) and a Master of Social Work (2009), both from
McGill University. Her doctoral project, which focuses on the experiences of hope among parents
of children with neurodevelopmental diagnoses (NDD), is funded by the Fonds de Recherche
du Québec en Société et Culture (2011–13). She is a recipient of a Wolfe Chair in Scientific and
Technological Literacy Graduate Fellowship (2013) from the Faculty of Arts of McGill University.
Geeta Balakrishnan is currently the Principal of College of Social Work, Nirmala Niketan,
Mumbai, India. Engaged in social work education for the past 25 years, she headed a field action
project ANKUR working with children with disability in state-run schools in Mumbai. Her
areas of interest include work with groups, mental health and social work training. As former
Director, Research Unit of the College, she directed several research studies on socio-economic
and health aspects pertaining to vulnerable groups such as tribal communities, religious minori-
ties, children, women and sex workers. She is the editor of the journal Perspectives in Social Work.
Liz Beddoe is an Associate Professor in the School of Counselling, Human Services and Social
Work at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. Liz’s teaching and research interests
include critical perspectives on social work education, health social work and professional super-
vision. Liz has published articles on supervision and professional issues in New Zealand and
international journals. She has co-authored Best Practice in Professional Supervision ( Jessica Kings
ley, 2010) with Allyson Davys, and Social Work Practice for Promoting Health and Wellbeing: Critical
Issues with Jane Maidment (Routledge, 2014). Correspondence to e.beddoe@auckland.ac.nz
Aline Bogossian, MSW, is a doctoral candidate in the School of Social Work of McGill Uni-
versity, Canada. She was awarded doctoral scholarships from the Canadian Child Health Cli-
nician Program (2012–16), the Fonds de recherche sur la societé et la culture (2012–15) and
NeuroDevNet Doctoral Trainee Program (2015–16) to support her research on the meaning of
fathering among fathers of children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Her broader research
interests rest in understanding the needs, experiences, challenges and realities of families of chil-
dren and adolescents with chronic health conditions and disabilities, in order to examine and
help improve the health and social services available to support them.
Suzy Braye is Emerita Professor of Social Work at the University of Sussex, England, and a Fel-
low of the Academy of Social Sciences. Her professional background is in social work practice
and local authority management. She has researched extensively into the relationship between
law and social work, and the related pedagogy of professional social work education. Her most
recent research is in the field of adult protection, in particular the governance of multi-agency
accountability in safeguarding adults, and the policy and practice challenges of self-neglect. She
is Editor of the European Journal of Social Work.
xi
Michael Brown is a Doctoral Candidate at York University, Canada, and his social work research
critically examines the role and power of the Canadian banking system and banking actors as
they participate in social policy processes. He helped produce a documentary film in 2003, Voices
of Dissent: Canadians in the Global Game, and was an outreach worker from 2004 to 2011.
Jim Campbell is Professor of Social Work in University College, Dublin. Previously he had
taught and researched in Goldsmiths, University of London, and Queen’s University Belfast. He
has two areas of academic interest: the relationships between social work and political conflict,
with a particular focus on Northern Ireland, and social work and mental health law. In July 2015
he completed a five-year term, with Professor John Pinkerton, as co-editor of the British Journal
of Social Work and is working with Joe Duffy and other colleagues on how social workers in
Northern Ireland have dealt with the legacy of political conflict.
John Carpenter, DSc, is Professor of Social Work and Applied Social Science in the School
for Policy Studies at the University of Bristol, UK. He is a registered social worker and a
chartered psychologist. His research on the outcomes of social work dates from the 1980s
when he designed and evaluated a programme of pre-qualifying interprofessional education at
Bristol. He has subsequently conducted large-scale evaluations of post-qualifying professional
education in mental health and child protection services and, most recently, of the outcomes
of a programme of reflective supervision and support for newly qualified social workers in
England. He co-directed, with Hilary Burgess, the Outcomes of Social Work Education project
(2005–2010).
Simon Cauvain is a Lecturer in Social Work in the Department of Social Policy and Social
Work at the University of York, England, and a registered social worker. He has experience of
working with a range of service users across a variety of settings and sectors. His focus of direct
practice has predominantly been with children and families and child protection. His PhD
research focused on recruitment and retention in children and families social work. He is par-
ticularly interested in the connection between research and practice and in the role of service
users and carers in professional education.
Phyllis Chee teaches in the School of Human Services and Social Work at Griffith Univer-
sity in Brisbane, Australia. She is currently the field education convenor of the undergraduate
social work programme and also chairs the Social Work Field Education Program in the School.
Phyllis has previously worked in Singapore as a social worker and taught social work in Macau
and Hong Kong. Her teaching and research interest is in the areas of social work field educa-
tion, student field learning, student field supervision and university-agency partnerships in field
education.
Ira Colby, a social work educator since 1975 and former Dean of the University of Houston
(Texas) Graduate College of Social Work, has served on, chaired, or held elective positions in
a number of national and international social work associations including the International
Association of Schools of Social Work, was a past president of the US-based Council on Social
Work Education (CSWE), and was co-facilitator of the CSWE-China Association of Social
Work Education’s educational collaborative. The author of over 70 publications and 100 papers
at national and international forums, he is an honorary faculty member at Swansea University,
Wales, and East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai.
xii
Sara Ashencaen Crabtree, PhD, is Professor of Social and Cultural Diversity at Bournemouth
University and Visiting Professor at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia
and Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. She has worked extensively overseas in Southeast Asia, Hong
Kong, and the Middle East and is widely published in areas of discrimination and disadvantage,
cross-cultural issues and faith. She is the author of the first European book on Islam and Social
Work. She is currently engaged in comparative UK-Malaysia ethnographic research into wom-
en’s relationships with religions.
Peter Dellgran is Professor of Social Work at University of Gothenburg, Sweden. His research
concerns, among other issues, the production, dissemination and use of knowledge, research
development in social work and other disciplines, and the professionalisation of social work.
He was previously Director of the Centre for Profession Studies (CPS) at Malmö University
and Director of the Centre for Research on the Public Sector (CEFOS) at the University of
Gothenburg.
Alan J. Detlaff, PhD, MSW, is Dean and Maconda Brown O’Connor Endowed Dean’s Chair of
the Graduate College of Social Work at the University of Houston, USA. He currently serves as
Chair of the Commission on Educational Policy for the Council on Social Work Education. In
this role, he has overseen the development of the 2015 CSWE Educational Policy, which describes
the competency-based approach to social work education and the competencies all social work
students are expected to demonstrate upon graduation from a CSWE-accredited programme.
Mark Doel, PhD, MA (Oxon), CQSW, is Emeritus Professor, Sheffield Hallam University, UK.
Mark has 20 years’ experience as a community-based social worker in the UK. He held a joint
appointment as practitioner and university lecturer in Sheffield when he developed his expertise
in practice education. Mark has an international reputation in group work, social work practice
methods and practice teaching. He has worked in the US as a social worker and researcher and
headed several international projects, especially in eastern Europe. Mark has published 20 books,
the latest being Rights and Wrongs in Social Work (Palgrave), and edited two journals.
Joe Duffy is a Lecturer in Social Work at Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, where
he coordinates service user and carer involvement in social work education. Joe is particularly
interested in the development of creative and innovative approaches to advancing user and
experience-based knowledge in helping students understand difficult and challenging topics
such as the impact of conflict, social work values and international social work. Joe’s work in this
area has been recognised by a National Teaching Fellowship from the United Kingdom Higher
Education Academy, and his current work is focused on developing advanced theorising in this
field.
Iain Ferguson, prior to moving into social work education in the early 1990s, worked as a
social worker and community worker in and around Glasgow. He is currently Honorary Profes-
sor of Social Work and Social Policy at the University of the West of Scotland. He has written
several books, including Reclaiming Social Work: Challenging Neoliberalism and Promoting Social
Justice (Sage, 2008) and Radical Social Work in Practice (Policy Press, 2009, with Rona Woodward).
With Michael Lavalette and Vasilios Ioakimidis, he is currently writing Radical Perspectives in
Global Social Work (Policy Press, forthcoming) and is co-editor of Critical and Radical Social Work:
An International Journal.
xiii
Jo Finch, DSW, is Senior Lecturer in Social Work at the University of East London, UK, and
programme leader for the MA in Social Work and the Step-Up to Social Work (Post Graduate
Diploma). A former social worker, play therapist and practice educator, she has a long-standing
interest in the issues raised by social work students struggling or failing in practice learning set-
tings, with a particular focus on the emotional experience. She is also seconded to the Tavistock
and Portman NHS Trust, UK, where she teaches on the Professional Doctorate in Emotional
Well Being and Social Work programme.
Catherine Flynn is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Work at Monash Univer-
sity, Australia. Her core research areas are the intersection of criminal justice and social work,
with current and recent research focusing on children of offenders, women in the criminal
justice system and men engaged in Men’s Behaviour Change Programs; and international
collaboration.
Luann Good Gingrich is an Associate Professor in the School of Social Work at York Uni-
versity, Toronto, Canada. Her scholarship and publications focus on the intersecting dynamics
of social exclusion as they function to produce material and symbolic divides defined by race,
class and gender. Integrating theory development, empirical research and educational pedagogy,
she aims to encourage curiosity and imagination for meaningful and practical conceptions of
social inclusion.
Mel Gray, PhD, is Professor of Social Work in the School of Humanities and Social Science
at the University of Newcastle. She has an extensive, highly acclaimed research and publica-
tion profile focused on issues related to social work practice, including knowledge production,
research, theory, ethics and philosophy. Her recent books include Environmental Social Work (with
Coates and Hetherington, Routledge, 2013), Social Work Theories and Methods (2nd ed., with
Webb, Sage, 2013), Decolonizing Social Work (with Coates, Yellow Bird and Hetherington, Ash-
gate, 2013), The New Politics of Social Work (with Webb, Palgrave, 2013), and the Sage Handbook of
Social Work (with Midgley & Webb, 2012). Mel is currently Book Review Editor for the Interna-
tional Journal of Social Welfare.
Lorraine Gutiérrez is joint professor University of Michigan School of Social Work (SSW)
and Department of Psychology, and faculty associate in American Culture. She is a member
of the SSW Community Organization Learning Community. Her teaching and scholarship
focuses on multicultural praxis in communities, organisations and higher education informed by
her experience in community-based practice and research in multiethnic communities in New
York, Chicago, San Francisco, Detroit and Seattle. Current projects include identifying strate-
gies for multicultural community-based research and practice, multicultural education for social
work practice, and identifying effective methods for learning about social justice. Her contribu-
tions to undergraduate education have been recognised by the Arthur F. Thurnau Professorship.
She is an editor of the Journal of Community Practice.
Mark Hardy is Lecturer in Social Work in the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at
the University of York, England. He is co-author (with Tony Evans) of Evidence and Knowledge
for Practice (Polity Press, 2010) and Governing Risk? Care and Control in Contemporary Social Work
(Palgrave Macmillan, 2015). With Jeanne Marsh and Ian Shaw he has recently edited a Sage
major work in social work research.
xiv
R. Anna Hayward-Everson, MSW, PhD, is Assistant Professor at Stony Brook University

School of Social Welfare, USA, where she teaches Psychopathology and Human Behavior in the
Social Environment (HBSE) in the MSW programme. Dr. Hayward-Everson recently served as
a Fulbright Scholar at the University of the West Indies Mona Campus in Jamaica, West Indies,
where she examined social work’s role in environmental justice in the Caribbean. Current
research includes evaluating a programme for fathers and the integration of environmental issues
in social work education and practice.
Staffan Höjer is Professor of Social Work at the University of Gothenburg. His main research
areas concern the development of social work knowledge, organisational development and pro-
fessionalisation in social work. His publications reflect these interests and include among other
things studies of the social work discipline in Sweden, a cross-national analysis of models in
supervision, studies of decision-making in child protection systems and more specifically the
Swedish layperson system. He has a special interest in international social work and has for many
years been involved in PhD supervision in Uganda and Rwanda.
Cath Holmström is Principal Lecturer in Social Work at the University of Brighton, having
previously held posts at the Universities of Middlesex and Sussex. She has been actively involved
in selection processes within social work programmes and has also published in this area, with
her most recent focus being upon the assessment and development of moral character within
social work education. She also has a keen interest in education and regulatory law. She was
awarded a Higher Education Academy National Teaching Fellowship in 2011 in recognition of
her work and her interest in creative pedagogic design and implementation.
Joel Izlar, MSW, is an activist, community social worker, and doctoral student at the University
of Georgia’s School of Social Work, USA. He views activism and social work as inseparable, and
integrates these complementary modes of practice into his life. He has worked in the areas of
the digital divide, electronic waste, youth work, homelessness, food insecurity, and elder care as
a community organiser, coalition builder and programme manager.
Aino Kääriäinen is Senior Lecturer, presently working as Professor in Social Work at the
Department of Social Research at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She also works at Heikki
Waris Institute, being one of the resource persons for social work practice learning and research
in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. Her research interests include documentation in child pro-
tection social work, family care and parenthood after divorce. She also acts as expert member at
Helsinki Administrative Court in children’s care issues.
Iago Kachkachishvili, PhD, is Professor of Sociology and Head of the Department of Sociology
and Social Work at Tbilisi State University (Georgia). Besides university teaching, Kachkachishvili
leads research and educational projects, on national and international levels. He has conducted var-
ious studies concerning the problems of democracy and politics, education policy, ethnicity, social
protection and inclusion, deviation and governance, HIV/AIDS, safe sex and reproductive health,
etc. He is the author and co-author of 6 books and more than 35 scientific articles, several of them
in international peer-reviewed publications and written in English and Russian languages.
John Kaupa Kamasua has a Masters in Social Development from Reading University. He
is currently the Strand Leader of the Social Work Program at the University of Papua New
xv
Guinea, where he is involved in teaching, mentoring junior staff, research and publishing, as well
as establishing networks with stakeholders and partners.
Kefentse Kubanga, MSW candidate, joined the teaching staff in the Department of Social
Work at the University of Botswana in 2013. Ms Kubanga’s areas of research interest include
community development, women’s empowerment issues, children’s rights, residential care for
children and social work education. Before joining the world of academia, she served as a social
work practitioner in Botswana for several years. She has extensive experience working with
individuals, groups and communities. Ms Kubanga is passionate about promoting the theme of
social development.
Lucyna M. Lach, MSW, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the School of Social Work, McGill
University, Canada, and an Associate Member of the Departments of Paediatrics and Neu-
rology/Neurosurgery in the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, and she is currently the
Associate Dean (Student Affairs) in the Faculty of Arts. She has a special interest in health-related
quality of life and parenting of children with chronic health conditions and disabilities.
Dunstan Lawihin is a Master of Social Work (Research) candidate at Monash University,

Australia. He has been teaching in the Social Work Strand at the University of Papua New
Guinea as a tutor and as Field Education Coordinator since 2009. Prior to working in academia,
he worked as a trainer for NGO leaders and managers. His research interests are social work
education and practice, field education, social services improvement, social accountability and
anti-corruption.
Jo Lucas, MSc Social Policy and Social Work, CQSW, MSc Integrative Psychotherapy, has,
since qualifying, been a residential social worker, a social work trainer and a social work lecturer.
More recently she was project manager of a number of projects she wrote and won funding
for, designed to support the development of social work education in Ukraine and Georgia.
She lived in Ukraine for four years, establishing the first School of Social Work there. She has
written numerous articles and a couple of chapters on collaboration in mental health and the
development of the user movement across Europe.
Hugh McLaughlin, PhD, is a registered social worker and Professor of Social Work at Man-
chester Metropolitan University, UK. Since 2014 he has been Editor-in-Chief of Social Work
Education:The International Journal. Prior to academia he worked as a practitioner, team manager,
service manager and assistant director of children and family services in a local authority setting
before moving into academia to follow his hobby full time. Hugh’s research interests include
meaningful service user involvement in social work research and education, critical professional
practice and developing learning organisations.When he is not working, he likes to run or scuba
dive in warmer waters than the UK!
Shari E. Miller, MSW, PhD, is an Associate Professor and the Associate Dean of the School of
Social Work at the University of Georgia, USA. Her research focuses broadly on social work
education and the social work profession, including particular emphasis on educational innova-
tion; thinking in and for social work; social work and the environment; development of theory;
inter-transdisciplinary and interprofessional education and practice; and professional socialisa-
tion. She teaches across the social work education continuum, in the areas of the theory, practice
and research.
xvi
Christine Morley is Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of the Sunshine
Coast, Australia. She is a leader in the development of critical approaches to social work and has
established a reputation nationally and internationally for her contribution to critical reflection
as an educational process and methodological approach. She has published widely in the areas of
critical social work and critical reflection and has recently authored two books: Practising critical
reflection to develop emancipatory change: Challenging the legal response to sexual assault (Ashgate) and
Engaging with social work: A critical introduction, co-authored with Selma Macfarlane and Phillip
Ablett (Cambridge University Press).
Rodreck Mupedziswa, PhD, is a Professor of Social Work at the University of Botswana,

Africa, where until recently he served as Head of Department for six years. He was educated
at the London School of Economics (University of London) and the University of Zimbabwe.
Previous positions held include Director of the Forced Migration Studies Programme at the
University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and Deputy Director at the School of Social
Work, University of Zimbabwe. He has authored or co-authored eight books and has published
numerous journal articles, book chapters, monographs and occasional papers, mostly on social
development. He served as editor-in-chief of the accredited Journal of Social Development in
Africa for ten years.
Vimla Nadkarni is former Dean and Professor of School of Social Work, Tata Institute of
Social Sciences, Mumbai, and President of the International Association of Schools of Social
Work. She is an internationally recognised leader, scholar and educator in the field of interna-
tional social work, social work education, and practice. She has specialised in health ethics and
human rights, community health, health management, HIV/AIDS, reproductive health, and
ecology and health. Her publications include NGOs, Urban Health and the Poor, and guest editing
of the first special issue on “Social Work Education in Asia: New Horizons’’ of Social Work Education:
The International Journal.
Salome Namicheishvili, MSW, PhD Candidate,Tbilisi State University, is committed to social

work professional development in Georgia in her role as a founder of the Georgian Association
of Social Workers. She is a social work activist and one of the first pioneer social workers in
Georgia. She has 12 years of experience supporting the development of social work in Georgia
through policy, administration, research and direct work practice with the stakeholders, includ-
ing with government, NGOs, communities and service users. She is an Assistant Professor of
social work at Tbilisi State University. She is also involved in social work developments interna-
tionally in her role as elected member at large for the International Federation of Social Workers
(IFSW), Europe.
David O’Connor works as a research assistant and is a graduate of the Bachelor of Social Work
programme at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia. He also works at Community
Focus/Sunshine Coast Medicare Local Partners in Recovery Program as a support facilitator
for people with severe and persistent mental illness with complex needs. His other roles include
teaching and facilitating peer-partnering programmes and working with men from parole and
community services. David has also established and coordinates a number of men’s groups on
the Sunshine Coast.
Robert Ortega, PhD, is an Associate Professor at University of Michigan, USA. His research
interests are in relationship development, group work, treatment interventions and service
xvii
utilisation, particularly in mental health and child welfare. He has consulted, presented and
written on these topics, focusing on diversity and social justice in research and practice. He has
published on mutual aid, multicultural issues in group work, child welfare permanency planning,
family preservation and culturally responsive child welfare practice. He is principal investiga-
tor of the first national study of Latinos and child welfare. Current projects include increasing
graduates from underrepresented groups in research scientist professions; training child welfare
managers and supervisors; and culturally responsive child maltreatment interventions. He was
awarded the CSWE 2013 Recent Distinguished Contributions to Social Work Education.
Eleni Papouli, PhD, is a Lecturer in Social Work in the Department of Social Work at the Tech-
nological Educational Institute (TEI) of Athens, Greece. Dr Papouli has an MA in Social Work,
specialising in International Child Welfare, from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and holds
a PhD in Social Work and Social Care from the University of Sussex, UK. She is a qualified
social worker and experienced social work educator, supervisor and researcher in Athens. Her
current research interests include social work values and ethics, field education, organisational
ethics, child welfare, and art-based research methods. Eleni was awarded a University Teaching
Fellowship for the Academic Year 2014/2015 from the Munich University of Applied Sciences
(MUAS), Germany.
Jonathan Parker, PhD, is Professor of Society and Social Welfare at Bournemouth Univer-
sity, UK, and Visiting Professor at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia
and Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. He was Chair of the Association of Teachers in Social Work
Education until 2005, Vice Chair of the UK higher education representative body the Joint
University Council for Social Work Education from 2005–2010 and is a Fellow of the Academy
of Social Sciences and Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute. He has published widely
on disadvantage, marginalisation and violence, Southeast Asia, religion, social work education
and theory for practice.
Natia Partskhaladze, MD, MSc, MSW, is Child Protection Specialist, UNICEF CEE/CIS
Regional Office in Geneva, and Chairperson, Georgian Association of Social Workers. Natia
has 15 years’ experience in the field of child care and social protection at policy and programme
levels. Natia is a founder and board member of GASW, a professional organisation supporting
the development of the social work profession in Georgia and abroad. Natia has been working
for UNICEF Georgia and UNICEF CEE/CIS Regional Office for eight years and contributed
towards reforming the child care system in Georgia and strengthening the social work profession
in 21 countries in the region. She earned degrees from leading schools in the USA, Europe and
Georgia. She is presently working on PhD research on the Quality of Life of Deinstitutionalized
Children in Alternative Care.
Alberto Poletti is a Senior Lecturer in Social Work at University of Bedfordshire. He qualified

in social work in Milan (Italy) where he worked for several years in various Children and Fam-
ilies Services. Since moving to the UK in 2007, Alberto has been involved in delivery of both
qualifying and post-qualifying social work programmes. He has a long-term research interest in
Practice Education and is currently undertaking research which explores how social workers
mediate the emotional demands of the job with their statutory roles and responsibilities.
Michael Preston-Shoot is Professor of Social Work and Executive Dean of the Faculty
of Health and Social Sciences at the University of Bedfordshire, England. He has been the
xviii
Independent Chair of Luton’s Local Safeguarding Children Board and Local Safeguarding
Adults Board. His research has concentrated on the interface between law and social work
education and practice. His latest books are Professional Accountability in Social Care and Health:
Challenging Unacceptable Practice and Its Management (with Roger Kline) and Making Good Deci-
sions: Law for Social Work Practice. Recent research includes building an evidence base for practice
with adults who self-neglect.
Mary Rawlings is Professor at Azusa Pacific University, USA, Chair of the Department of
Social Work, and Director of the MSW programme. Her teaching and research interests are
in competency-based education and the development and testing of the use of simulation
in training and assessment of student practice skill. She is interested in experiential learning
models, such as service-learning, that can enhance student educational outcomes. She con-
ducts research on the development of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE)
for social work. She is a licensed clinical social worker with more than ten years of practice
experience.
Jo Ann R. Coe Regan, PhD, MSW, is the Vice President of Education at the Council on Social
Work Education (CSWE) in Alexandria, VA. As the former Director of Accreditation, she was
involved in the development and implementation of the accreditation standards for social work edu-
cation programmes. Previously she was on the faculties at the University of South Carolina, Univer-
sity of Hawaii and California State University-Long Beach, where she was involved in the planning,
teaching and administration of social work courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
David Rothwell, MSW, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Social Work and currently Director
of the PhD programme at the School of Social Work, McGill University, Canada. His research
interests include poverty and economic inequality, with a focus in social development and asset-
based interventions.
Mirja Satka is Professor in Social Work Practice Research at the Department of Social Research
at the University of Helsinki. As part of her post she supervises the pedagogical activities and
practice research projects at Heikki Waris Institute and acts as an expert in social work practice
research in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland. Her research interests also include univer-
sity pedagogy, childhood research and the history of social work.
Miriam Schiff, PhD, MSW, MA, is Associate Professor and Zena Harman Chair in Social Work
at Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.
She is a social worker and a licensed school psychologist. Her research interests are in (a) the
moderators and mediator factors explaining the associations between man-made trauma and
substance use as well as mental health in general among children and adolescents; and (b) trans-
lational research from academic research to the field of social work and from practice wisdom
to theories and research in the areas of social work education.
Elaine Sharland is Professor of Social Work Research and Director of Research and Knowl-
edge Exchange at the School of Education and Social Work, University of Sussex, UK. Her
main areas of research and publication have been child protection and risk, developing research
methodologies, disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, and knowledge production and utilisation.
As Strategic Adviser for Social Work and Social Care Research to the UK Economic and Social
Research Council (2008–10) Elaine led a nationwide initiative to develop a strategy for growth
xix
and improvement in the research discipline and field. She is co-founding Secretary of the Euro-
pean Social Work Research Association.
Ian Shaw works on the boundaries of sociology and social work. He is Professor Emeritus at
the University of York and Professor in the Department of Sociology and Social Work at the
University of Aalborg, Denmark. He is also first chair of the European Association for Social Work
Research and founder-editor of Qualitative Social Work. His next book is Social Work (Columbia Uni-
versity Press, 2016), following the four-volume Social Work Research from Sage Publications (2015).
Mark Simpson is a PhD candidate in the School of Law, Ulster University, Northern Ire-
land. His current research concerns the role of ideologies of social citizenship and welfare in
shaping citizens’ social rights and the contradictions that arise when elite ideologies clash with
the requirements of human rights law or regional preferences for welfare provision. In the UK
context this includes the particular needs of Northern Ireland as a society emerging from con-
flict. Other research interests include the study of societies affected by political conflict and the
impact of historic conflict on statutory provision for outdoor recreation.
Linda Harms Smith, before joining Robert Gordon University, Scotland, was a senior lec-
turer at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. Her PhD was on ideology, social
work knowledge and social change, and her publications relate to social justice, transformation,
community work, social movements and post-colonialism. Previously, she worked as a social
worker in child and family services. She is a Steering Committee Member of the Social Work
Action Network; on the Editorial Boards of the International Journal of Social Work and the Critical
and Radical Social Work Journal; and is currently involved in action research on oppressive/trans-
formative interventions with the Marikana community after the massacre of 2012.
Karen J. Swift is Professor Emeritus,York University School of Social Work, Canada. She has
published a number of books and articles addressing subjects related to child protection and
women. She has also published on issues of social policy, and she has an ongoing interest in
challenging oppressive and undemocratic social policies and practices.
Wang Si Bin graduated from Peking University, China, with a Bachelor’s degree in Philoso-
phy and a Master’s degree in Sociology. Professor Wang taught in the Peking University since
his graduation and has served as Head of its Sociology Department from 1994 to 2000. He has
spearheaded the development of social work education in China and is currently President of
the China Association of Social Work Education, President of the Chinese Academy of Social
Work, and member of the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council and the National
Guidance Committee for MSW Education. He is also Vice President of the China Federation
of Social Work and Vice Director of the Academic Committee of the Chinese Association of
Sociology. He is Chief Editor of the China Journal of Social Work and China Social Work Research.
Martin Webber is Professor in Social Work in the Department of Social Policy and Social Work
at the University of York and a registered social worker. He is Director of the International Cen-
tre for Mental Health Social Research and academic lead for Making Research Count at York.
His research focuses on the development and evaluation of social interventions for people with
mental health problems. His latest book is an edited collection, Using Research Evidence in Social
Work Practice (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), which aims to support students and practitioners to
use research to inform their practice.
xx
Joanne Westwood is the Programme Director for the Social Work Qualifying programmes in
the School of Applied Social Science at the University of Stirling, Scotland. Joanne is a qualified
social worker and an active user of social media. Joanne first wrote about the opportunities for
including social media in teaching and research in Social Media in Social Work Education (Crit-
ical Publishing) and has been involved in several collaborations developing digital tools and
approaches that incorporate social media in social work practice and research.
Charlotte Williams, OBE, is Professor and Deputy Dean of Social Work at RMIT Univer-
sity, Melbourne, Australia. She is a qualified social worker and has over 25 years of experience
in social work education. Her ongoing research interest focuses on issues of race, ethnicity
and cultural diversity in social policy, social work education and practice. Her most recent
publications include Race and Ethnicity in a Welfare Society (Open University Press, 2010),
co-authored with M. Johnson, and guest editorship with Mekada J. Graham of the Special
Issue of British Journal of Social Work entitled “A World on the Move: Migration, Mobilities
and Social Work” (2014).
Ronald Yesudhas is Assistant Professor in the College of Social Work, Nirmala Niketan, Mum-
bai, India. His areas of interest include critical social work education and management of third
sector organisations.
Laura Yliruka is a Development Manager at Heikki Waris Institute, a joint research and devel-
opment structure of municipalities in the Helsinki Metropolitan area and the discipline of social
work at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Her research interests include social work expertise
and innovations, evaluation, competence management, working conditions in social work, uni-
versity pedagogy and practice research. Her recently published dissertation deals with reflective
structures that enhance expertise in social work. She has developed a reflective self and peer
evaluation method, the Mirror Method.
Yuen Tsang Woon-ki, Angelina is Vice President of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University
and she holds Bachelor’s, Master’s and PhD degrees in Social Work and Education. Angelina has
served in numerous Government advisory committees, NGO boards and charitable founda-
tions in Hong Kong. She is currently a member of the University Grants Committee and Press
Council. She was appointed Justice of Peace and awarded the Bronze Bauhinia Star by the Hong
Kong Government. Angelina has been actively involved in the development of social work
education in China since 1988 and introduced the first MSW programme in China together
with Peking University in 2000. She was Founding Editor of the China Journal of Social Work and
member of various national social work advisory committees in China. She is actively involved
in the international arena and was President of the International Association of Schools of Social
Work from 2008 to 2012.
Anat Zeira, PhD, is a Full Professor at the School of Social Work and Social Welfare at the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Head of research and evaluation at the Haruv Institute,
Israel. From 2004–12 she was a member of the National Social Work Registration Committee
and the National Council of Social Work. As a founding member of the International Associa-
tion of Outcome-Based Evaluation and Research on Family and Children’s Services (iaOBER),
she has been long committed to research on the evidence base of social work practice. Her pub-
lications emphasise the importance of monitoring practice outcomes and their dissemination
in the field.
xxi
This page intentionally left blank
INTRODUCTION
It is a privilege to have been invited by Routledge to edit this International Handbook for Social
Work Education, and an accolade for the discipline and the profession that education for social
work is seen as deserving its own international handbook. It is also a huge responsibility when
in the summer of 2015, at the time of completing the manuscript and liaising with contributors
from around the world, we began to watch the global crisis of what was to become by 2016, mil-
lions of refugees and asylum seekers pouring over borders desperate to escape violence, conflict and
war in their own countries. They encounter very mixed responses, from open arms and practical
supports to fences, walls and barriers. Around the world, individuals, families and communities will
experience the impact of displaced peoples seeking refuge, and as new knowledge develops, social
work educators must be positioned to respond to the challenge and integrate this into our teaching.
Mel Gray, our first author, drew on Lorenz, an early leader in international social work, to
emphasise that an international perspective “is the necessary reference point for understanding
local developments in their fuller significance” (Lorenz, 2005: 100). Gray comments,
understanding internationalisation from a critical perspective enables social work

academics and students engaged in international social work education to resist pres-
sures to apply methods and approaches that do not do justice to the people they are
serving.
Doing justice to the people we serve is challenging in contexts that many of us have little or
no prior experience of, yet as educators we share responsibility for being creatively proactive in
developing new responses.
This International Handbook of Social Work Education aims to synthesise developments in social
work education and offer insights into key research, issues and debates. It is timely, as globally
there has been significant change in social work education in recent years, mirroring changes in
social work practice. In the global North, changes that have been driven by external forces have
been evidenced in new policy and legislation and/or concerns of accrediting bodies to raise
the standards of social work education and practice. In the global South, education for social
work, social development and social welfare is emerging and rapidly developing to keep pace
with the changing requirements for services in light of far-reaching social change. Internation-
ally, the stature of social work research has developed and is increasingly making an important
xxiii
Introduction
contribution to social science research more generally. The scholarship of teaching and learning
in social work has developed conceptually and methodologically and, to reflect this, new schol-
arly journals have been launched and the volume of empirically based articles reporting research
findings has increased, alongside increased diversity and capacity in research methods.
This Handbook aims to provide a platform for an international perspective, and it reflects
recent developments in our international associations, including the International Association
of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) and the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW),
towards thinking and acting collectively and globally. As Leung, a leading Hong Kong social
work educator, commented,
Social workers can only effectively respond to the trends towards globalisation by try-
ing to find out more about their common identity and similarities through interactions,
while at the same time showing more acceptance of the differences between countries.
(Leung, 2007: Abstract)
This Handbook is a contribution to the process of exchange and dialogue, and this reciprocal
and iterative process has the potential to bring together professional knowledge and lived
experience, the global and the local (Sewpaul, 2007).
Our aim is to share pedagogic research and scholarship for social work education by making
available key research and conceptual thinking generated by both established and incoming
leaders in our field who will present key debates, explore the state of play in particular areas,
and reflect on where the future might take us.This book is both about international social work
education as well as social work education as it is practised in a wide range of countries, enabling
an opportunity to consider national differences as well as cross-national shared concerns.
The Handbook is a step towards mapping pedagogic issues for social work. Drawing on our
sister subdiscipline of medical education as an exemplar, we view social work education as a
specialism and a field of expertise that counts in the same way as research programmes in more
traditional substantive areas of social work practice. The time for a systematic review of peda-
gogic research for social work is overdue. If we could understand better the existing scope of the
field, we could then develop strategies to take the research forward (Taylor, 2013). Social work
education profoundly affects the capability of the next generation of social workers to provide
programmes and services that make a difference to the lives of individuals in their societies.This
link between social work education, effective social workers, social programmes and well-being
in society must be advanced.
Setting the context

Two aspects of the context for social work education require brief attention here. First is the
discourse we use, acknowledging that debate about terms such as ‘international’, ‘global’, and
‘globalisation’ have occupied the attention of educators, researchers, policy makers and practi-
tioners across disciplines. Chapter 1 in The Sage Handbook of International Social Work is devoted
to “setting the scene” (Huegler, Lyons, & Pawar, 2012) with a very useful discussion of key
terms and concepts and, with one exception, we have chosen not to rehearse this discussion
here, as there is no single perspective; “such differences reflect the dialectical nature of globali-
sation. . . The different positions reflect some of the continuing debates and issues relevant to
international social work” (Huegler et al., 2012: 5).The exception is to briefly discuss our use of
‘global North’ and ‘global South’, in preference to other binaries such as ‘developed–developing’
or ‘East–West’. Connell (2007) mapped North-South inequalities and showed a clear difference
xxiv
Introduction
between power and knowledge, showing that the South featured predominantly as a source of
data collection for researchers in the North. Thus the “global North-global South” concept
appears appropriate for our text on education, although we acknowledge that the concept is
imperfect, and for example in relation to power and knowledge, countries such as Australia and
New Zealand, located geographically in the south, belong to the “global North”. We have not
tried to prescribe this perspective for our contributors.
The second contextual element important to our discussion is to recognise the global devel-
opments in social work education. These include first the new global definition of social work
approved by the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) General Assembly
Conference in Melbourne, Australia, on July 10, 2014.
Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes

social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation
of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect
for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work,
social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledges, social work engages people
and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing.
(IASSW, 2014)
This inclusive definition usefully emphasises social work as a profession and a discipline that
shares core aims and principles. Second is the Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Devel-
opment, developed jointly by IASSW, the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW)
and the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW), and presented to the United Nations
in 2012. The Global Agenda makes
wide-ranging commitments to efforts in four key areas: promoting social and eco-
nomic equalities, promoting the dignity and worth of peoples; working towards envi-
ronmental sustainability; and, strengthening the recognition of the importance of
human relationships.
(IASSW, IFSW & ICSW, 2012)
Healy and Wairire (2014) discuss the capacity of social work education programmes to prepare
graduates to contribute to the Global Agenda:
If the Global Agenda is to be successful, the educational sector must play a lead
role through training and research. We argue that this will require more curriculum
emphasis on such areas as social and economic development, human rights, and social
integration.
(2014: 235–236)
Using examples from Kenya and the USA, Healy and Wairire go on to suggest that the Global
Agenda “provides a road map for developing curricula and teaching international social work,
or more appropriately social work relevant to global realities”, in combination with the Global
Standards for the Education and Training of the Social Work Profession (IASSW/IFSW, 2004),
the third global tool for social work education to mention here. However, as Healy and Wairire
(2014) point out, neither global nor local standards for the social work curriculum require or even
recommend coverage of the Global Agenda. Furthermore, these Standards are now over ten years
old and merit revisiting in light of recent changes in the definition of social work.
xxv
Introduction
Who are the editors and contributors?

We, the Editors, combine our extensive experience of research and writing about social
work education with our experience (2009–14) of teamwork editing Social Work Education:
The International Journal (Imogen as Editor-in-Chief, Michelle as Deputy Editor, Marion
as Editor North America Board, Barbra as Board Member). Our intensive experience of
working with the Asia, Australasia and North America Advisory Boards has enabled us to
establish far-reaching networks of authors engaged in developing the scholarship of social
work education. Imogen initiated and steered two Special Issues: Social Work Education in
Greater China (26/6 guest edited with Angelina Yuen) and Social Work Education in Asia
(29/8 guest edited with Vimla Nadkarni). Both guest editors went on to be elected as Pres-
idents of IASSW, and we are particularly pleased to welcome them as contributors to this
Handbook. Imogen also led development of the practice of Special Issues guest edited by
Advisory Board Associate Editors (32/6 Marion Bogo for North America; 30/6 Liz Beddoe
and Beth Crisp for Australasia). Marion is regularly in discussion with the American Council
on Social Work Education and in 2013, at the CSWE Annual Program meeting, was given
a lifetime achievement award for her services to social work and social work education, the
first non-American to receive such an award. Imogen and Marion’s pedagogic expertise
has led them to engage in extensive international discussion and debate, regularly sharing
platforms at international conferences. Michelle Lefevre and Barbra Teater are incoming
leaders of social work education. Michelle researches practice, and learning for practice with
children, and is Editor-in-Chief of Child and Family Social Work. In 2016, the Higher Edu-
cation Academy, supported by the Higher Education Funding Councils for England, Wales
and Northern Ireland awarded Michelle a prestigious National Teaching Fellowship recog-
nising her excellence in teaching as well as inspiring others in her profession. Barbra brings
extensive reviewer and editorial board experience. She combines American and British social
work expertise, including highly valued expertise in quantitative and qualitative research
methods. In 2014, she returned to the USA following periods on faculty of UK universities.
The chapters include 70 authors from 20 countries, including countries where social work
education is well established but nevertheless subject to change in response to changing pres-
sures, others such as Africa, Malaysia and the Republic of Georgia where it is newly emerging,
and then China where social work education is re-emerging remarkably strongly. Our crite-
ria for inclusion of authors was that they must be concerned with the theory and practice of
social work education, their writing must be accessible, conceptually clear, research based where
appropriate, critically reflective and ethically underpinned. They might write about social work
education internationally or it might be about social work education in specific contexts, with
wider global relevance. We accessed the international journals and our networks to identify
authors where we considered their work to represent some of the best examples of research and
scholarship internationally, including those whose work is seminal, highly cited and influential,
alongside promising early career educators and researchers. Attention to the latter group reflects
our concern to highlight the sustainability of the profession and discipline. We regret that by
including some authors and their countries we inevitably exclude others.
Our contributors represent a diversity of voices, approaches and perspectives, whilst acknowl-
edging that social work education continues to be predominantly a Western phenomenon that
is practised in very different contexts internationally. We are particularly concerned to prioritise
developments in social work education that reflect the influences of indigenous knowledges
and local needs, thus we invited Mel Gray to author the first chapter, where she sets out core
dilemmas and tensions in international social work education. She critically analyses,
xxvi
Introduction
social work’s internationalising and universalising tendencies that all too quickly run
aground on the rocks of decolonisation and indigenisation, where they are seen to be
culturally inappropriate and even imperialistic.The universality of social work is tested
by its fit with diverse contexts and cultures through the lens of indigenisation, decol-
onisation, localisation, and cultural appropriateness.
She argues that we do not have to go far to learn from other cultures, making a plea for us to
“think globally and locally, act globally and locally”.
Themes that emerge from this Handbook and shape the global agenda
Our aim here is to briefly highlight eight themes that cut across the Section Headings and
emerge strongly in these pages. This provides an opportunity in the first Handbook of Social Work
Education, to test the possibilities for identifying a global social work education agenda, and to
“transcend our particularities and coalesce around a common agenda” (Sewpaul, 2007).
1. Social work education in interaction with the context we are in

A long-standing distinguishing feature of social work is its ‘person in context’ focus. As social
work educators we must be responsive to the contexts we find ourselves in today, as well as
prepare students to make their own contributions. There are three compelling narratives in the
story of growth and change.
First is the huge growth in numbers of social work programmes, discussed by several authors.
Colby (Chapter 6) sets out the growth of social work education internationally,
While recognizing that neither the IASSW membership directory nor the association’s
decennial census clearly describe the size, scope, and scale of social work education
worldwide, it is safe to conclude that the number of universities offering social work
degrees or certificates has grown significantly and is found in all regions of the world.
The growth in numbers of social work students will certainly be viewed as a strength by our
universities, ever attentive to student recruitment. An aspect of growth in the universities is
the complex relationship between academicisation and practice, a theme explored by Dellgran
and Höjer (Chapter 5) from Sweden in their discussion of the tension between the academy’s call
for excellence on the one hand and for practice relevance on the other.
Second is the story of transformation, most dramatically occurring in China, as discussed by
Wang and Yuen-Tsang (Chapter 7),
China has undergone phenomenal reform and reconfiguration of its political, eco-
nomic and social security systems, which have resulted in lasting impact on the social
work profession. In 2006, the Chinese Government announced its national policy “to
construct a harmonious society” and the establishment of “a grand team of professional
social workers” to help in the achievement of this national goal.
Third is the story of movement and change. As Williams (Chapter 2) discusses in her powerful
exploration of race equality in social work education, in the context of the unprecedented move-
ment of peoples “ensuring conspicuous ethnic and racial diversity in societies everywhere. . . This
old and new diversity produces a level of complexity and a dynamic that demands sophisticated
xxvii
Introduction
responses in social and public policy.” Williams asserts that social work education itself is being
globalised and indigenised and “this internal transfiguration is demanding proactive pedagogy that
engages with difference and diversity in the knowledge base of social work.”
Campbell, Duffy and Simpson (Chapter 24) from the Republic of Ireland and Northern
Ireland are also concerned with the impact of political conflict on social work education. Using
a Northern Ireland case study, they explore how conflict can be dealt with in the classroom,
appealing for more innovative, less risk averse pedagogies that create space for educational and
practice development.
2. Emerging and re-emerging social work education

Globally there could be much to learn about the development of social work education by
examining stories of how it is emerging, or in some cases re-emerging in significantly changed
contexts. Our small sample includes the very different countries of Botswana, Malaysia, Papua
New Guinea and the Republic of Georgia. In addition, we have included here the remarkable
story of the re-emergence of social work education in China, and the contrasting story of social
work education in India, where its long history is being challenged by huge growth and change.
Some common subthemes emerge. First is the source of leadership in the change process and
its implications. In the case of China, government policies and associated funding have been key
to development, and Wang and Yuen-Tsang (Chapter 7) warn of the need for social work to
develop professional autonomy if it is to be sustainable as a profession. Others cite the impor-
tance of the centrality of funding support. For example, in the case of Georgia (Chapter 9),
funding was provided by the European Union and private foundations. The story of Georgia is
also distinctive for the example of leadership from the Georgian Association of Social Workers
(GASW). As Doel and colleagues state,
There is hardly a professional association in the world that enjoys GASW’s position in
relation to social work education, practice and policy-making. If its leadership can be
sustained and continuing large numbers of social workers see it as their professional
home, then Georgia will have much to teach countries whose social work voice has
been lost or fractured.
The American Council on Social Work Education and Chapter 3 by Detlaff and Regan also tell a
strong story of a professional association and accreditation. In contrast, in Malaysia, Parker, Ashen-
caen-Crabtree and Azman explore how standards of accreditation of social work education are left
to the respective institutions, and debates about accreditation, standards and regulation continue.
Nadkarni, Balakrishnan and Yesudhas (Chapter 10) express their view that the development of the
National Network of Schools of Social Work in 2012 and launch of the Indian Association for
Social Work Education has given a new lease of life to the quality enhancement of social work
education in India. They also aspire to a Central Council for Professional Social Work to monitor
and regulate the quality of social work education and practice in India.
A second subtheme is the challenge of infusing new and professionalised social work educa-
tion and practice into services staffed largely by untrained social workers who are likely to see
their work as administrative rather than professional. For example, in Malaysia, Parker, Ashen-
caen Crabtree and Azman discuss the challenges of instituting a professionalised system of social
work education when “demanding a degree-level qualification may result not in the profession-
alizing of social work practice by employing more qualified practitioners but the diminution of
social workers available to work in Malaysian social work agencies.” They explore development
xxviii
Introduction
of different levels of qualification for different levels of responsibility, a theme echoed in the
Republic of Georgia.
A third subtheme is that of providing social work education appropriate to the local com-
munity. This is highlighted by Parker, Ashencaen Crabtree and Azman in the context of the
Malaysian religio-cultural milieu and the many indigenous peoples, noting the tension between
adapting Western models to local needs, or ‘indigenization’, and ‘authenticization’, fundamen-
tally grounded in the cultural schema and knowledge base of ethnic groups. In Chapter 18,
Flynn, Lawihin, and Kaupa Kamasua address similar challenges in developing field education
in Papua New Guinea. Two chapters about social development express another side of the
relevance issue. Mupedziswa and Kubanga (Chapter 11) argue that “given the magnitude and
nature of the challenges faced on the African continent, promoting the remedial approach was
akin to prescribing an aspirin where major surgery was required.” They make the case for a
social development approach that addresses the huge issues of structural inequality and social
disadvantage in a context where in many instances, this requires retraining social work faculty.
Nadkarni, Balakrishnan and Yesudhas (Chapter 10) tell a compelling story about “a new lease of
life for social development” in the context of India’s newly emerging economy, and the need for
social work institutions “to intensify research on social development, initiate field action projects
and work on advocacy to achieve equality, justice and human rights”.
3. Neoliberalism and social work education

Three chapters from different continents focus on preparing students for practice in a neolib-
eral world, and others allude to this issue. First, Canadians, Swift, Gingrich and Brown (Chapter
33), strongly grounded in social and political theory, suggest that social work education is at a
crossroads, challenged by the forces of globalisation and privatisation where the current trends
are to adapt, resist, or some mix of both. They characterise some schools of social work as
“aligned with disciplines and departments such as psychology and business administration that
emphasize the development of expertise for assessing, disciplining, and managing the margins”,
in contrast to others “grounded in social justice, critical analysis, and social activism intended
to provoke change in local and global communities”. In their view, curricula designed to chal-
lenge neoliberalism must provide critical attention to social, economic and political processes.
The discussion of neoliberalism by Harms Smith, recently from Africa, and Ferguson, from
Scotland (Chapter 17), is grounded in social work practice, and they passionately argue for
placements to provide learning opportunities for activist, radical, social justice social work, draw-
ing on examples of placements in South Africa.
The third perspective, from Australians Morley and O’Connor (Chapter 19), proposes that using
critically reflective pedagogies in field education can promote critical social work practice. Drawing
on an in-depth case study, they demonstrate how critical reflection prompted questioning of the
influence of oppressive discourses on practice with Aboriginal peoples.
4. Using evidence in learning and teaching

Our contributors typically exemplify good practice in taking an evidence-informed approach
to teaching and learning, locally and/or globally. Four chapters exemplify this in their discus-
sion of teaching approaches and curricula in core areas of social work education. In each case
the authors define the scope of their topic, explore research in their respective curricular areas,
and present key insights into new ways forward in teaching and learning, core activities in the
scholarship of learning and teaching.
xxix
Introduction
Americans Gutiérrez and Ortega (Chapter 12) explore the learning and teaching of diver-
sity and social justice issues essential to prepare students to practise in an increasingly complex
world. They examine the concept of ‘cultural competence’ and propose the emerging concept
of ‘cultural humility’ is of value.
Papouli from Greece (Chapter 14) argues that students must learn how to critically reflect on
the complex ethical issues faced by the profession today. She cautions that social work educators
must address the new ethical challenges posed by neoliberal reforms, as well as the catastrophic
consequences of global economic crises, and emphasises that students must learn to actively
challenge and change those contexts.
In Chapter 13, Sharland (UK) and Teater (USA) remind us that knowledge of social work
research and skills in the use of research methods is a core Global Standard for Social Work Edu-
cation. They note the diversity of approaches to teaching research and review the international
literature on teaching and learning research in social work education; they tentatively conclude
that combining research with other curriculum elements “can nurture critical consumers and
competent practitioners of social work research”.
Braye and Preston-Shoot, international (Chapter 15) leaders in the pedagogy of teaching law
to social work students, address their particular challenge of how best to teach a knowledge base
from the law discipline to students from social work. Drawing on an investigation of the out-
comes of law learning, they conclude that “legal literacy requires technical, ethical and rights-
based approaches to be embedded in student’s learning and that blended pedagogic approaches
best support students to link legal knowledge to practice.”
5. Accreditation, competence, assessment and outcomes

Five chapters examine aspects of accreditation, competence, assessment and outcomes, with a
common aim of assuring accountability and operable professional standards that uphold com-
plex issues such as equity – other contributors might argue that this set of themes are features of
an unwelcome neoliberal agenda!
Taylor (Chapter 4) notes that social work education in England and the USA has undergone
major change with the common aims of improving the transparency, accountability and quality
of social work education and practice. In England, this was driven largely by government, with
discussion about quality often focused on curricula inputs; in the USA, it was driven by the
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), which led a major change from a focus on inputs
to competencies and outputs. Regan and Detlaff (Chapter 3) map the shift in focus of CSWE
accreditation standards towards a new conceptualisation of holistic competence, involving both
performance and the knowledge, values, critical thinking, affective reactions and exercise of judg-
ment that inform performance. As they note, this puts the onus on educators to develop successful
assessment practices in assessing social work competence.
Two chapters by UK-based educators address gatekeeping issues further underlining the imper-
ative for robust assessment processes. Holmström (Chapter 26) addresses the complexity of assessing
suitability for social work at the point of admission to a qualifying social work programme and
throughout the programme. She explores a focus upon the personal qualities and character of
the applicant and student as an important professional issue, albeit challenging to assess. Finch and
Poletti’s (Chapter 21) research into English and Italian practice educators’ experiences of assessing
struggling or failing students in practice learning settings highlights the importance of robust deci-
sion-making processes. These processes are challenged by the emotional experience for practice
educators of working with struggling or failing students, and the often conflicted relationships
between practice educators and universities where university expectations are not clearly understood.
xxx
Introduction
Finally in Chapter 16, Carpenter, a UK educator, reminds us that we must have robust pro-
cesses with which to assess students. He reviews different approaches to the assessment of out-
comes and different kinds of research designs. He argues that “at a time of financial constraint, it is
all the more important to accumulate evidence of the outcomes of social work education so that
policy makers and the public can be confident that it is producing high-quality social workers.”
6. New directions in social work education

There are many examples of innovative classroom and field practices, and we have selected for
discussion here six examples that foreground new directions. We use the term ‘new directions’
advisedly as, in our view, it is possible to overemphasise ‘innovations’ in a context of austerity,
and not all innovations are sustainable or will lead to new directions.
In Chapter 23 Bogo and Rawlings, from Canada and the USA respectively, explore the use
of simulation as a tool in the teaching and assessment of holistic competence, and as a method
to strengthen the link between classroom and field. Whereas simulation has long been used, for
example, in the use of role play, this chapter explores the new use of simulation for direct, real-
time assessment of social work students’ competence.
In Chapter 25, Anka discusses the involvement of service users and carers in UK social work
education, initiated by government in 2003. She has a particular focus on their participation
in the assessment of students, an under-researched topic that potentially challenges where the
power lies in student assessment.
Drawing on a study of field learning in Hong Kong, Chee (Chapter 20) starts with the premise
that field education is “situated, constructed, fluid and dynamic” and introduces the notion of ‘de-
cluttering’ the student learning space – arguing that a crowded curriculum is not conducive for
critical reflection.The challenge for field educators is to enable de-cluttering and a focus on the
core elements of learning to practice.
In Chapter 29, Lach and colleagues from Quebec, Canada, set out their premise that by trans-
ferring knowledge from dissertations to field, doctoral candidates will fulfil a social work commit-
ment to social justice. They propose two ways that this can be done: by the universities adopting
a manuscript-based thesis method (known in the UK as a ‘Doctorate by publication’) and by
community-based knowledge mobilisation activities that enhance the impact of the research.
The myriad of new directions embedded in use of the Internet and social media in learn-
ing is represented by two complementary chapters. Westwood (UK, Chapter 27) discusses the
opportunities and challenges that social media can bring to learning about ethical, professional
boundaries and accountability issues, with specific attention to the complex issue of safely using
social media in education and practice. Regan (Chapter 28) focuses on increased use of tech-
nology applications, particularly the Internet, to deliver social work education in the USA. She
explores the use of web-based distance education including hybrid technologies and web-based
learning environments that use a combination of synchronous and asynchronous teaching and
learning activities.
7. Future proofing?
Selected themes here relate to people and partnerships. Social work education and practice will
only be as good as the practitioners, and two chapters address this topic. In Chapter 30, Beddoe and
Adamson from New Zealand address issues for social work practitioners and recommend embed-
ding a focus in the curriculum first on the skills of critical reflection and self-care, knowledge
bases that inform an understanding of resilience; and second on the reflective processes such as
supervision and professional development that can sustain resilience into practice. Teater, Lefevre
xxxi
Introduction
and McLaughlin (Chapter 31) adopt the perspective that a social work educator should combine a
social work qualification and practice experience with research activity, in order to prepare the next
generation of social workers.They question the sustainability of this vision in light of data from the
social work academic workforce in the UK and USA, concerned about a partially split workforce
of educators who lack research expertise, and researchers distant from the realities of practice.
As contributors look to the future, the theme of how partnerships might build social work
education capacity recurs. Three chapters centrally deal with this topic. At a macro level in the
USA, Colby (Chapter 6) explores the opportunity for social work education to further extend
its footprint into the global community with cross-border universities – where a university
establishes a branch campus in another country that in turn creates a mechanism to export and
sell their degree programs in the global market. Flynn, Lawihin and Kaupa Kamasua’s chapter
(Chapter 18) on field education in Papua New Guinea provides a perspective on a universi-
ty-to-university partnership by Monash University in Australia and the University of Papua
New Guinea (UPNG). Vice-Chancellors of the Australian Group of Eight universities teamed
with UPNG, funded by AusAID (now Australian Aid), and the authors explore converting a
top-down relationship into one with a more collaborative focus.
A different perspective on partnerships is provided by Webber and colleagues from England
and Finland (Chapter 32). They note a drive by the government of England to locate social work
education in the agency rather than the university, arguing this can better prepare students for
practice. The authors challenge the false dichotomy of university and agency, and they explore the
‘Helsinki model’ that brings them together, suggesting that such initiatives can enhance the collab-
orative potential of academics, practitioners and service users to support mutual development of
the profession.
Finally, in Chapter 34, Americans, Miller, Hayward-Everson and Izlar, consider the integra-
tion of global environmental issues in social work education.They suggest that social work, with
its commitment to social justice and its person-in-environment perspective, needs to firmly
position itself in efforts to address the environmental crisis, and to develop a range of innovative
curricula strategies.
8. What of the global agenda?

Earlier we discussed the different aspects of the IASSW/IFSW/ICSW global agenda. We did not
brief contributors to explicitly address the global agenda yet almost half did; in addition, other con-
tributors drew on a range of social work sources that speak to global issues and we cite examples
below.
References to the global definition of social work include:
• Nadkarni, Balakrishnan and Yesudhas welcome the new global definition of social work
that endorses social change, social cohesion, empowerment and liberation of people, and
they warn that in contexts where the profession is struggling to acquire an identity, the
main challenge may be to work on reducing social and economic inequalities.
• Swift Gingerich and Brown, and Harms Smith and Ferguson, in their critiques of neoliber-
alism welcome the emphasis on social justice and underline the importance of there being
field placements that prepare students for social justice challenges.
• Flynn Lawihin and Kamasua welcome the emphasis on indigenous knowledges.They warn
that to insist on uniformity would be to risk stifling the development of truly indigenous
theories and models of social work practice.
xxxii
Introduction
Reference to use of the Global Standards (2004) as programme benchmarks include:
• Anka cites 1.4 that institutions should “respect the rights and interests of service users and
their participation in all aspects of delivery of programmes”.
• Holmström notes that a social work programme must provide a “clear articulation of
its admission criteria and procedures” (6.1). Further, she reminds us that universities are
expected to: “[Take] appropriate action in relation to those social work students and pro-
fessional staff who fail to comply with the code of ethics, either through an established
regulatory social work body, established procedures of the educational institution, and/or
through legal mechanisms” (IFSW, 2012).
Use of Global Standards for the education and training of the social work profession (2004)
to benchmark curricula include:
• Sharland and Teater, in discussion of social work research and skills in the use of research
methods;
• Papouli, in the learning and teaching of ethics.
Finally, IASSW are viewed as as international organisations where it is important for national
countries and organisations to have a voice. This point is strongly made by Mupedziswa, who
makes the case for Africa having a strong Association of Schools of Social Work to enable Africa
to have a place at the IASSW table.Yuen-Tsang gives examples of the value of strong partnerships
between the China Association of Social Work and IASSW in the development of social work
education in China. Fora for educators under pressure are increasingly important at all levels, and
particularly for many of us in a context of austerity and challenges from external stakeholders.
References
Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Australia: Allen and
Unwin.
Healy, L., & Wairire, G. (2014). Educating for the global agenda: Internationally relevant conceptual frame-
works and knowledge for social work education. International Social Work, 57(3), 235–247.
Huegler, N., Lyons, K., & Pawar, M. (2012). Setting the scene. In K. Lyons, T. Hokenstad, M. Pawar, N.
Huegler, & N. Hall (Eds.), The Sage handbook of international social work (pp. 1–33). London, Thousand
Oaks, CA, New Delhi, and Singapore: Sage.
IASSW (2014). Global definition of the social work profession. Available at www.iassw-aiets.org/ [Accessed
16 October 2015].
IASSW/IFSW (2004). Global standards for the education and training of the social work profession. Avail-
able at www.iassw-aiets.org [Accessed 14 October 2015].
IASSW, IFSW, & ICSW (2012). The global agenda for social work and social development: Commitment
to action. Available at www.iassw-aiets.org [Accessed 14 October 2015].
Leung, J. (2007). An international definition of social work for China. International Journal of Social Welfare,
16(4), 391–397.
Lorenz, W. (2005). Social work and a new social order: Challenging neo-liberalism’s erosion of solidarity.
Social Work and Society, 3(1), 93–101.
Sewpaul, V. (2007). Challenging East-West value dichotomies and essentialising discourse on culture and
social work. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16(4), 398–407.
Taylor, I. (2013). From the editor-scholarship for the 21st century. In S. Robbins, E. Pomeroy, B. Thyer, E.
Mason, & I. Taylor (Eds.), Journal of Social Work Education, 49(3), 361–367.
xxxiii
SECTION 1
Social work education in context

The Western drivers
1
‘THINK GLOBALLY AND LOCALLY,
ACT GLOBALLY AND LOCALLY’
A new agenda for international
social work education
Mel Gray
This chapter explores the complex processes surrounding the global diffusion of social work.
It examines the Western drivers of international social work education and provides a critical
analysis of social work’s internationalising and universalising tendencies that all too quickly run
aground on the rocks of decolonisation and indigenisation, where they are seen to be cultur-
ally inappropriate and even imperialistic. The universality of social work is tested by its fit with
diverse contexts and cultures through the lens of indigenisation, decolonisation, localisation,
and cultural appropriateness (see Gray, 2005). The global-local debate and focus on crosscultural
dialogue and exchange in the late 1990s attempted to capture these paradoxical processes but
did not fully account for their complexity, caught, as they were, in the modernist dichotomy of
localisation-indigenisation versus universalisation-internationalisation, as though there were a
choice between these options (Gray & Fook, 2004; Gray, 2005; Gray & Webb, 2008). As Lorenz
(2005) wisely noted, the international is not an alternative to the local: an international per-
spective ‘is the necessary reference point for understanding local developments in their fuller
significance’ (p. 100). More than this, however, understanding internationalisation from a critical
perspective enables social work academics and students engaged in international social work
education to resist pressures to apply methods and approaches that do not do justice to the
people they are serving. The growth in this critical understanding is shown by the changes in
the language used when discussing international social work education. In this chapter, the term
‘developing nations’ is used when this was part of the language being used historically, though
nowadays we use the enlightened Global North and Global South rather than the pejorative
developed and developing nations.
Starting with a critical overview of the spread of Western social work and the role played
by academic exchanges, the discussion moves to arguments for internationalising the curricu-
lum, reviews contemporary developments that are changing the way international social work
is being theorised, and considers their implications for social work education. Most notably,
the increasing mobility of people and the emergence of transnational lifestyles are changing
the meaning of international social work, for we do not have to go far to encounter and learn
from other cultures or to become global citizens. Moreover, international catastrophes have
ripple effects and global problems all too quickly have national and local impacts, and vice
3
Mel Gray
versa, in this increasingly interconnected world, hence the need for social work education to
teach us to ‘think globally and locally, act globally and locally’ (Furman, Negi, & Salvador,
2010: 4).
Critical overview of the spread of Western social work

Social work is a Western invention in that it spread from the West to the rest and promoted
Western values, theories and methods (Gray, Coates, & Yellow Bird, 2008). Its history is rooted
in Europe and North America, from where it spread to Africa, Asia, South America, and the Arab
world as part of the colonising mission to embed Western-style development and progress. Col-
onisation wrought havoc for Indigenous Peoples and ran roughshod over traditional cultures,
with its harmful effects still evident today (Singh, Gumz, & Crawley, 2011; Rao, 2013). It left
many countries struggling to make social work fit. Western social work has proved extremely dif-
ficult to unseat, given the enormous pressure exerted by international social work organisations
since the 1950s to promote social work as a universal profession.
From a critical perspective, the professional project to find a common, universal identity
was – and continues to be – grounded in Western worldviews, individualistic values and meth-
ods, and social and behavioural theories drawn from higher-status professions, such as medicine,
psychology, law, and psychiatry. Social work has always been ancillary to these professions and
found its niche when colonial administrations introduced social welfare services in the post-
war colonial era. These welfare structures persisted post-independence and proved extremely
difficult to maintain in situations of fluctuating resources and political conflict (Gray, Kreitzer, &
Mupedziswa, 2014). Colonised nations were caught between Western social welfare systems and
post-war development policy that set them on a path of economic progress tied to foreign aid
and development. Social work came to the developing nations with its social investigation –
casework – method grounded in values and ideologies stemming from ‘capitalism, Social Dar-
winism, the Protestant ethic and individualism’ (Nagpaul, 1993: 214). As Midgley (1981) noted,
its emergence was intimately tied to the development of welfare services and the need for pro-
fessional bureaucrats in colonial administrations. From a critical perspective social work was shot
through with Western understandings, rooted in modernising individualism, cultural superiority,
racial prejudice, and economic progress. It was assumed to be eminently transferable to the col-
onies (Midgley, 1981; Kendall, 1998).
It was the United Nations (1969, 1971) that pushed colonial administrators to import social
work to Africa and Asia, as Western professionals were commissioned to conduct needs assess-
ments and advise colonial administrators while they depleted natural resources in the colonies
and destroyed traditional ways of life (Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, 1989). Most early local social
workers had been educated in the West. Hence, Western Judeo-Christian norms permeated
these institutions and were imposed on traditional cultures (Gray et al., 2008). They led to a
focus on individually oriented practice and the dominance of casework. Where practised, even
group and community work were geared towards making individuals fit into, or adapt to, colo-
nial society. The theories used to explain human behaviour in the social environment as having
individual psychosocial causes persist today. Colonial social welfare institutions remained after
colonisation, perpetuating the need to educate people to maintain these systems to help individ-
uals adapt to society. As de Jongh (1972) observed: ‘I do not know of any developing country in
which social work education was an original product of national development; the origins can
always be traced back to strong foreign influences’ (p. 23). As a result of these foreign influences,
the colonisers, and social workers among them, completely disregarded traditional cultures and
support systems based on collective values.
4
‘Think globally and locally’
Post-independence, these nations were increasingly urged towards structural adjustment

as the international community imposed economic policies that were beneficial to the rich
countries in the West and depended largely on free or unrestricted trade between Western
and post-colonial nations. Structural adjustment necessitated a move away from government-
centred welfare provision towards social development programs focused on poverty eradication
via economic growth.
Social work was slow to see the relationship between welfare and development, only lat-
terly embracing social development as part of its global agenda. Its individualistic models were
deemed irrelevant to social development. Most social workers are employed within government
welfare services in better-resourced urban centres. The strange brew of Western-style welfare –
child protection, mental health, and disability services – exists alongside development initiatives
to improve the quality of life for the 80% of the world’s population in the developing world. In
countries where the bulk of the population is poor and rural, grassroots community engage-
ment and services to meet basic needs take priority. Hence, social work continues to struggle for
legitimacy and status in the Global South, despite its presence in higher education institutions.
Against this backdrop, one can better understand Nagy and Falk’s (2000) argument that
‘social workers should be prepared to work locally’ (p. 57, emphasis added). They argued that,
for the most part, social work education focused on country-specific policies and problems, and
there was great variability in the amount of international and crosscultural content in the social
work curriculum (Nagy & Falk, 2000). Beyond content, efforts to internationalise social work
failed to take into account unequal North-South relations characterised by a history of colo-
nialism and current-day imperialist practices built on privilege (Razack, 2000, 2012; Drucker,
2003; Wehbi, 2009; Rao, 2013). Even today only wealthy students, relatively speaking, get to
go to university, where social work must be studied and only academics fortunate enough to
secure funding sources can engage in formal international social work activities. Better access to
funding privileges Northern universities over their Southern partners (Samoff & Carrol, 2002).
Hence the spread of social work internationally through international academic exchanges and
student field placements, as well as calls for an international curriculum, have come mainly
from Northern universities, and most of the literature on international educational partnerships
comes from academics in the North writing about social work education and practice in the
South.
International academic exchanges

International academic exchanges have a long history. As noted, the United Nations played a
major role in social work’s internationalising project. Consequently, social work’s international
leaders modelled the profession’s international structure on the UN format of five regions with
representation from each on international boards and committees. Social work gained offi-
cial UN recognition in 1951 (McDonald, Harris, & Wintersteen, 2003). However, establishing
strong regional leadership networks proved extremely difficult outside the USA and Europe,
with countries in the Global South always the weaker, structurally speaking. The strong lone
voices from these parts of the world over the years have given rise to claims of elitism and
questions as to their representative status (Gray & Rennie, 2007). Language and money limited
the participation of the South, hence the dearth of material from the South in the dominant
English social work literature. Unilingualism has been problematic for the internationalisation
of curricula.
International social work education through faculty exchanges and visitations, student travel
to and from foreign countries, and the infusion of a global perspective into course and program
5
Mel Gray
content, nevertheless, made strident progress with the help of the Internet and World Wide Web
(Cornelius & Greif, 2005). By far the dominant partner in international exchanges has been the
USA (Samoff & Carrol, 2002), and a weakness has been their reliance on individual champions –
from international and local partners – making it difficult to sustain these collaborations and
partnerships over time (Cornelius & Greif, 2005). They are, therefore, not a systematic require-
ment and arise haphazardly through contact between the individuals involved and resources
available to them. Exchanges are often motivated by the status and kudos this attracts for the
international – Northern – institution. For example, publications with international collabora-
tors are believed to result in higher citation rates and contribute to the international academics’
esteem factors. Publications, therefore, are unlikely to be in the language of the foreign partner,
meaning many cannot access what Northern academics have written about them.
There is, too, the ongoing problem of relevance. Asamoah, Healy, and Mayadas (1997) claimed
that US paradigms of individual dysfunction and clinical treatment were not only irrelevant
to non-Western countries but also harmful, and proved extremely difficult to eradicate once
embedded (see, for example, Osei-Hwedie & Rankopo, 2008, 2012; Singh et al., 2011; Rao,
2013). The problem was compounded by the fact that the vast majority of US academics did
not read international social work literature.
Altbach and Peterson (1998), reporting on the 14-country Carnegie Foundation study,
found that US academics were, by and large, not committed to internationalism. Findings have
repeatedly suggested that US academics and students could benefit from international collabo-
ration, not only to achieve greater awareness of cultural diversity in their own country, but also
to increase the relevance of social work education globally. Growing interest in cultural sensi-
tivity and cultural competence shows some promise but has been critiqued for its implication
that culture can be learnt and for encouraging a narrow, static view of culture and the idea that
crosscultural interactions are mainly those involving US social workers and people from other
cultures in the USA (Dean, 2001).
No one puts this better than Tsang and Yan (2001) writing about the struggle in China
‘to find a balance between importing social work knowledge and methods and the need to
develop indigenous conceptual frameworks and structures for organizing social work princi-
ples and practices’ (p. 435). Tunney (2002) referred to the immediate self-interest of interna-
tional exchanges, while Nagy and Falk (2000) lamented their one-way transfer of knowledge
from the West to the rest, with little interest shown in the diverse cultural contexts encoun-
tered or in understanding developing countries’ problems and much-needed solutions. Like-
wise, Iarskaia-Smirnova and Rasell (2014) note in relation to the development of social work
in Russia that a huge gulf exists between social work education and the professional field
because the:
terrain of social work education is . . . shaped by multiple interests, agendas and

ideas . . . dominant interests in higher education have tended to approach social work
as an academic field that neither fits with the hands-on nature of the job nor equates
to the applied study of social issues and problems.
(Iarskaia-Smirnova & Rasell, 2014: 223)
Despite the claimed importance of collaboration and partnership in international academic

exchanges, dominant Western partners were not necessarily motivated by developing appropri-
ate education or practice models in foreign countries and, despite altruistic claims, effectiveness
outcomes were measured in terms of the benefits accruing to their academics and students
(Samoff & Carrol, 2002; Razack, 2009).
6
Furthermore, so-called exchanges are often only one-way, with neither visits nor resources
reciprocated (Razack, 2002; Cornelius & Greif, 2005). Consider Cornelius and Greif ’s (2005)
accounts of the benefits of international collaboration for US academics and schools: ‘They are
exciting to faculty from the collaborating institutions who get to travel to the other universities,
open possibilities for research and aid in bringing back a better sense of social work in other
countries’ (pp. 831–832). Further, they note that they attract applicants to US programs and thus
reap financial benefits in tough economic times.
Few international academics engage in globalisation from below (Ife, 1995), that is, in dem-
ocratic grassroots work or participatory research that will benefit the partner in the Global
South. And, as Crisp (2015) observed, growing expectations for an international social work
curriculum have coincided with the increasing internationalisation of higher education (see also
Obst & Kuder, 2009). Osei-Hweide and Rankopo (2012) provided a vivid account of how this
has undermined any attempts to indigenise social work education and practice in Africa (see
also Gray et al., 2014). Despite the dangers of its Western ethnocentrism, Caragata and Sanchez
(2002) wrote optimistically that ‘an international social work perspective can contribute to the
shared understandings necessary to respond effectively to social problems, including alleviating
poverty and combating racism, cultural imperialism and violence’ (p. 223).
To overcome one-sided partnerships, Abram, Slosar, and Walls (2005) suggest a reverse-
mission approach that ‘stresses learning from people in and of other countries (especially global
South countries) and confronting our own cultural biases and prejudices’ (p. 174). Whether this
reverse-mission approach sufficiently grapples with the paradoxical processes of international
social work education can be debated, but it does show that some US educators are becoming
increasingly aware of the dangers of imperialistic and elitist approaches. Given Abram et al.’s
(2005) ‘mission’ was to Ghana, it is worrying that they made no attempt to cite African social
work literature. This somehow punctures the integrity of the reverse-mission they advocate.
As Razack (2012) notes, ‘despite noble goals, the main discussion tends to revolve around the
mechanics of international exchanges and collaborations rather than critical attention being paid
to who benefits most’ (p. 715).
Arguments for the internationalisation of the curriculum

A critique of universalising trends has run something like this: Given social work is a Western
invention, there is a danger that what is considered universal will be its dominant Western
worldview which, therefore, runs the risk of appearing imperialistic (Midgley, 1981, 2008). Based
on Western Judeo-Christian values and Western knowledge systems, social work is at odds with
Indigenous and non-Western worldviews (Haug, 2005; Mohan, 2005). And univeralisation is at
odds with indigenisation and decolonisation, both of which are concerned with culturally based sys-
tems that shape local practices in local contexts (Healy, 2007; Gray et al., 2008, 2013). In contexts
where indigenisation and decolonisation have currency, there have been constant criticisms of West-
ern social work’s lack of fit with local cultures and practices. Invasive Western practices in these
contexts work against attempts to develop Indigenous practices (Razack, 2002; Wilson & Yel-
low Bird, 2005; Askeland & Payne, 2006; Coates, Gray, & Hetherington, 2006; Osei-Hwedie &
Rankopo, 2008, 2012; Sinclair, Hart, & Bruyere, 2009; Baskin, 2011), and indigenisation is often
overlooked or erroneously equated with crosscultural practice (Gray, Coates, & Hetherington,
2007; Baltra-Ulloa, 2013). As Yellow Bird (2008) observed, indigenisation as the adaptation of the
West to the rest was also a form of colonisation in which a particular view of culture was imposed.
While we need to pay attention to local cultures, sovereignty is a political project for Indige-
nous Peoples that is better seen in light of decolonisation, given the concerns that indigenisation
7
Mel Gray
perpetuates Western practices, albeit it in an altered state. Respectful indigenisation is ‘the personal
and collective process of decolonizing Indigenous life and restoring true self-determination
based on traditional Indigenous values’ (Yellow Bird, 2008: 286). As Beecher et al. (2010) note,
‘if the social work profession cannot broaden its scope beyond cultural competency and move
towards the inclusion of indigenous practices, then the profession will risk losing richness in
its concepts, understandings and practices’ (pp. 205–206). Their study of international students’
views on the transferability of social work education and practice found that Western perspec-
tives continue to dominate, creating ‘an atmosphere of professional imperialism’ (p. 212).
This is a concern given the cultural diversity of most countries where social work is prac-
tised has been enhanced by immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. This makes knowledge of
diverse cultures essential, even for social workers with no intention of working overseas (Barner &
Okech, 2013; Crisp, 2015; Small, Sharma, & Nikolova, 2015). In this globalised world, people are
highly mobile, can move freely across borders and, meeting visa requirements, travel and work
abroad. Information on the work of social work academics and the programs they are teaching,
too, travels freely and is easily accessible on the Internet, especially to those who speak English.
As well as teaching diversity, there has been talk of the need for a transnational curriculum to
address what is universal in social work, though deciding what transcends context and culture
or is shared globally in social work has been a matter of heated debate (Midgley, 1992; Gray &
Fook, 2004; Gray, 2005; Lyons, Manion, & Carlsen, 2006; Reichert, 2006). As Hanna and Lyons
(2014) observed, ‘Internationalizing social work is not just about the mobility of profession-
als . . . and while social work is arguably a global profession it is not yet a common project, and
a unifying universal paradigm of social work has yet to emerge’ (p. 2).
International students studying in the USA who returned to their home country for their
field practicum found it difficult to identify non-Western practices. Interestingly, Biraimah and
Jotia (2015) observed that much of the factual material learnt through costly and resource-
intensive academic-exchange programs could have been obtained without leaving home. Their value,
however, lay in the ease with which the educators developed ‘the ability to reach and teach
all students within diverse classrooms through culturally relevant methodologies and materials’
(p. 137). Crosscultural understanding is greatly enhanced by immersion in another culture. As
Engstrom and Jones (2007) noted, international education experiences not only expand students’
knowledge through exposure to different cultures but also have a positive impact on their roles
as educators and their future propensity for problem solving: ‘Study abroad in low-income coun-
tries can be transformative because it has the potential to increase awareness of socioeconomic
relations, structural oppression, and human connectedness’ (Foronda & Belknap, 2012: 157).
However, to maximise the crosscultural learning experience, students must be provided ‘the
opportunity to critically examine their motivations for undertaking an international placement
before embarking on their travels . . . [lest they] reproduce oppressive power relations’ (Wehbi,
2009: 49). It is also essential to engage students in a critical analysis of cultural competence
and multiculturalism that essentialise culture (Gray & Allegritti, 2003; Nadan & Ben-Ari, 2012;
Baltra-Ulloa, 2013; Nadan, 2014). The crosscultural lens is limited in that it fails to take account
of the political nature and implications of academic exchanges and international social work
education. As Baltra-Ulloa (2013) noted, decolonisation is more than crossculturalism, or mul-
ticulturalism for that matter.
Contemporary developments
Having sketched the Western drivers of international social work education and provided a crit-
ical analysis of these developments, we now turn in this final section to examine contemporary
8
developments that are changing the way international social work is being theorised, namely,
the phenomenon of transnationalism, migration, and displaced peoples, and its implications for
social work education.
Transnationalism, migration, and displaced peoples

The lives of a growing number of people, including economic migrants, refugees, asylum seek-
ers, and other displaced individuals and families, transcend national boundaries. Often because
of economic pressures, many individuals continually move through places, countries, and cul-
tures and are exposed to, and endure, unique risk and protective factors to achieve sustainable
livelihoods. In so doing, they develop transnational identities and relationships and engage in
transnational activities.Yet, as Furman, Negi, and Salvador (2010) note, despite this new reality,
social work has yet to ‘find ways not only of working “there” (international social work) or with
culturally diverse populations “here” (culturally competent social work), but [also] with clients
whose lives cross, traverse, and transcend nation-state boundaries’ (p. 4).They point to the ethical
and moral imperative to help develop transnational social work practice models and methods to
respond to the needs of transnational migrants whose:
transmigratory lifestyle can lead to multiple crossings of nation-state boundaries and

a lack of a long-term residential base, which present a unique context for social work
intervention. An understanding of the context of this emergent population’s lives and
the risk and protective factors that influence them is paramount to being able to effec-
tively provide culturally responsive services with this population.
(Furman et al., 2010: 7)
Transnationalism challenges international social work’s assimilationist approach (Hugman,

Moosa-Mitha, & Moyo, 2010). It is giving rise to an emerging field of transnational practice that
‘is designed to serve transnational populations; operates across nation-state boundaries, whether
physically or through new technologies; and is informed by and addresses complex transnational
problems and dilemmas’ (Furman et al., 2010: 8). By definition, transnational practice ‘requires
the strategizing of solutions that incorporate two or more nation-states (depending on the expe-
riences of the transmigrant) as well as working with social workers across borders to facilitate the
wellbeing of this population’ (Furman et al., 2010: 9).
As well as the Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, now in its thirteenth year, there have
been several positive developments in the last five years with publications relating to population
mobility and their implications for international social work education. They include Transnational
Social Work Practice (Furman et al., 2010), Immigration Worldwide (Segal & Elliott, 2012), Refugees
Worldwide (Segal, Mayadas, & Elliott, 2012), and a special issue of the British Journal of Social Work
in 2015. The theme running through this literature is the need for solidarity to deal with prob-
lems often beyond the control of nation-states that are leading to the forced displacement of peo-
ple who have been dispossessed or stripped of their human rights. These international problems
and injustices are more difficult to ignore when they come to our cities and neighbourhoods.
Besides migrants, the unprecedented numbers of people are symptomatic of the era of mass dis-
placement in which we now live. The UNHCR Global Trends Report (2015) estimates there
are nearly 60 million refugees worldwide, half of whom are children and 51% of whom are in
Europe, with the largest proportion Syrians in Turkey and Ukrainians in the Russian Federation.
Perhaps ‘borderless social work’ is more apt than the modernist international social work
(education) paradigm, as it signifies the type of social work now needed, one that dissolves
9
Mel Gray
barriers in the global world in which we live, where global education promotes global citizen-
ship and professions without borders (Hugman et al., 2010; Briskman et al., 2013). To reiterate,
social work education needs to teach students to ‘think globally and locally, act globally and
locally’ (Furman et al., 2010: 4). The mission statement on the global education website reads
like a social work mission statement:
Global education emphasises the unity and interdependence of human society, develop-
ing a sense of self and appreciation of cultural diversity, affirmation of social justice and
human rights, as well as building peace and actions for a sustainable future in different
times and places.
Global education promotes positive values and assists students to take responsibility
for their actions and to see themselves as global citizens who can contribute to a more
peaceful, just and sustainable world.
(www.globaleducation.edu.au/)
Implications for social work education

In the face of global changes, there is a need for education beyond the national or local per-
spective, especially with consideration given to the effects of globalisation on domestic problems
and cognisance that globalisation leads to processes of migration. A global curriculum needs to
teach students to understand the global forces impacting upon local problems. It also needs to
engage with the paradoxical processes in international social work and subject motivations for
international engagement, whether by students or academics, to critical analysis. Most impor-
tantly, participants need to examine their assumptions about race and culture, and Whiteness
and privilege. Self-interested motivations and perceived benefits need to be interrogated, for the
right question is: who will benefit most? (Razack, 2012)
Southern partners need to think seriously about ‘what’s in it for us?’ Projects that truly
engage with local issues and problems in the Global South, by Northern participants who take
time to read and study the literature from the context from which they are going to learn, will
be of most benefit to Southern host partners. Given the history of social work exchange and
collaboration, the benefits should go ‘the other way’!
This means Northern academics and their students need to read and engage with the social
work literature from or about the countries in the South to which they are travelling. They also
need to add new curriculum content on global problems, such as refugees and asylum seekers,
human trafficking, climate change, food security, and natural disasters, and examine their impacts
not only in international contexts but also regionally, nationally, and locally. Global social work
concerns global social problems and uniting in a common cause – joining in solidarity – to
protect the rights of, and pursue justice for, the oppressed and marginalised peoples of the world
in local contexts.
Students and practitioners in the North would do well to have a crosscultural experience
close to home by engaging with the growing literature on Indigenous social work and the
political project of Indigenous Peoples before embarking on international sojourns. Still, the
most marginalised peoples in most societies are minorities, and every city and country has
oppressed minorities that offer social workers ample opportunities to test their commitment
to human rights and social justice. Further, with the increasing mobility of people forcibly
displaced by war and climate change, trans- and international social work begins at home,
and one does not have to go far to encounter those marginalised by oppressive notions of
race and culture, and injustices brought about by welfare austerity, xenophobia, and declining
10
employment prospects. Perhaps international social work means attending to the problems
in our own backyards and learning the challenges of applying Western values, methods, and
approaches in diverse, multicultural communities first, before transporting them to far-flung
places we know little about and where little sustainable change can be achieved in short-term
visits or academic exchanges.
References
Abram, F. Y., Slosar, J. A., & Walls, R. (2005). Reverse mission: A model for international social work
education and transformative intra-national practice. International Social Work, 48(2), 161–176. doi:
10.1177/0020872805050490.
Altbach, P. G., & Peterson, P. M. (1998). Internationalize American higher education? Not exactly. Change
( July–August), 36–39.
Asamoah, Y., Healy, L. M., & Mayadas, N. (1997). Ending the international–domestic dichotomy: New
approaches to a global curriculum for the millennium. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 389–401.
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (1989). The Empire writes back: Theory and practice of post-colonial liter-
atures. London: Routledge.
Askeland, G. A., & Payne, M. (2006). Social work education’s cultural hegemony. International Social Work,
49(6), 731–743.
Baltra-Ulloa, A. J. (2013). Why decolonized social work is more than cross-culturalism. In M. Gray, J.
Coates, M.Yellow Bird, & T. Hetherington (Eds.), Decolonizing social work (pp. 89–104). Farnham, Surrey:
Ashgate.
Barner, J. R., & Okech, D. (2013). Teaching globalization to social work students: In and out of the class-
room. Social Work Education, 32(8), 1061–1074.
Baskin, C. (2011). Strong helpers’ teachings: The value of indigenous knowledges in the helping professions. Toronto,
ON: Canadian Scholars Press.
Beecher, B., Reeves, J., Eggertsen, L., & Furuto, S. (2010). International students’ views about trans-
ferability in social work education and practice. International Social Work, 53(2), 203–216. doi:
10.1177/0020872809355392.
Biraimah, K. L., & Jotia, A. L. (2015). Crossing the North-South divide: A critical analysis of study abroad
programs to emerging nations. International Perspectives on Education and Society, 26, 125–151. Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920140000026006.
Briskman, L., Martin, J., Kuek, S., & Jarema, A. (2013). Without borders: Fostering development studies in
social work. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 17, 71–89.
Caragata, L., & Sanchez, M. (2002). Globalization and global need: New imperatives for expanding inter-
national social work education in North America. International Social Work, 45, 217–238.
Coates, J., Gray, M., & Hetherington, T. (2006). An ‘ecospiritual’ perspective: Finally, a place for Indigenous
approaches. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 381–399.
Cornelius, L. J., & Greif, G. L. (2005). Schools of social work and the nature of their foreign collaborations.
International Social Work, 48(6), 823–833. doi: 10.1177/0020872805057094.
Crisp. B. R. (2015). The challenges in developing cross-national social work curricula. International Social
Work, 1–13. Published online on May 6, 2015. doi: 10.1177/0020872815574135.
Dean, R. (2001). The myth of cross cultural competence. Families in Society, 82(6), 623–630.
de Jongh, J. F. (1972). A retrospective view of social work education. In International Association of Schools
of Social Work: New themes in social work education (pp. 22–36). Proceedings of the 26th International
Congress of Schools of Social Work, Hague, Netherlands, 8–11 August.
Drucker, D. (2003). Whither international social work? A reflection. International Social Work, 46(1), 53–81.
Engstrom, D., & Jones, L. P. (2007). A broadened horizon:The value of international social work internships.
Social Work Education, 26(2), 136–150.
Foronda, C., & Belknap, R. A. (2012). Transformative learning through study abroad in low-income coun-
tries. Nurse Educator, 37(4), 157–161.
Furman, R., Negi, N. J., & Salvador, R. B. (2010). An introduction to transnational social work. In N. J.
Negi, & R. Furman (Eds.), Transnational social work practice (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
Gray, M. (2005). Dilemmas of international social work: Paradoxical processes in indigenisation, imperial-
ism and universalism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 14(2), 230–237.
11
Mel Gray
Gray, M., & Allegritti, I. (2003). Towards culturally sensitive social work practice: Re-examining cross-
cultural social work. Social Work/ Maatskaplike Werk, 39(4), 312–325.
Gray, M., Coates, J., & Hetherington, T. (2007). Hearing Indigenous voices in mainstream social work.
Families in Society, 88(1), 53–64.
Gray, M., Coates, J., & Yellow Bird, M. (Eds.) (2008). Indigenous social work around the world:Towards culturally
relevant education and practice. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate.
Gray, M., Coates, J., Yellow Bird, M., & Hetherington, T. (Eds.) (2013). Decolonizing social work. Aldershot,
Hants: Ashgate.
Gray, M., & Fook, J. (2004). The quest for a universal social work: Some issues and implications. Social Work
Education, 23(5), 625–644.
Gray, M., Kreitzer, L., & Mupedziswa, R. (2014).The enduring relevance of indigenisation in African social
work: A critical reflection on ASWEA’s legacy. Ethics and Social Welfare (Special Issue on Human Rights
in Africa), 8(2), 101–116. doi: 10.1080/17496535.2014.895397.
Gray, M., & Rennie, G. (2007). International social work: Bodies with organs. Aotearoa New Zealand Social
Work Review, 19(2), 42–58.
Gray, M., & Webb, S. A. (2008). The myth of global social work: Double standards and the local-global
Divide. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 19(1), 61–66.
Hanna, S., & Lyons, K. (2014). Challenges facing international social workers: English manag-
ers’ perceptions. International Social Work. Published online before print September 9, 2014. doi:
10.1177/0020872814537851.
Haug, E. (2005). Critical reflections on the emerging discourse of international social work. International
Social Work, 48(2), 126–135.
Healy, L. M. (2007). Universalism and cultural relativism in social work ethics. International Social Work,
50(1), 11–26.
Hugman, R., Moosa-Mitha, M., & Moyo, O. (2010).Towards a borderless social work: Reconsidering notions
of international social work. International Social Work, 53, 629–643. doi: 10.1177/0020872810371203.
Iarskaia-Smirnova, E., & Rasell, M. (2014). Integrating practice into Russian social work education:
Institutional logics and curriculum regulation. International Social Work, 57, 222–234. doi: 10.1177/
0020872813519660.
Ife, J. (1995). Community development: Creating community alternatives: Vision, analysis and practice. Melbourne:
Longman.
International Federation of Social Workers, International Association of Schools of Social Work, and Inter-
national Council on Social Welfare (IFSW/IASSW/ICSW). (2012). The global agenda for social work
and social development: Commitment to action. [online] Available at www.globalsocialagenda.org
[Accessed 13 February 2013].
Kendall, K. (1998). IASSW:The first fifty years, 1928–1978, A tribute to the founders. Alexandria,VA: IASSW &
CSWE.
Lorenz, W. (2005). Social work and a new social order: Challenging neo-liberalism’s erosion of solidarity.
Social Work and Society, 3(1), 93–101.
Lyons, K., Manion, K., & Carlsen, M. (2006). International perspectives on social work: Global conditions and local
practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
McDonald, C., Harris, J., & Wintersteen, R. (2003). Contingent on context? Social work and the state in
Australia, Britain and the USA. British Journal of Social Work, 33(2), 191–208.
Midgley, J. (1981). Professional imperialism: Social work in the Third World. London: Heinemann.
Midgley, J. (1992). The challenge of international social work. In M. C. Hokenstad, S. K. Khinduka, & J.
Midgley (Eds.), Profiles in international social work (pp. 13–28). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Midgley, J. (2008). Promoting reciprocal international social work exchanges: Professional imperialism
revisited. In M. Gray, J. Coates, & M. Yellow Bird (Eds.), Indigenous social work around the world: Towards
culturally relevant education and practice (pp. 31–45). Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate.
Mohan, B. (2005). New internationalism: Social work’s dilemmas, dreams and delusion. International Social
Work, 48(3), 241–250.
Nadan, Y. (2014). Rethinking ‘cultural competence’ in international social work. International Social Work,
1–10. Published online on September 9, 2014. doi: 10.1177/0020872814539986.
Nadan,Y., & Ben-Ari, A. (2012). What can we learn from rethinking ‘multiculturalism’ in social work edu-
cation? Social Work Education:The International Journal, 32, 1089–1102.
Nagpaul, H. (1993). Analysis of social work teaching material in India: The need for indigenous founda-
tions. International Social Work, 36, 207–220.
12
Nagy, G., & Falk, D. (2000). Dilemma in international and cross-cultural social work education. International
Social Work, 43, 49–60.
Negi, N. J., & Furman, R. (Eds.) (2010). Transnational social work practice. New York, NY: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
Obst, D., & Kuder, M. (Eds.) (2009). Joint and double degree programs: An emerging model for transatlantic
exchange. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.
Osei-Hwede, K., & Rankopo, M. J. (2008). Developing culturally relevant social work education in Africa:
The case of Botswana. In M. Gray, J. Coates, & M. Yellow Bird (Eds.), Indigenous social work around the
world:Towards culturally relevant education and practice (pp. 203–217). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Osei-Hwedie, K., & Rankopo, M. J. (2012). Social work in ‘developing’ countries. In M. Gray, J. Midgley, &
S. A. Webb (Eds.), Sage handbook of social work (pp. 723–739). London: Sage.
Rao,V. (2013). Decolonizing social work: An Indian viewpoint. In M. Gray, J. Coates, M.Yellow Bird, & T.
Hetherington (Eds.), Decolonizing social work (pp. 45–64). Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
Razack, N. (2000). North/South collaborations: Affecting transnational perspectives for social work. Journal
of Progressive Human Services, 11(1), 71–91.
Razack, N. (2002). A critical examination of international student exchanges. International Social Work,
45(2), 251–265.
Razack, N. (2009). Decolonizing the pedagogy and practice of international social work. International Social
Work, 52(1), 9–21.
Razack, N. (2012). International social work. In M. Gray, J. Midgley, & S. A. Webb (Eds.), Sage handbook of
social work (pp. 707–722). London: Sage.
Reichert, E. (2006). Human rights: An examination of universalism and cultural relativism. Journal of Com-
parative Social Welfare, 22, 23–36. doi: 10.1080/17486830500522997.
Samoff, J., & Carrol, B. (2002). The promise of partnership and continuities of dependence: External sup-
port to higher education in Africa. Presentation at the 45th annual meeting of the African Studies Associa-
tion, Washington, December, 5–8, 2002.
Segal, U. A., & Elliott, D. (Eds.) (2012). Refugees worldwide (4 vols.). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Publishers.
Segal, U. A., Mayadas, N. S., & Elliott, D. (Eds.) (2012). Immigration worldwide: Policies, practices, and trends. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, R., Hart, M. A., & Bruyere, G. (Eds.) (2009). Wícihitowin: Aboriginal social work in Canada. Halifax,
NS: Fernwood Press.
Singh, S., Gumz, E. J., & Crawley, B. C. (2011). Predicting India’s future: Does it justify the exportation of
US social work education? Social Work Education, 30(7), 861–873.
Small, E., Sharma, B. B., & Nikolova, S. P. (2015). A pilot study evaluating students’ interest in international
social work education. Social Work Education:The International Journal. Published online: 10 March 2015.
doi: 10.1080/02615479.2015.1015979.
Tsang, A. K. T., & Yan, M-C. (2001). Chinese corpus, western application: The Chinese strategy of engage-
ment with western social work discourse. International Social Work, 44(4), 433–454.
Tunney, K. (2002). Learning to teach abroad: Reflections on the role of the visiting social work educator.
International Social Work, 45, 435–446.
United Nations (1969). Proceedings of the International Conference of Ministers responsible for social welfare. New
York, NY: United Nations.
United Nations (1971). Social policy and social planning in national development. International Social Devel-
opment Review, 3, 4–15.
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). (2015). Annual global trends report: World at
war. Available at http://unhcr.org/556725e69.html.
Wehbi, S. (2009). Deconstructing motivations: Challenging international social work placements. Interna-
tional Social Work, 52(1), 48–59. doi: 10.1177/0020872808097750.
Wilson, W. A., & Yellow Bird, M. (2005). For Indigenous eyes only: A decolonization handbook. Santa Fe, NM:
School of American Research.
Yellow Bird, M. (2008). Terms of endearment: A brief dictionary for decolonizing social work with Indig-
enous Peoples. In M. Gray, J. Coates, & M. Yellow Bird (Eds.), Indigenous social work around the world:
Towards culturally relevant education and practice (pp. 275–291). Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate.
13
2
SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
AND THE CHALLENGE
OF RACE EQUALITY
Charlotte Williams
Introduction
Perhaps one of the most significant trends of the twenty-first century is the rate at which
nations across the world are being transformed as a result of ethnic diversification. The impact
of the globalization of the world’s economies has produced an unprecedented movement of
peoples, ensuring conspicuous ethnic and racial diversity in societies everywhere. This mas-
sive movement includes student migrants, those seeking asylum and refugee status, economic
migrants and family chain migration amongst others, with this settlement occurring alongside
long-established ethnic diversity within particular country contexts. This old and new diversity
produces a level of complexity and a dynamic that demands sophisticated responses in social and
public policy. At the same time, ideological change to the politics of welfare in advanced Western
democracies is transforming the relationship between the individual and the state, producing
deepening welfare residualism, austerity measures and attendant forms of welfare chauvinism
built on nationalist agendas of exclusion. There has been a noticeable rise in racial hostility, for
example, across European countries, North America and Australia, with the regeneration of Far
Right and Fascist groups gaining ground and being given public legitimacy. In the post-9/11
world these sentiments have been fuelled by the added dimension of terrorist insecurities which
are heavily racialized and by the concomitant rise in Islamophobia. We live in very challenging
times, in an era of ‘superdiversity’ to use Vertovec’s term (2007), when the complexities of indi-
vidual status defy any simple categorization by ethnicity or race; a time when the impacts of
racial and ethnic exclusion are witnessed both intimately and on a global scale; and a time when
questions of social solidarity and social cohesion strike to the heart of what it is to be a citizen.
Social work education is obliged to respond to this rapidly changing dynamic. Social workers
today and social workers of the future have a responsibility in respect of these big issues of our
time and need to be prepared to work with fortitude and confidence in very uncertain times.
In addition, social work education itself is being globalized/internationalized and indigenized,
as others in this volume attest, and this internal transfiguration is demanding proactive pedagogy
that engages with difference and diversity in the knowledge base of social work.These issues are
not distinct from issues of racial inequality but form a necessary intersection with them.
The issue of race equality raises both political and ethical concerns for social work. There
exists both a political and a moral imperative to work for change. Research evidence, case law,
14
The challenge of race equality
personal narrative and high profile incidents firmly establish that in the majority of country
contexts those marked out by racialized minority ethnic status experience widespread discrim-
inations, poor service delivery, poor access to opportunity and accordingly poor health and
well-being outcomes (see for example Williams & Johnson, 2010; Constance-Huggins, 2011).
Social work has been deeply implicated in this picture, in Europe (Williams & Graham, 2012),
Australia (Hollinsworth, 2006) and North America (Reisch, 2008) to name just some major
continents of the world. A poignant example of the sustained nature of racial inequality comes
from the recent Journey for Justice protest walk across states of America. This historic 860-mile
march from Selma, Alabama, to Washington, D.C., mobilized activists to advance a national
advocacy agenda lobbying for the protection of the right of every American to a fair criminal
justice system, uncorrupted voting rights, sustainable jobs with a living wage, and equitable
public education.
The long and historic legacy of racial inequality in major Western democracies may suggest it
as an intractable issue. Notwithstanding, many nation-states have instituted considerable change,
most particularly in terms of establishing and strengthening race equality legislation. The rec-
ognition of the need for change and the appearance of developments towards change do not,
however, mean that change is always as progressive as it may seem. There exists a considerable
gap between good intentions and effects, between policy directives and implementation. In the
latter respect social workers are key actors in remediating this known gap. Accordingly, social
workers need to be attentive to context; they require an ear particularly attuned to policy stances
in respect of race, multiculturalism and ethnic relations and to afford them critical evaluation.
The opening proposition of this chapter is to an understanding of the policy context and policy
climate in which race equality strategies are enacted in particular nation-states and indeed the
ways in which policy stances have been globalized in pan-national agreements on the framing
of ‘the problem of minorities’ or ‘the problem of diversity’. Mullard’s (1988: 360) classic argu-
ment that policy measures more acutely reflect ‘progressive control’ of minorities as opposed to
true transformative change remains instructive. His plea is for a consideration of the ways in
which particular policy discourses construct the ‘problem of minorities’ in deeply ambivalent
ways, both acknowledging the need for the movement of cheap labour and for humanitarian
reception of those fleeing adversity but at the same time regulating, controlling and containing
the threat of minorities via vigorous assimilationism, rigid immigration control, alien ghettoi-
zation, exclusive citizenship and marginalization. These discursive constructions infiltrate social
work education in terms of interpretations of what the issues are and what types of response
are required.
Social work education does not occur in a political vacuum; neither is it neutral to such
wider political, social and economic agendas. It occurs within and refracts with particular dis-
courses of minorities in particular contexts. The charge is that social work education has not
sufficiently engaged with this wider frame of reference of structural relations (Gillborn, 2006;
Gorski, 2008) that position and problematize minority groups and has been guilty of processes
of disconnection and/or ‘ontologies of forgetting’ (Pon, 2009) that detach the positioning of racial-
ized minorities from core historical antecedents.This ‘call to context’ (Delgado & Stefancic, 1997)
is critical to any discussion of the pursuit of race equality in social work education. It is a call
that demands not only a critical interrogation of policy and practice at the level of nation-state
and the ways in which local and banal racisms are played out in particular cultural contexts but
also attention to global and historical processes of Colonialism, Imperialism and the impacts of
contemporary globalization.
Holding this big picture in mind, this chapter will consider current debate and discussion
in the field of social work education on approaches, methods, experiences and outcomes in
15
Charlotte Williams
relation to preparing students to tackle racial and minority ethnic diversity. It will begin with
the conceptual challenge, consider the ways in which the mandate to address racial and ethnic
difference has been translated in educative practices and conclude by highlighting where I con-
sider the key future challenges to lie.
Key concepts
The conceptual puzzle that is ‘race’ will inevitably befuddle any international dialogue or indeed
confound comparative analysis. Despite the academic rejection of biological definitional refer-
ents, even the social constructions of ‘race’ are not universally shared. It is an area where there is
little consensus on the terms in use to denote work with, for and on behalf of minoritized (sic
racialized) ethnic groups and individuals. We might therefore pertinently ask at the outset: can
you have anti-racism without an acknowledgement of race? If you don’t acknowledge groups as
racialized, how can you engage with anti-racism and race equality? Yet in many country contexts
race is not a term used in policy or legislation; in others it has been named for many years, not
least following the civil rights activity of the late 1960s and early 1970s.The variety of terminol-
ogy in use (or disavowed) in this area is an interesting project in itself. A bundle of terms are often
used as a cypher for race and racial category, most notably immigrants, migrant, cultural diversity,
ethnic diversity, visible minorities, people of colour, ethnic and religious diversity, and more, with
too little attention given to the processes of racialization that produce these categories. In recent
years the disavowal of the use of the word race has been seen as a political gesture, with pro-
ponents preferring to use the terms culture and cultural difference or to speak of the post-race
society. Critics have dubbed this tendency ‘the new racism’ (Pon, 2009), arguing that transposing
the focus onto cultural difference denudes attention to a power analysis of society in terms of
racial stratification and operates to obscure histories of Colonialism and White supremacy.
Terminology has political import; it also has emotional resonance, and our inability to explic-
itly name processes and retreat to comfortable discourses of difference can itself be a reflection
of power relations and part of a repertoire of denial strategies long identified by Dominelli
(1997).That said, ‘race’ is an inadequate term in many respects and certainly does not engage the
huge variety of subjectivities and identities and intersectionalities subsumed within its either/
or, us/them binary. ‘Racism’ is somewhat easier, being a range of ideologies and processes that
discriminate against others on the basis of assumptions about their racial or cultural membership.
What we should be concerned to critically examine is the ways in which these constructs have
emerged historically as a product of Colonial and Imperial relations, how they are conferred in
the contemporary context and the import they hold for those who are subject to processes of
racial demeaning, discrimination and oppression.
This puzzle over terms is also reflected in the diversity of approaches within social work
education to demarcate work in this area and its perceived location within the curriculum.
Namely: social work with immigrants (e.g. Cheetham, 1972), multicultural education (Poto-
cky, 1997, Abrams & Gibson, 2007, Nadan & Ben-Ari, 2013), cultural sensitivity/competency/
safety (Laird, 2008), cross-cultural or intercultural education (Gorski, 2008), ethnic sensitiv-
ity (Devore & Schlesinger, 1999), anti-discriminatory practice (Thompson, 2001), anti-racist
and anti-oppressive social work education (Dominelli, 1997), transformative education (e.g. Lee &
Green, 2003) and more. This vibrant discussion and debate and plethora of literature attests to
the ways in which social work education is changing and has changed in recognition of racial
and ethnic diversity.
Although approaches differ in purpose and concepts, each is underpinned by a particular
educational theory or theories. Broadly speaking, these theories suggest a focus on education as
16
either compensatory, enabling the adjustment of disadvantaged groups to mainstream society;

relational, focussing on tolerance and respect between social groups; consciousness raising, aimed
at valorizing group difference, for example Black perspectives (Graham, 2009); cultural pluralist,
aimed at equal recognition of diverse groups; or those that are focussed on social reconstruction
addressing macro change in societal structures and institutions.These are not mutually exclusive,
of course, and appear in highly overlapping and sometimes contradictory constellations in prac-
tice discourse (Nadan & Ben-Ari, 2013).
Approaches and methods

Substantive prescriptions have appeared in social work curricula in most countries across the
world since the 1970s that either directly or more obliquely address the need to educate students
in working towards more a racially equal society and being responsive to the needs of racial and
ethnic/cultural minorities. Education standards – for example, Council on Social Work Educa-
tion (CSWE) in the USA (2008),ASWEAS (Australian Social Work Education and Accreditation
Standards) in Australia (2012) and those set for the respective countries of the UK (2004) –
make explicit reference to training for cross-cultural practice, working with diversity and
responding to discrimination. In addition, a number of transnational organizations have made
a stated commitment, including that ensconced in the Global Agenda for Social Work (2012).
Racial equality is on the agenda and, if not specifically named, there exists explicit reference to
addressing the processes of discrimination and oppression in varying forms. This begs the ques-
tion as to whether these prescriptions are well pitched. Observers have noted the emphasis on
cultural tolerance and cultural sensitivity models over models that propose more radical intent
( Jani et al., 2011), and indeed where there have been more radical prescriptions (such as in the
UK of the 1990s) these have fallen into attrition (Lavallette & Penketh, 2013) or been subject
to more generic and less prescriptive interpretations. The default is towards more conservative
approaches which as Nyland (2006) argues are characterized by ‘a power evasiveness’ which
occludes a power analysis and fosters ethnocentrism.
Social work education has engaged with this mandate in a number of ways (see Nadan &
Ben-Ari, 2013). Optimistically, the bedrock of universalist and difference-blind education is
gradually shifting to an acknowledgement of the fact that all societies are multicultural, that
racism exists in all societies in some form or another and that social work students need to be
prepared to engage with such diversity as an integral part of what they do and not as an add-on
specialism.The moral mandate towards human rights and social justice underpins this endeavour
with principles embedded in professional codes of ethics. Yet interpretations of the imperative
vary and can broadly be categorized across a spectrum from the more conservative and liberal
approaches towards radical pedagogical approaches which extend in a number of directions.
Amongst the more conservative or what might be called traditional models are those that
overtly argue for assimilationist strategies and for tolerance towards the other. These models are
based on the assumption of the adaptation and adjustment of immigrants and their descendants
to the majority norm. This orientation foregrounds nondiscriminatory practice, cooperation
and understanding between majority group and minority in the search for individual and soci-
etal equilibrium. The pivotal method here is to provide relevant information about ‘the other’,
information about their social and familial norms, lifestyle preferences and behavioural char-
acteristics and other culture-bound artefacts and syndromes. In this way the worker will be
equipped to work effectively with the other, as the locus of change lies within the individual and
their community (e.g. Cheetham, 1972; Lum, 2003). Extensions of this model focus on ethnic
sensitivity, cultural maintenance and cultural safety where the dominant culture remains the
17
Charlotte Williams
norm against which all others are somehow deficit or conversely need protecting. Ethnic groups
from this perspective are static, homogenous and strangely silent in the encounter between prac-
titioner and service user. Students (presumed of the majority culture) must learn the ways of the
other in order to manage and control them and assist them towards adjustments to fit within
the majority culture. By and large ‘race’ is absent in these encounters and the historic cast of
racialized relations subject to forgetting.
In more culturally pluralist or liberal models there is an acceptance of difference and diversity
and an acknowledgement of the barriers to equality of opportunity. These models assume the
notion of an equal status between cultural groups but acknowledge the lack of a level playing
field in access to opportunity and seek to identify and remove the barriers to enhance the
achievement of meritocratic life chances. The values of cooperation, solidarity and integration
are espoused, along with respect and tolerance for diversity of culture and traditions. Education
is about raising self-reflectiveness and competence in encountering this diverse reality based
on cultural awareness and the attainment of knowledge and skills in working across cultures.
Competencies are to be learned and can be measured in the performance of interventions
appropriate to the service user’s culture. This model has considerable currency in social work
practice and indeed, although perhaps less articulated, amongst service user groups. It is the basis
on which much ethno-specific service delivery is based. In the UK, models based on cultural
responsiveness have very much come back into vogue, and attempts have been made to imbue
them with a more sophisticated approach to culture (see Laird, 2008; Parrott, 2009; Ben-Ari &
Strier, 2010). At the same time these approaches have been heavily criticized as reinforcing
cultural difference, essentializing and fixing culture, as being vulnerable to culture enforcing
and cultural relativism and most notably for obscuring relations of power (Constance-Huggins,
2012). Moreover, cultural competency methodologies have been criticized for being apolitical
and ahistorical (Pon, 2009). The preoccupation with culture is not matched by a focus on the
social worker herself as culture bearing, and thus cultural responsiveness becomes something you
do to someone else, someone ‘other’.
More radical interpretations of the mandate to address race equality and ethnic responsive-
ness in service delivery are evident in anti-racist, anti-oppressive, critical multiculturalism and
associated transformative pedagogical methodologies. These perspectives are much rehearsed in
the literature and pivot on a critical analysis of socio-political factors in the causation of human
distress. Their focus is on the systemized nature of power relations in society and the ways in
which these lead to a misdistribution of resources, recognition and rights and furthermore act to
perpetuate and maintain social inequality (Dominelli, 1997, Nyland, 2006). These perspectives
have been influential in bringing into view institutional discriminations as well as broader struc-
tural inequality, including the ways in which ideologies of racism are embedded in the culture
of societies. In their development and extension, these approaches have been pliable enough to
accommodate an understanding of intersectionalities of disadvantage in the double jeopardy
combinations of race and gender, race and disability, race and sexuality, race and class position-
ing and so forth ( Jani et al., 2011). Educators drawing on these perspectives enable students to
acknowledge the ways in which power is distributed and enacted in society and in social insti-
tutions, to understand the structural causes of disadvantage and oppressions and to be equipped
to speak out against injustice and deploy interventions based on such macro analysis. Students
are engaged in critical reflection of their own privilege (or otherwise) and an interrogation of
their assumptions, attitudes and values through techniques such as Race Awareness Training and
Anti-Racist Training and more latterly the techniques of transformative pedagogy.
These social justice models have vacillated between an emphasis on the politics of recog-
nition and the politics of redistribution, and some, largely postmodernists, have argued they
18
neglect the former in their pursuit of the latter. Thus, the meta narrative of structural inequality
and of racial truths has been increasingly questioned by the emergence of postmodern think-
ing as narratives, subjectivities and the vacillating dynamic of social identities produced a more
complex story than the structuralists could accommodate.
Power-based models have provided strong analytical tools but, it is argued, have been poorly
operationalized to social work (Millar, 2008). They have been criticized as over politicking and
at worst of political exploitation in the presumption of the remit of agency and emancipation
(see for example Beresford & Wilson, 2000). They have been pilloried for reinforcing the bina-
ries of racialized thinking and fixing the dualistic and essentialized thinking about Black groups
as disadvantaged and White groups as privileged (Nadan & Ben-Ari, 2013).
Perhaps one or two misnomers to rectify here are the proposition that there is a linear pro-
gression away from more conservative towards more radical models in social work education
or indeed that the more radical interpretations do in fact lead to less assimilationist or more
radical outcomes (Millar, 2008). Neither of these is true. What the evidence suggests in terms
of the impacts of the variety of learning and teaching strategies is that practitioners still grap-
ple with any type of consensus of what these terms and approaches mean in practice (Gorski,
2008; Harrison & Turner, 2011; Williams & Parrott, 2013) and that they may even work with
paradoxical intent ( Jeffrey, 2005; Sakamoto & Pitner, 2005). In reality, the intrinsic value of
oppositional and radical stances may well be greater for the profession and professional identity
than the outcomes accrued to service users. Miller (2008), for example, in the UK context, chal-
lenges the assumption that practitioners have become more critically reflective or structural in
their analysis of needs than they were before the ascendance of the ostensible radicalism of the
anti-oppressive discourse in social work and claims that the rhetorical stance of anti-oppressive
methodologies may actually disguise conflict and foreclose real shifts in power.
Two extensions of these radical or more accurately critical theory approaches to social work
education and race equality come from Whiteness studies and from the emergence of Crit-
ical Race Theory (Gillborn, 2006; Abrams & Gibson, 2007; Ortiz & Jani, 2010; Jeyasingham,
2011), both of which are driving a new agenda in social work education in relation to race.
These more recent developments switch the lens away from the ‘other’ as minority group to a
consideration of the powerful and relations of power. Social work has ‘turned its gaze’ from the
other to ‘ourselves’ say Walter et al. (2011: 16) in their examination of Australian social work.
Whiteness studies provide a number of strategies for decentring of the White norm and making
visible Whiteness and White identities as a structure of unearned social privileges which operates
within racial hierarchies (Pease, 2010). A body of literature borrowed from across disciplines of
social anthropology, sociology and cultural studies has sought to expose how White privilege
works in order to destabilize and displace this central yet unacknowledged category. MacIntosh’s
(1988: 95) essay which discusses this invisible knapsack of special provisions that accrue to Whiteness
is widely used in social work education to reveal and problematize the normative practices that
maintain White privilege, but other pedagogical applications are also emerging, for example,
building empathy through the use of personal narratives, using the Whiteness lens to interrogate
social work theories, and co-teaching using Black and White Pedagogical Partnerships (Nyland,
2006; Abrams & Gibson, 2007; Gollan & O’Leary, 2009).
Some of the pitfalls in interpreting this brief in social work education have been identified
by Jeyasingham (2011), who argues that the tendency has been to reify Whiteness by essen-
tializing it within White bodies rather than a consideration of the social systems and processes
that sustain White privilege and a consideration of how it is performed in particular contexts at
particular times. He argues that much social work education drawing on Whiteness studies does
not get beyond the binary of Whiteness and othering, nor does it take the student beyond the
19
Charlotte Williams
development of a reflexive and introspective, White self. Pease too picks up on this potentially
exclusive naval gazing, pointing to the dangers of a ’sneaky form of narcissism’ (Pease, 2010: 125).
What do we do once the Whiteness is acknowledged? he questions, and he argues it cannot be
just about subjectivities that need to change (Pease, 2010: 118).
Jeffrey (2005) cautions that much anti-racist pedagogy merely reproduces new and different
forms of White domination, not least because pedagogies of race and racism within social work
education remain structured towards the accepted parameters of the profession and the ways in
which practice itself is defined. The ‘doing’ of anti-racism in practice, she suggests, functions to
reproduce the Whiteness that is embodied in being ‘a good social worker’ (2005: 422). Anti-racist
pedagogies built around the idea of self-reflexivity and examining White privilege are, Jeffrey
argues, incongruent with the ‘doing’ of a social work practice based on diversity management
and the development of competencies.There is a fundamental paradox, she suggests, that cannot
be transversed given the ways in which practice is currently constituted. Jeyasingham’s (2011:
14) case for a more sophisticated deployment of the insights Whiteness analysis based on how
Whiteness is performed pushes us forward a little:
A focus on performativity enables us to examine how whiteness is constituted through

sanctioned practices and statements about racialized issues that make sense in particular
social contexts of social work education.
This type of critical intervention would circumvent the very paradox Jeffrey (2005) poses
by exposing the processes that construct the ‘desired subject’ within social work practice: the
‘masterful, white, all-knowing, all-consuming subject’ (2005: 424) that is the default ‘good social
worker’.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) also turns on an examination of social processes that pro-
duce racialized identities and perpetuate and sustain racial inequality. CRT’s critique of liberal
models of understanding race and racism point to the ways in which these approaches main-
tain and defend the status quo. A number of scholars have argued for the incorporation of
CRT principles and pedagogy as a transformative model for teaching diversity in social work
(inter alia Razack & Jeffrey, 2002; Gillborn, 2006; Abrams & Moio, 2009; Oritz & Jani, 2010;
Constance-Huggins, 2012). CRT offers a comprehensive paradigm that engages not simply
with the formal curriculum but requires attention to the social and institutional contexts in
which knowledge is produced and enacted. Although diverse in its disciplinary and theoretical
applications, CRT incorporates six basic assumptions: that race is a social construction; that rac-
ism is endemic in social life; that racism is complex and shifting in its application to particular
groups of people; that racism accrues particular material and psychic advantages to the powerful
and often apparently neutral majority; that historical accounts routinely occlude the voice of
the oppressed and engaging these narratives challenges liberal claims to neutrality and universal
truths; that there is a need to move beyond essentialized interpretations of racial identity to
a consideration of the intersectionalities of oppression. CRT has undoubtedly advanced the
debate in social work education, pointing to the limitations of approaches that essentialize and
categorize racial groups and to the ways in which more static interpretations of individuals’ social
positioning disregard the complex, relational and changing nature of racisms in society. Razack
and Jeffrey (2002) usefully extend the CRT model, arguing for a consideration of transnational
and globalized understandings of race and racialized relations within and between societies to
accommodate a consideration of those displaced and migrated either voluntarily or by force.
CRT demands a deep interrogation of the curriculum in terms of the ways knowledges
are built and sustained within power relations; it demands a consideration of institutional
20
arrangements that regulate and set the norms of interaction and valorize some contributions
over others; and it locates and advances the voice and agency of the oppressed minority in edu-
cative processes. It is, in Oritz and Jani’s terms, ‘a Transformational model’ for social work education
(2010: 175). They argue:
Effective teaching of diversity in the profession requires an examination of social struc-

tures, institutions and ways of knowing and being.
(Ortiz & Jani, 2010: 190)
These ‘decolonising’ (Bennet et al., 2013) or transformative methodologies (Williams, 1998) that
disturb the taken for granted frames of reference have far-reaching implications for social work
education, in terms of curriculum content (Oritz & Jani, 2010), in terms of pedagogic strategies
(Lee & Greene, 2003) and the assessment of students’ work – both academic and practicum
(Abrams & Moio, 2009) being largely incongruent with the idea of measuring the competency
of individual students.They postulate critical exploration of institutional design and governance.
They raise questions about where the responsibility lies for diversity teaching (Wagner, 2005;
Gollan & O’Leary, 2009) and about representation of those from minoritized backgrounds in
staffing profiles and amongst the student body. They confront and unsettle the Anglocentric
academy (Wagner, 2005) in far-reaching ways. Learning and teaching in anti-racism is a political
project and necessarily goes against the grain of liberal democratic higher education institutions
that valorize apolitical, neutral and rational knowledge based on notions of objectivity, detach-
ment and truths. Anti-racist pedagogy deviates from this norm and therefore of necessity opens
up spaces of contestation, conflict, risk and struggles over power relations that are deeply estab-
lished and embedded in the hierarchical structures of the academy. These strategies will inevita-
bly encounter resistance and hostilities and provoke the deployment of a plethora of strategies
of denial and avoidance, including the retreat to what is comfortable and known. Teaching and
learning in race equality is imbued with emotional and affective content and more latterly work
has been done on exploring students’ experiences of resistance and how this can be used as a
critical tool for learning in pedagogic practice (Wagner, 2005). Storytelling, counter storytelling
and narratives of lived realities are also being used as powerful tools for change in transformative
learning and teaching (Hollingsworth, 2012).
A tension clearly exists between those who would argue for pragmatism and the know-how
of competency-based approaches, focussing on standardized and measurable prescriptions for
skill development, and those who would argue for moral, political and transformative ped-
agogies that reject tool kits, orthodoxies and blueprints in favour of complexity and critical
reflexivity (Patni, 2006). Gorski (2008: 521), writing in the US, rallies against the ‘culture of
pragmatism’ that constrains deep analysis and sustainable action, and Pon (2009: 68) talks about
the ‘rush to application’ that drives the agenda towards formulas, checklists and practice alerts.
Working through the challenges of anti-racist learning and action cannot be reduced to a set
of prescriptions, but that does not mean we should abandon attempts to systemize critical
approaches and concepts.
This raises the question of what it is we are trying to measure. Researchers have attempted to
capture the ways in which students incorporate the tenets of anti-racist practice and social justice
considerations in their work (Heron, 2004; Collins & Wilkie, 2010). Scholars have considered
the interpretations incorporated by practitioners post qualifying and the ways in which learning
in anti-racism can be sustained in practice in an area where there are no widely accepted bench-
marks or performance indicators (Williams & Soydan, 2005; Harrison & Turner, 2011; Nadan &
Ben-Ari, 2013; Hair, 2014). Other outcomes focus on student experience, via the recruitment,
21
Charlotte Williams
retention and progression of minority students in social work education (Bernard et al., 2011)
or the qualitative experiences of minority students and staff within the academy and assessments
of the ethos conducive to anti-racist learning and teaching (see for example Hosken, 2010). Too
little attention has been paid in the research to thinking about field education and the experi-
ences of diverse and racialized students (Razack, 2001), in particular how this constrains rather
than opens up opportunities for them, often replicating and reproducing labour market discrim-
inations. And too little attention is paid to service user accounts as a key measure of outcomes.
Discussion and future challenges

It is possible to identify both progressive and regressive trajectories in advancing race equality
in social work education, some relating to the opportunities and limits of the theoretical and
conceptual apparatus, some that relate to institutional processes, some based on experiential
accounts and some that relate to the wider political context of this work. A number of chal-
lenges remain firmly on the agenda of social work education: the challenge of developing
pedagogies attuned to responding inclusively to an increasingly diverse student body; con-
cerns about the impact and efficacy of models in use; and concerns about recruitment and
progression of minority students, about representation of minority staff in the academy and
other aspects of institutional discrimination. Alongside this there are the wider challenges
posed by the political dynamic of racialized relations as constituted in different places at dif-
ferent times.
The wind blows in many directions. In arguing for the move beyond the default strategy of
cultural pluralist models that embody static and essentialist interpretations of race and culture,
some would argue we have lost an essential dimension in the social work encounter. Social
reformist models have also been found wanting in terms of the binaries they purport and their
presumption of the political mandate, to the extent that they may not be as liberationary or
as progressive as their rhetoric proclaims. Postmodern approaches too have been criticized for
losing sight of the target of race equality in their preoccupation with stories, positionalities
and identities. Accordingly, Nadan and Ben-Ari (2013) suggest inverting the directional pull of
theory to practice towards a bottom-up ‘from reality’ directionality in order to promote congru-
ency between the theoretical and the practical realities. Those like Jeffrey (2005), for example,
argue that radical anti-racist strategies ill fit the practice models attendant on the world of prac-
tice and would point to the ways in which these efforts easily fall into attrition. As long as ‘doing
is as per usual’, Jeffrey (2005: 425) argues, we will be caught in this irreconcilable bind. This is
clearly part of the story.We need to understand the social, cultural and organizational contexts in
which practitioners work if students are to be better prepared to engage in critical and reflexive
practice with difference and diversity. Focussing on the dynamics of service delivery and the
interstices of professional/worker–client relationships is fundamental to this. The literature is
light in this respect. How is culture deployed, mobilized and articulated by service users, and
how is it framed by professionals and organizations in interaction? How do cultural and racial
attributes shape service user worlds and the articulation and acknowledgement of their needs?
How are lived experiences shaping the ‘theoretical given’ of social work approaches to diversity?
Reflexivity in practice is required of students that takes them beyond formula and engages with
the dynamic of socio-political and organizational contexts. Giving greater emphasis to ethical
dilemmas, value conflicts, competing knowledges and the complexities of the practice world
would make way for the incorporation of transformative practices and indeed make more trans-
parent the basis and consequences of the presumption of the professional mandate to pursue
race equality and social justice.
22
It is still the case that too little of the debate engages with the role that minority service users,
minority organizations and activists can have in social work education. It is as though their voice
and agency have been usurped by the academy in signalling what should be the nature of the
response to ethnic and racial diversity. How far and in what ways is the design and delivery of
the program reflective of engagement with minority organizations and service users, and what is
their role in setting the agenda for the curriculum and the agenda for change? User-led models
of student education which valorize the status of subjective knowledges, agency and histories in
their participatory and dialogic orientation take us in this direction.This implies greater engage-
ment with the resource that is minority organizations via new partnerships and collaborations
between the academy and practice.
That said, minority ethnic groups are not the easy categories they may once have been
and defy the us/them, oppressor/oppressed binaries that have featured so large in social work
education approaches and practice in earlier decades. The role of subjectivities, complex and
intersecting identities, movement and change play out in an understanding of contemporary
diversity in ways that may run counter to strategic alliances for political change. Engagement
with more sophisticated models that move beyond us/them dichotomies are evident in the
literature, and students are encouraged to consider the intersectionality and varied status and
identities they occupy in relational rather than embodied ways. The postmodern turn has its
downside, however, and the strategic political import of category is fundamental to anti-racist
collective mobilization, not least in terms of the salience and affective nature of these issues.
Whilst there is a need for more critical engagement with concepts such as superdiversity (see
Boccagni, 2015) and what this implies both for the social work response to the diversity and for
transformation within the academy, the challenge will be to hold fast the import of category
both for consciousness raising and for political mobilization (Freire, 1970). It is easy to see how
discourses of diversity and superdiversity can be deployed to defuse this potential.
The rapidly changing demographic in social work education programs is itself a reflection
of the internal superdiversity of social work education. Now those from diverse minority ethnic
backgrounds include minority students from the domestic population, international students,
minority indigenous students, those with refugee status and varying citizen status and more.
The interface between valorizing indigenous knowledges in the curriculum and indigenous
ways of knowing, being and doing (Bennett et al., 2013) are reshaping social work education,
as are the crosscurrents of internationalizing and multiculturalizing content and approaches.
This will pose challenges for social work education, as they are not add-on content but deeply
reshaping teaching and learning and infusing institutional experiences. Exploring ways of
decolonizing the curriculum, opening up assessment strategies and engaging with competing
knowledges will unsettle the academy in a variety of ways. More sophisticated attention will
need to be given to the intersections between these concerns, their similarities and their points
of divergence and the place of anti-racist strategies within them (inter alia Walter, Taylor, &
Habibis, 2011).
Education is a contested space, a space of struggle and conflict over power, where deep
learning can arise in the examination of these processes of change. Anti-racist and decolonizing
strategies demand curiosity, discomfort and risk. Students need to be supported to acknowledge
these dimensions of anti-racist effort and supported to overcome their fears towards the devel-
opment of a critical consciousness. Teaching and learning strategies need to empower all stu-
dents in the partnership that is learning without replicating unhelpful binaries. Challenging the
dominant norms of the academy and the bureaucracy will produce resistance in the protection
of powerful interests. Forging collaborations and alliances with wider movements for change
in working to transform institutions to produce more inclusive educational strategies, greater
23
Charlotte Williams
recruitment and retention of minority staff, equality of opportunity strategies and the tackling
of institutional racism will become increasingly important.
Challenges remain about how to evaluate learning and the efficacy of various models in use
( Jani et al., 2011) in making an impact on racial equality. The shift towards more postmodern
and less structured and quantifiable elements of learning (i.e. beyond competency) make it
difficult to define evidence of students’ performance in this respect. Indeed, the paradox is: the
greater the complexities of the dynamic of racial and ethnic diversity and the intersectionalities
with other forms of oppression, the easier it is for both staff and students to elide a focus on
racial disparities, racialized stigma and devaluation and the significance and import of ‘race’ in
individual subjectivities. In many countries, particularly in Europe, the backlash against state
multiculturalism and the disavowal of race continues to make it difficult for educators to fore-
ground concern with racial inequality. Keeping these concerns visible and live on the agenda of
social work education is in no small measure a task for the future.
The aim is to develop confident and critically reflective students with an awareness that
working for race equality requires continuous reflection and continuous professional develop-
ment (Hair, 2014). Multiculturalism is not a transient situation but a fact of contemporary life,
and the continued racialization of particular groups remains an inbuilt feature of this diversity.
Racism is everywhere present and mobilized in new and complex ways. This may mean that
the search for universalizing strategies and standardized responses to multicultural education
are misplaced. The challenge is to seek richer explanations, develop flexible skills in negotiating
diversity, and hone a critical lens to the changing policy context and to the oppressive effects of
national discourses of diversity. Students need to be equipped to explore power relations and the
processes and dynamics of oppression, to critically debate discourses of difference and diversity
and contextualize these against historical antecedents and the local, national and global relations
of race.There can be no better concept to capture this ambition than bell hooks’ plea for ‘teaching
to transgress’ (hooks, 1994).
References
Abrams, L., & Gibson, P. (2007). Reframing multicultural education: Teaching white privilege in the social
work curriculum. Journal of Social Work Education, 43(1), 147–160.
Abrams, L., & Moio, J. A. (2009). Critical race theory and the cultural competence dilemma in social work
education. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(2), 245–261.
Ben-Ari, A., & Strier, R. (2010). Rethinking cultural competence:What can we learn from Levinas? British
Journal of Social Work, 40(7), 2155–2167.
Bennett, B., Green, S., Gilber, S., & Bessarab, D. (2013). Our voices: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social
work. Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan.
Beresford, P., & Wilson, A. (2000). Anti-oppressive practice, emancipation or appropriation. British Journal
of Social Work, 30(5), 553–573.
Bernard, C., Fairtlough A., Fletcher J., & Ahmet A. (2011). Diversity and progression among social work
students in England, Goldsmith University. Available at www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policyinstitute/scwru/
dhinitiative/projects/bernardetal2011diversityfinalreport.pdf.
Boccagni, P. (2015). (Super) diversity and the migration-social work nexus: A new lens on the field of access
and inclusion? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(4), 608–620.
Cheetham, J. (1972). Social work with immigrants. London: Routledge, Kegan, Paul.
Collins, S., & Wilkie, L. (2010). Anti-oppressive practice and social work students’ portfolios in Scotland.
Constance-Huggins, M. (2011). A review of the racial biases of social welfare policies. Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment, 21(8), 871–887.
Constance-Huggins, M. (2012). Critical race theory in social work education: A framework for addressing
racial disparities. Critical Social Work, 13(2), 1–16.
24
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (Eds.) (1997). Critical white studies: Looking behind the mirror. Philadelphia:Temple
University Press.
Devore W., & Schlesinger G. (1999). Ethnic-sensitive social work practice (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dominelli, L. (1997). Anti-racist social work (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Gillborn, D. (2006). Critical race theory and education: Racism and anti-racism in educational theory and
praxis. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27(1), 11–32.
Gollan, S., & O’Leary, P. J. (2009). Teaching culturally competent social work practice through black and
white pedagogical partnerships. Social Work Education, 28(7), 707–721.
Gorski, P. C. (2008). Good intentions are not enough: A decolonizing intercultural education. Intercultural
Education 19(6), 515–525.
Graham, M. (2009). Reframing black perspectives in social work: New directions? Social Work Education,
28(3), 268–280.
Hair, H. J. (2014). Supervision conversations about social justice and social work practice. Journal of Social
Work. doi:10.1177/1468017314539082
Harrison, G., & Turner, R. (2011). Being a ‘culturally competent’ social worker: Making sense of a murky
concept in practice. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 333–350.
Heron, G. (2004). Evidencing anti-racism in student assignments:Where has all the racism gone? Qualitative
Social Work, 3(3), 277–295.
Hollinsworth, D. (2006). Race and racism in Australia (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Cengage Learning.
Hollinsworth, D. (2012). Forget cultural competency; Ask for an autobiography. Social work education iFirst
article, 32(8), 1048–1060.
hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. London: Routledge.
Hosken, N. (2010). Social work and welfare education without discrimination. Are we there yet? Practice
Reflexions, 5(1) 3–16.
Jani, J. S., Ortiz, L., Pierce, D., & Sowbel, L. (2011). Access to intersectionality, content to competence:
Deconstructing social work education diversity standards. Journal of Social Work Education, 47(2), 283–301.
Jeffery, D. (2005). What good is anti-racist social work if you can’t master it?: Exploring the paradox in
anti-racist social work education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(4), 409–425.
Jeyasingham, D. (2011). White noise: A critical evaluation of social work education’s engagement with
whiteness studies. British Journal of Social Work, 42(4):669–686.
Laird, S. (2008). Anti-oppressive social work: A guide for developing cultural competence. London: Sage.
Lavallette, M., & Penketh, L. (Eds.) (2013). Race, racism and social work: Contemporary issues and debates. Bristol:
Policy Press.
Lee, M.Y., & Greene, G. J. (2003). Teaching framework for transformative multicultural social work educa-
tion. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 12(3), 1–28.
Lum, D. (Ed.) (2003). Culturally competent practice: A framework for understanding diverse groups and justice issues.
Toronto, ON: Brooks/Cole.
MacIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack working paper 189. White privilege and
male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women’s studies. Welles-
ley College: Centre for Research on Women. Available at www.iub.edu/~tchsotl/part2/McIntosh%20
White%20Privilege.pdf [Accessed 12 August 2015].
Millar, M. (2008). ‘Anti-oppressiveness’: Critical comments on a discourse and its context. British Journal of
Social Work, 38(2), 362–375.
Mullard, C. (1988). Racism, ethnicism and etharchy or not? In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & J. Cummins (Eds.),
Minority education: From shame to struggle (pp. 359–394). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Nadan,Y., & Ben-Ari, A. (2013). What can we learn from rethinking ‘multiculturalism’ in social work edu-
cation? Social Work Education, 32(8), 1089–1102.
Nyland, D. (2006). Critical multiculturalism, whiteness and social work. Journal of Progressive Human Services,
17(2), 27–42.
Ortiz, L., & Jani, J. (2010). Critical race theory: A transformational model for teaching diversity. Journal of
Parrott, L. (2009) Constructive marginality: Conflicts and dilemmas in cultural competence and anti-
oppressive practice. Social Work Education, 28(6), 617–630.
Patni, R. (2006). Race-specific vs. culturally competent social workers: The debates and dilemmas around
pursuing essentialist or multicultural social work practice. Journal of Social Work Practice, 20(2), 163–174.
Pease, B. (2010). Undoing privilege: Unearned advantage in a divided world. London: Zed Books.
25
Charlotte Williams
Pon, G. (2009). Cultural competency as new racism: An ontology of forgetting. Journal of Progressive Human
Services, 20, 59–71.
Potocky, M. (1997). Multicultural social work in the United States: A review and critique. International Social
Work, 40, 315–326.
Razack, N. (2001). Diversity and difference in the field education encounter: Racial minority students in
the practicum. Social Work Education 20(2), 219–232.
Razack, N., & Jeffery, D. (2002). Critical race discourse and tenets for social work. Canadian Social Work
Review, 19(2), 257–271.
Reisch M. (2008). From melting pot to multiculturalism:The impact of racial and ethnic diversity on social
work and social justice in the United States. British Journal of Social Work, 38(4), 788–804.
Sakamoto, I., & Pitner, R. O. (2005). Use of critical consciousness in anti-oppressive social work practice:
Disentangling power dynamics at personal and structural levels. British Journal of Social Work, 35(4),
435–452.
Thompson, N. (2001). Anti-discriminatory practice (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thompson, N. (2006). Anti-discriminatory practice (4th ed.). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Vertovec, S. (2007). Superdiversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054.
Wagner, A. (2005). Unsettling the academy: Working through the challenges of anti-racist pedagogy. Race
Ethnicity and Education, 8(3), 261–275.
Walter, M., Taylor, S., & Habibis, D. (2011). How white is social work in Australia? Australian Social Work,
64(1), 6–19.
Williams, C. (1998). Towards an emancipatory pedagogy? Social work education for a multicultural, mul-
ti-ethnic Europe. In C. Williams, H. Soydan, & M. Johnson (Eds.), Social work and minorities: European
perspectives (pp. 211–230). London: Routledge.
Williams, C., & Graham, M. (Eds). (2012). Social work in Europe: Race and ethnic relations. London: Sage.
Williams, C., & Johnson, M. (2010). Professionalism and cultural competence. In C.Williams, & M. Johnson
(Eds.), Race and ethnicity in a welfare society (pp. 163–177). Berkshire: Open University Press.
Williams, C., & Parrott, L. (2013). From specialism to genericism: Rising and falling to the challenges of
responding to racial and ethnic diversity in social work education in Wales. British Journal of Social Work,
43(6), 1206–1224.
Williams, C., & Soydan, H. (2005). When and how does ethnicity matter? A cross-national study of social
work responses to ethnicity in child protection cases. British Journal of Social Work, 35(6), 901–920.
26
3
UNDERSTANDING AND
ASSESSING COMPETENCE
Challenges associated with the competency-based
approach to social work education
The shift to competency-based education in US higher education

Competency-based education (CBE) refers to educational programs designed to ensure that
students achieve competence in a given field or training activity (Institute of Medicine, 2003).
CBE is considered an approach to learning that includes educational goals that contain meas-
urable objectives, that focuses on attainment of knowledge, attitudes, values, skills, and behav-
iors through an active learning environment (Grant et al., 1979). A CBE program includes an
emphasis on outcomes and multiple assessment measures of student learning across the curric-
ulum (Hall & Jones, 1976). CBE is not a new concept, as its history can be traced back to the
early 1920s. It is widely agreed that CBE roots are in teacher education and CBE is linked to
ideas of educational reform (Tuxworth, 1989). CBE has begun to gain more prominence as
US higher education has shifted to a focus on student learning outcomes rather than what is
being taught in the curriculum. This past decade has witnessed an increasing emphasis on the
assessment of educational outcomes in higher education as the public and policymakers call for
increased transparency and accountability (US Department of Education, 2006). The shift to a
competency-centered, outcomes-based approach to accreditation and the emphasis for accred-
itors to focus their standards on assessing the degree to which institutions and programs are
creating a skilled, competent, and globally competitive workforce have also contributed to this
trend (CoArc, 2012). This shift is also noted in the regional organizations that accredit Amer-
ican institutions of higher education as well as in the specialized and professional accrediting
organizations such as those that accredit educational programs in nursing, medicine, or law. In
the context of accreditation, competencies can be used to articulate what students are expected
to know and do upon graduation rather than what they are expected to learn about (CoArc,
2012; Holloway, 2013).
The six regional accrediting organizations in the US that accredit institutions as a whole,
along with specialized and professional accreditors that focus on disciplines, have traditionally
focused on the inputs and processes (e.g. governance structure, admissions, faculty credentials,
libraries) rather than on student learning outcomes. When accreditors addressed student learn-
ing, they would focus on such issues as what courses students are taking and grading proce-
dures and not on what a student is actually learning. For accreditors, this situation changed
27
dramatically in 1998 when then US Secretary of Education William Bennett issued an executive
order requiring that higher education accrediting agencies recognized by the Department of
Education (DOE) collect information about student learning as part of the accreditation pro-
cess. Following this order, amendments to the Higher Education Act made it law that accred-
iting agencies must evaluate an institution or program on how well they assess the quality of
education provided (Higher Education Amendments, 1998).The Council for Higher Education
Accreditation (CHEA), the non-governmental higher education organization in the US which
recognizes institutional and programmatic accrediting organizations, published a set of state-
ments to emphasize high expectations for student achievement (CHEA, 2003). The Association
of Specialized and Professional Accreditors (ASPA) also asked professional accreditors to focus
on student development of knowledge and competence (Banta, 2001).
This focus on student learning outcomes led to a shift in what accreditors and other stakeholders
look for in judging the effectiveness of educational programs (Gruppen, Mangrulkar, & Colars,
2010). Accreditors, particularly those in health-related disciplines, started to use a competency-
based approach to emphasize outcomes. Competency-based education further evolved in the
US as the Pew Commission and Institute of Medicine (IOM) were focusing on how health
professions programs could “realign training and education to be more consistent with the
changing needs of the care delivery system” in the early 1990s. In the US, the Institute of Med-
icine (IOM) is a division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
which represent private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and
advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to
science, technology, and medicine (Institute of Medicine, 2015). The Pew Charitable Trusts is
also an independent nonprofit organization that funded the Pew Commission on the Health
Professions to develop competencies needed across the health professions. The work of both of
these private organizations focused on the changing health care delivery system contributed to
the development of competency-based approaches in education (CoArc, 2012).
In response to the recommendations and guidelines from the Pew Commission, IOM,
CHEA, and DOE, many accreditors, particularly in the health professions, enacted significant
changes to their accreditation standards and review processes to increase the emphasis on student
learning outcomes (Ewell, 2001). The past five years have seen acceleration in the development
of competencies and review processes for health disciplines such as dentistry, health care man-
agement, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, physician assistant, athletic training, health information
management, occupational therapy, physical therapy, dietetics, acupuncture and oriental medi-
cine, nuclear medicine technology, and public health. All of these professions currently require
that core and/or specific competencies be achieved as stated in their respective accreditation
documents, or alternately require individual programs to develop, implement, and document
their own individualized competencies. In these disciplines, the development of competen-
cies for the profession were often guided by the professional association or accrediting body.
Once competencies were defined by each profession and performance on these competencies
evaluated, CBE requires clearly specified performance criteria on these assessments that enable
faculty and other stakeholders to judge that the student has reached the minimal level of perfor-
mance that qualifies as “competent” (CoArc, 2012).
The determination of academic quality by these health discipline accreditors is an assessment
of how an institution or program demonstrates competency of their graduates. Many professions
have defined competence for their profession. The term “competence” is used interchangeably
with expected learning outcomes (Banta, 2001). The National Postsecondary Education Coop-
erative (NPEC) Competency-Based Initiatives Working Group developed criteria to ensure
a student has attained competence: a description of the competency, a way to measure the
28
Understanding and assessing competence
competency, and a standard by which the student is judged as competent (US Department of
Education, 2002). The Institute of Medicine (2003) defines a competency as “the identified
knowledge, ability, or expertise in a specific subject area or skill set that is shared across the health
professions” (Institute of Medicine, 2003: 24). The term “competency” has also been associated
outside the classroom as skills considered necessary to perform a specific job or service (Kelly-
Thomas, 1998). The Council for Higher Education Accreditation defines student learning out-
comes “in terms of the knowledge, skills, and abilities that a student has attained at the end (or as
a result) of his or her engagement in a particular set of higher education experiences” (CHEA,
2006: 1). Regardless of how competency is defined, accreditors focus on how programs are
expected to evaluate the extent to which the competencies or expected learning outcomes have
been met through the curriculum developed.
Statements of intended learning outcomes or competencies provide the foundation for assess-
ment in higher education institutions and programs.These statements identify what is important
for learning and guide decisions about instruction. They also provide statements to the public
about the competencies expected of program graduates by employers, and they inform students
about the aims of higher education, what is important and expected of them and what skills are
needed for employment (Diamond, 1998; Huba & Freed, 2000).
What the evidence says about assessing competency

The competency-based literature has identified a number of studies in disciplines that focus
on how to assess competence in higher education. Palomba & Banta (2001) detail some of
the pioneering work on the practice of assessment within eight professionally oriented disci-
plines. The CoArc Report on Competency-Based Education (2012) provides a summary of the
approaches to competency-based education in 15 health professions and details the competen-
cies and standards by each profession and their respective accrediting agencies. However, it does
not discuss how these professions assess competency.
Although each discipline is unique, there does appear to be some similarities across disci-
plines in assessing competency. These disciplines include explicit statements of competencies,
multiple approaches to assessment measures, and involvement of faculty and other stakehold-
ers. The explicit statements of competency include skills at both the generalist and specialist
level and competencies expected by employers such as communication and critical thinking.
Competencies are also focused on lifelong learning skills that include appropriate attitudes
and values that allow students to build their skills over time. Performance assessment is also
used extensively to evaluate competence, particularly in professional fields. Faculty use direct
measures that demonstrate learning along with indirect measures that focus on reflections about
learning. Opportunities for active learning experiences and field experiences can be utilized to
assess competence. All of the accrediting bodies for each of these disciplines expect their insti-
tutions and programs to assess particular competencies at both the general education level and
discipline-specific skills and implicitly encourage them to respond to the needs of their employ-
ers. All of the disciplines reviewed emphasize the role that assessment plays in improving student
learning and the accreditation process focus on continuous improvement (Palomba, 2001).
The implications of a competency-based approach for assessment are quite profound. This
approach allows flexibility in how programs shape their curricula and assess competence. This
stands in sharp contrast to the historic approach which mandated specified content and assess-
ment procedures.This approach also shifts responsibility for curriculum design from the dictates
of the accreditation standards and allows for less prescription. The old system was directed by
accreditation standards that prescribed what to teach and assess. Now, in contrast, the only
29
requirement in competency-based education is demonstrating student mastery of a set of com-

petencies (Holloway, Black, Hoffman, & Pierce, 2008).
Competency-based education has increasingly become the preferred mode of curriculum
design and assessment for other professions, but it did not constitute a particularly compel-
ling reason for social work to make a shift. However, given that the competency-based model
enhanced the transparency of other professions and elevated its accountability for expected
outcomes, social work began to consider CBE. The development of a set of competencies in
other professions clearly informed the public about what a professional in that discipline would
be expected to know how to do.These elements of transparency and accountability played a role
in the shift to competency-based education for social work, and the process for adopting this
model for social work education is detailed next.
Rationale for adopting the competency-based

approach in social work
The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Commission on Accreditation is the sole
accreditor for social work education in the US and its territories. CSWE’s Commission on
Educational Policy is the formal structure that is charged with preparing a statement of social
work educational policy that informs social work education. Specifically, the CSWE bylaws
state:
The Commission on Educational Policy shall prepare, at periodic intervals not to

exceed 7 years, a statement of social work educational policy to encourage excel-
lence and innovation in the preparation of social work practitioners in educational
programs. The educational policy shall be used by the Commission on Accreditation
in formulating and revising accreditation standards. In performing this function, the
Commission shall identify and analyze developments in social work curricula; research
about field education and practice methods and specializations; and information about
educational innovations within social work education.
(CSWE, 2015a)
From its earliest iterations and similar to other professions, this statement of educational pol-
icy has considered curriculum design from a content perspective. The educational policy speci-
fied the academic content required for the preparation of professional social workers, while the
associated accreditation standards provided the expectations for the delivery of that content, as
well as the structure of educational programs. As knowledge within the profession grew, existing
content areas were revised and new content areas were added in attempts to reflect the knowl-
edge, values, and skills considered essential for professional social work practice.Yet by the begin-
ning of the twenty-first century, there was growing awareness within social work education that
there was little basis on which these required content areas were determined, and no certainty
that these required content areas were reflective of the actual content necessary for competent
and ethical social work practice. Further, as specification of required content areas grew and
accreditation standards regarding the delivery of this content expanded, programs were left with
little room for innovation and few possibilities for designing a curriculum that was responsive
to current and emerging issues within their context. These concerns, as well as growing focus
on outcomes in higher education, led to new considerations in the development of the 2008
Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards and the resulting shift to a competency-based
approach to social work education (Holloway et al., 2008).
30
The competency-based approach in the 2008 educational

policy and accreditation standards
Following the release of the 2001 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards, which
continued the content-based approach, the Commission on Educational Policy (COEP) was
charged with gathering data on the contemporary circumstances of the profession and devel-
oping a revitalized and future-oriented educational policy that would promote dynamic and
innovative curricula for competent and ethical social work practice. To implement this, COEP
conducted a number of activities, including an environmental scan of current and emerging
issues facing the profession, a survey of Deans and Directors of accredited social work programs,
a review of the accreditation approaches of 65 other professions and disciplines, and a review
of the educational policies and standards of social work accreditors in other countries. The data
collected from these activities resulted in a number of themes that guided the development of
the 2008 Educational Policy, including:
1 The need to specify the practice domain of the profession: Social work has his-
torically been challenged in defining the essential elements and parameters of social work
practice and distinguishing how these differ from other professions. Defining a specific set
of practice competencies in which the public can expect social workers to be proficient was
deemed essential for sustainability of the profession.
2 The need to enhance program flexibility: The content-based approach used in prior
educational policies allowed little room for flexibility in curriculum development.The em-
phasis on specification of the practice domain of social work was viewed as a mechanism
to shift the focus from required content to practice competencies, thus allowing programs
more flexibility in developing curricula to prepare students for professional practice.
3 Accountability through assessment: With increased flexibility in curriculum design,
there was a resulting need to ensure a measure of comparability across programs. This
comparability would be achieved through specification of the practice competencies and
standards for assessment in the measurement of these competencies.
The resulting Educational Policy adopted by CSWE in 2008 represented a fundamentally

new approach to the design of social work curricula through the adoption of a competency-
based approach to social work education (CSWE, 2008). As in related health and human service
professions, the policy moved from a model of curriculum design focused on content (what
students should be taught) and structure (the format and organization of educational compo-
nents) to one focused on student learning outcomes. Thus, the competency-based approach
focuses on identifying and assessing what students demonstrate in practice. Rather than man-
dating the academic content that social work programs must provide, the policy specified ten
competencies of professional social work practice that include a set of measurable practice
behaviors. The competency-based approach involves assessing students’ ability to demonstrate
these competencies and practice behaviors in practice situations.
This represented a shift from an “input” orientation to curriculum design to an “outcomes”
orientation. Through this orientation, programs begin the process of curriculum design with
the outcomes, expressed as the competencies and practice behaviors, and then develop the
substantive content, pedagogical approach, and educational activities that provide the learning
opportunities necessary to develop competence.
As in other professional disciplines, the competency-based approach was deemed particu-
larly appropriate for social work since, rather than breadth of knowledge as the indicator of
31
preparation as is the case in certain academic disciplines, competence is the necessary indicator
of effective preparation for social work practice. Although the Educational Policy did not define
“competence,” Holloway et al. (2008) later defined competence in social work as a “threshold
concept,” stating that “in demonstrating competence one crosses the threshold separating the
novice from the competent practitioner” (p. 2). They further clarify that competence does not
demonstrate expertise but rather represents attainment of the knowledge and skills necessary for
entry-level practice and the beginning of a career of lifelong learning.
Although the policy did not define the notion of competence, the competencies specified in the
policy were defined as “measurable practice behaviors that are comprised of knowledge, values,
and skills” (EP 2.1). These practice behaviors were intended to operationalize the competency
as well as to inform curriculum development and assessment. However, the policy provided
flexibility in the use of the practice behaviors as specified in the competencies, stating, “The
ten core competencies are listed below, followed by a description of characteristic knowledge,
values, skills and the resulting practice behaviors that may be used to operationalize the curricu-
lum and assessment methods” (EP 2.1). Thus, programs had flexibility in modifying the practice
behaviors to reflect their program’s focus or context, although it was later clarified that these
modifications must “retain the essential meanings” (Holloway, 2013: 4) of the practice behaviors
specified in the policy. Regarding these modifications, Holloway et al. (2008) state, “Clearly
those developing the new EPAS were reluctant to assert that they had identified the defini-
tive set of contributing practice behaviors for each competency and therefore introduced the
options of adaptation and elaboration” (p. 3).
In addition to allowing modifications to the practice behaviors, the policy did not require
that practice behaviors be used for assessment purposes. However, the accompanying Accred-
itation Standards did specify this by stating, “The plan [for assessment] specifies procedures,
multiple measures of each practice behavior, and benchmarks employed to assess the attain-
ment of each of the program’s competencies” (AS 4.0). Thus, programs were required to
measure each practice behavior as indicators of competence. However, as also indicated in AS
4.0, programs were directed to identify benchmarks to assess attainment of each of the pro-
gram’s competencies, not attainment of the practice behaviors themselves. It was later clarified
that although measurement took place at the level of the practice behavior, determination
of whether or not the assessment benchmark is met occurs at the level of the competency.
In other words, programs were to use data from measurement of the practice behaviors
and aggregate this data to the level of the competency to determine if the benchmark was
achieved. Yet although this was clarified, the requirement of measuring discrete practice
behaviors in EPAS 2008 led to unintended consequences that informed the development of
the Educational Policy for 2015.
The competency-based approach in 2015 and the

shift to holistic competence
Following the release of the 2008 EPAS, which introduced the competency-based approach to
social work education, the COEP, in collaboration with the Commission on Accreditation, was
charged with gathering data regarding the experience of programs in implementing EPAS 2008
and identifying issues in need of attention to inform the development of EPAS 2015. Specific
questions that were identified to guide this process included: 1) Does the 2008 EPAS allow
programs to respond to the current educational, social, economic, and political environment?
2) Are social work students being prepared to work effectively with individuals, families, groups,
organizations, and communities? 3) What assessment issues and challenges have emerged for
32
social work programs? and 4) What are the emerging areas of practice in social work, and how
can we prepare students to address them?
To answer these questions, a number of activities were conducted, including:
a) Environmental scanning of political and economic factors that influence social work edu-
cation domestically and globally.
b) Focus group interviews with faculty and administrators at national conferences to gather
formative information on their experiences with EP 2008.
c) National survey of programs to identify the strengths and limitations associated with imple-
mentation of EP 2008.
d) Review of data from program self-studies submitted to the Commission on Accreditation.
e) Annual sessions at the CSWE Annual Program Meeting to seek formative input from
constituents regarding their experiences with implementation of EP 2008 and recommen-
dations for EP 2015.
f) Meetings with CSWE Councils and Commissions to gather input regarding specific con-
cerns or areas for improvement related the EP.
g) Review and analysis of literature and standards from other professional disciplines to iden-
tify trends and issues in Competency-Based Education.
h) Review and analysis of the 2008 competencies and their component practice behaviors to
identify areas of redundancy and needs for improvement to ensure they are clear and measurable.
Using the data collected in this process, a number of changes were made to address the iden-
tified challenges and facilitate implementation. Changes were also made to the competencies
and practice behaviors to reflect emerging areas in social work practice. However, a lingering
issue remained regarding the emphasis on practice behaviors that required several draft iterations
of the policy and feedback from programs to address. Early in this process, it became clear that
although programs largely endorsed the use of the competency-based approach, the emphasis
on measurement of practice behaviors made implementation of this approach challenging. Spe-
cifically, constituents reported that there were too many practice behaviors, many of them were
difficult to measure, and the overall assessment and measurement requirements had become
overly burdensome. In initial attempts to address this, efforts focused on reducing the number
of practice behaviors and ensuring they were measureable. Initial drafts of the EP also proposed
mandating the specific practice behaviors identified in the competencies rather than allowing
modifications in an attempt to ensure a “minimum threshold” for competence. However, this
raised additional concerns, as it was believed this would add to what was already viewed as an
overly burdensome assessment process.
Yet the discussions raised during this process brought to the surface a larger issue regarding
the focus on practice behaviors that needed to be addressed. Specifically, it became clear that
the emphasis on measurement of practice behaviors as a means of assessing competence was
losing the richness of what the competency descriptions were intended to provide. Although
the competencies were intended to be inclusive of the knowledge, values, and skills required for
professional practice, the emphasis on practice behaviors had reduced assessment to a singular
focus on behavior without an understanding of the content and processes that informed behav-
ior. The risk of this occurring was referenced in early writings about the implications of EPAS
2008, with Holloway et al. (2008) stating,
When we shift our focus from the competency to aspects of its component practice
behaviors we run the risk of losing some of that meaning. Yet our only means of
33
measuring the achievement of the competency is to break it into its component parts.
Should we become overly preoccupied with one or some of these composite parts,
we will in the process lose the essence of the competency. It is precisely because of the
necessity to focus on component parts of the competency for purposes of curriculum
design and measurement on the one hand and the potential that focus holds for distor-
tion on the other that the competency concept holds implicit pitfalls.
(p. 4)
Yet now that this had indeed occurred, the challenge was identifying a strategy to address this
while maintaining the original vision of the competency-based approach. Although the com-
petency-based approach is intended to shift the focus to behavior, can the demonstration of
student learning outcomes in a competency-based approach include more?
To address this, the Educational Policy for 2015 introduced the concept of holistic competence.
In defining this, the policy states,
Social work competence is the ability to integrate and apply social work knowledge,
values, and skills to practice situations in a purposeful, intentional, and professional
manner to promote human and community well-being. EPAS recognizes a holistic
view of competence; that is, the demonstration of competence is informed by knowl-
edge, values, skills, and cognitive and affective processes that include the social worker’s
critical thinking, affective reactions, and exercise of judgment in regard to unique
practice situations. Overall professional competence is multi-dimensional and com-
posed of interrelated competencies. An individual social worker’s competence is seen
as developmental and dynamic, changing over time in relation to continuous learning.
(CSWE, 2015b: 2)
Through this definition, the policy makes clear that competence involves more than discrete
behaviors, but rather is a complex quality that is informed by multiple and interrelated dimen-
sions of learning. This concept is further addressed in the policy on assessment of student learn-
ing outcomes, stating,
Competence is perceived as holistic, involving both performance and the knowledge,

values, critical thinking, affective reactions, and exercise of judgment that inform per-
formance. Assessment therefore must be multi-dimensional and integrated to capture
the demonstration of the competencies and the quality of internal processing inform-
ing the performance of the competencies.
(EP 4.0)
Here the policy specifically references the multidimensional nature of assessment that results
from a view of holistic competence, indicating that assessment must involve more than measure-
ment of behavior. This is further referenced in the following policy statement:
Programs assess students’ demonstration of the Social Work Competencies through the
use of multi-dimensional assessment methods. Assessment methods are developed to
gather data that serve as evidence of student learning outcomes and the demonstration
of competence. Understanding social work practice is complex and multi-dimensional,
the assessment methods used and the data collected may vary by context.
(EP 4.0)
34
In addition to further clarifying the use of multidimensional assessment methods, this pol-
icy statement also represents a fundamental shift away from the emphasis on measurement of
practice behaviors as required in EPAS 2008. Through this statement, the policy shifts the focus
of assessment to the level of the competency rather than the level of the practice behaviors,
allowing programs the flexibility to determine the outcomes they will measure to demonstrate
competence, rather than requiring the measurement of specific behaviors. Thus, assessment of
competence focuses on students’ demonstration of competence in a holistic manner rather than
just on the demonstration of performance through discrete behaviors. By focusing on assess-
ment of holistic competence, the intent is for programs to elevate their assessment to include
assessments of the underlying processes that inform behaviors, including knowledge, values, and
cognitive and affective processes, in addition to measures of behavior.
Challenges for the social work education profession associated

with competency-based education
Shifting social work education from a traditional model of curriculum inputs to a competency-
based model had its challenges. However, the challenges mirrored many issues that other pro-
fessions faced. Lack of familiarity with CBE learning and assessment methods appeared to be
the primary constraint to successful implementation (Calhoun, Wrobel, & Finnegan, 2011). For
most social work faculty and administrators, the CBE model presented a new paradigm shift,
with major challenges to restructuring course curricula and assessment methods. Competing
priorities and overall resistance to change impeded implementation for some programs. While
social work programs, administrators, and faculty found that discussions about expected learn-
ing outcomes and how to achieve competence with their students were the most valuable part
of the assessment process, these conversations were difficult. Since statements of competence
provided the foundation for assessment, these statements also guided decisions about what is
important in instruction. Another challenge to the establishment of a successful CBE model
were deficiencies or absence of assessment methods to determine when competencies have been
achieved (Gruppen, Mangrulkar, & Colars, 2010). Although the revised educational policy and
standards emphasized assessment of student learning, very little guidance was provided on how
to do this kind of assessment practice. Bogo (2010) identifies evaluation as a core concern. In
her book, she states,“The challenge for evaluation of student competence is to develop processes
and methods that effectively capture these various dimensions of competence” (Bogo, 2010: 75).
Key to the assessment of holistic competence is the examination of what constitutes compe-
tence in the areas of performance, judgment, and behavior or conduct. As with other professions,
social work needs to develop best practice in assessing social work competence. Developing an
inventory of successful assessment practices is an important focus as social work moves forward
with the implementation of the 2015 EPAS.
While the social work education profession was able to define a minimum set of compe-
tencies which constitute the domain of social work practice, many in the profession felt that
the competencies identified were inadequately defined or too broad. Some felt the educational
standards were mediocre or consisted of overbearing idealogy that thwarted academic rigor and
scholarship. Although every effort was made by CSWE to make the revision process transparent
and inclusive, many question the social and political process of developing competencies and
standards based on negotiation, consensus, and authority, as it leads to a watered-down docu-
ment that does not reflect forward thinking (Robbins, 2014).
Despite the challenges presented above, the majority of accredited social work programs in
the US have reported that the competency-based model has led them to focus more on student
35
learning outcomes and they have found the accreditation process to be helpful in accomplish-
ing this. Feedback during the 2015 EPAS revision process indicated continued support for the
competency-based model for social work education.With the implementation of CBE in social
work education now established since 2008, the definitions of CBE, competence, and assessment
will continue to influence our attempt to implement and refine CBE for social work education
(Robbins, 2014). Although more work needs to be done, the use of the competency-based
model for social work education indicates that social work programs, faculty, and administra-
tors have taken up the challenge to improve the assessment of student competence to prepare
students for professional social work practice and improve the quality of social work education
in the US.
References
Banta,T.W. (2001). Assessing competence in higher education. In C. A. Palomba & T.W. Banta (Eds.), Assess-
ing student competence in accredited disciplines (pp. 1–12). Sterling,VA: Stylus Publishing.
Bogo, M. (2010). Achieving competence in social work through field education.Toronto, ON: University of Toronto
Press, Scholarly Publishing Division.
Calhoun, G.,Wrobel, C. A., & Finnegan, J. R. (2011). Current state in U.S. public health competency-based
graduate education. Public Health Reviews, 33, 148–167.
CHEA (2003). Statement of mutual responsibilities for student learning outcomes: Accreditation, institutions, and pro-
grams. Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Available at www.chea.org/pdf/
StmntStudentLearningOutcomes9–03.pdf.
CHEA (2006, December). Accreditation and accountability: A CHEA special report. Washington, DC: Coun-
cil for Higher Education Accreditation. Available at www.chea.org/pdf/StmntStudentLearningOut
comes9-03.pdf.
CoARC. (2012). Competency based education: A review of policies and implications for respiratory care education.
Bedford, TX: Commission on Accreditation for Respiratory Care.
Commission on Accreditation for Respiratory Care, Inc (2012). CoArc report on competency-based
education. Available at www.coarc.com/uploaded/files/CoARC%20Report%20on%20Competency-
Based%20Accreditation%20Standards%205.18.12.pdf.
Council on Social Work Education (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Available at
www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=13780.
Council on Social Work Education (2015a). Bylaws. Available at www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=41983.
Council on Social Work Education (2015b). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Available at
www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=81660.
Diamond, R. M. (1998). Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Ewell, P. T. (2001). Accreditation and student learning outcomes: A proposed point of departure. Washington, DC:
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Available at www.chea.org/pdf/EwellSLO_Sept2001.pdf.
Grant, G., Elbow, P., Ewens, T., Gamson, Z., Kohli, W., Neumann, W., & Riesman, D. (1979). On competence:
A critical analysis of competency-based reforms in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing.
Gruppen, L. D., Mangrulkar, R. S., & Colars, J. C. (2010, May 5). Competency-based education in the
health professions: Implications for improving global health. University of Michigan Library. Available
at http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/85362/1/CompBasedEd.pdf.
Hall, G. F., & Jones, H. L. (1976). Competency-based education: A process for the improvement of education. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105–244. Available at http://files.eric.ed.gov/full
text/ED426673.pdf.
Holloway, S. (2013). Some suggestions on educational program assessment and continuous improvement
for the 2008 EPAS. Available at www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=31582.
Holloway, S., Black, P., Hoffman, K., & Pierce, D. (2008). Some considerations of the import of the 2008
EPAS for curriculum design. Available at www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=31578.
Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching
to learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
36
Institute of Medicine (2003). Health professions education: A bridge to quality. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Institute of Medicine (2015). About the IOM. Available at http://iom.nationalacademies.org/About-IOM.
aspx.
Kelly-Thomas, K. (1998). Clinical and nursing staff development. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Palomba, C. A. (2001). Implementing effective assessment. In C. A. Palomba & T. W. Banta (Eds.), Assessing
student competence in accredited disciplines (pp. 13–28). Sterling,VA: Stylus Publishing.
Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (Eds.) (2001). Assessing student competence in accredited disciplines. Sterling,VA:
Stylus Publishing.
Robbins, S. P. (2014). From the editor – Accreditation, competency-based education, and EPAS revisions.
Journal of Social Work Education, 50(4), 581–586.
Tuxworth, E. (1989). Competence based education and training: Background and origins. In J. W. Burke
(Ed.), Competency based education and training (pp. 10–25). Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.
U.S. Department of Education (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of US higher education. Wash-
ington, DC: US Department of Education. Available at www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/
index.html.
U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Defining and assessing learn-
ing: Exploring competency-based initiatives, NCES 2002–159, prepared by Elizabeth A. Jones and Richard
A. Voorhees, with Karen Paulson, for the Council of the National Postsecondary Education Coop-
erative Working Group on Competency-Based Initiatives. Washington, DC. Available at http://nces.
ed.gov/pubs2002/2002159.pdf.
37
4
WHOSE CURRICULUM
IS IT ANYWAY?
Globalisation, social work education
and knowledge
Imogen Taylor
Note: This paper draws on a presentation at the conference ‘Discovery and innovation in
social work practicum education’, City University, Hong Kong (20–21 May 2015). It also
draws on a recent article, ‘Discretion or prescription? Exploring confidence in qualifying
social work education’ (British Journal of Social Work 2015, 45(2), pp. 493–510).
Introduction
In a fast-changing context of economic, social and cultural change, social work education both
in the UK and USA has in recent years undergone major organisational and epistemological
change with the aim of improving the quality of social work education and social worker prac-
tice. In the UK, these changes have largely been driven by central government, with adequacy of
the curriculum often at the forefront of debates. In the UK change process, it has been apparent
that all stakeholders in social work education appear to feel commitment to and ownership of
the curriculum; they include students, educators, universities, service users and carers, social
workers, managers, employers, accreditation bodies and professional associations.Typically, as will
be seen in this chapter, one area that stakeholders external to the university tend to focus on is
what needs to be added in to curricula.
Economic pressures and related ‘austerity’ measures adopted by the UK right-wing govern-
ment (elected 2010; re-elected 2015) have contributed to a particular pressure on the curricu-
lum where preparation of students for employment is prioritised and the need to spend much
time in the university classroom is questioned. This not only pushes curricula towards local
employment needs, but it favours the relatively powerful government-funded agencies. Parton,
a British social work scholar, concluded that society today is preoccupied with ‘operationality’:
“Such a culture is not interested in meaning but in operationality and the speed of operation
is such that there is hardly any distance between knowledge and action to the point that action
38
Whose curriculum is it anyway?
becomes more of a reflex” (2008: 264). A focus on employability seems likely to privilege a skills
training agenda rather than a broader educational focus.
The above pressures are also found in other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand,
where governments attempt to exert control over universities and over social work. In contrast,
in the USA, changes to social work education are driven by the accrediting body, the Council
on Social Work Education (CSWE), and government is minimally involved. In 2008, also with
the aim of improving the transparency, quality and accountability of social work, CSWE intro-
duced major changes in the revised Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS),
shifting their focus from inputs to outputs, revised in 2015 to include a reconceptualisation of
competence as ‘holistic’ (CSWE, 2015). This change is discussed in depth by Regan and Detlaff
in Chapter 3. To inform discussion of changes in the UK and particularly England, I will refer
to relevant American changes.
I begin by setting the topic of the curriculum in a broader educational context. Linked
with this, I examine the stages of building my own personal knowledge (Eraut, 1994) about the
curriculum, including exploration of notions of confidence and creativity. I then introduce the
question of accreditation and the ‘prescribed curriculum’. I set out the methodology for gath-
ering data about prescription and its implications from two contrasting sets of evidence, first the
recurring narratives in government of England policy documents, and second, data from knowl-
edge reviews of the design and delivery of social work education in England,Wales and Northern
Ireland. I synthesise the data and explore findings from the analysis with the aim of informing
debate and raising questions about the direction of change and possible associated risks. In
particular, I discuss the challenge of the findings for developing social work curricula that are
compatible with the global context and prepare globally competent social workers. I suggest two
ways forward for social work education curricula, first a refocusing from inputs to outcomes,
and second, developing new approaches to programme partnerships that enable containment of
competing stakeholder views. Finally, I return to the topic of confidence and creativity.
Setting the broader educational context for curriculum design

Curriculum design should be embedded in our wider understanding of our approach to profes-
sional education. Today’s focus on operationality risks taking us down the path of simply think-
ing about the curriculum as information to be selected, gathered and disseminated. Michael
Eraut’s seminal work (1994) on developing professional knowledge and competence continues
to remain a useful framework for professional education today, particularly when it comes to
considering curricula. Eraut, a British education researcher and theorist, proposed that there
are three different kinds of knowledge essential for professional education. Propositional knowl-
edge, the traditional business of higher education, includes discipline-based concepts, general-
isations and practice principles. However, the pace of change today means that propositional
knowledge, particularly in an applied subject such as social work, can quickly become obsolete.
Process knowledge is “knowing how to conduct the various processes that contribute to profes-
sional action” (1994: 105). Eraut identified five types of process knowledge: acquiring information;
learning skilled behaviour; learning deliberative processes such as planning, problem solving,
analysing and decision making; ascertaining what information is needed and communicating
it in ways accessible to the intended audiences; and controlling one’s own behaviour, including
self-knowledge and self-management. The latter kind of process knowledge links to personal
knowledge, the third kind of professional knowledge. Eraut proposed that professionals must learn
how to bring assumptions to the surface so that they can be critically examined for their impact
39
Imogen Taylor
on professional practice. In social work, as well as sister professions such as teaching, nursing and
occupational therapy, this process is likely to be framed as critical reflection (Gould & Taylor,
1995). Eraut’s framework suggests we need to think about the curriculum more broadly than
the “knowing that” of propositional knowledge, even though as we shall see later this is where
the policy debate tends to coalesce. Curricula must also include attention to “knowing how”
and “knowing ourselves”.
Turning to my own learning about curricula, in common with many if not most social work
academics, I have continuously negotiated curricula issues on many fronts and in an iterative way.
In writing this chapter, I have reflected on curricula design, development and delivery within the
frameworks of different universities, and different higher and professional education contexts, in a
range of roles, including student, educator, teaching team member, manager and researcher. Look-
ing back over my career as an educator and pedagogic researcher, there were five pivotal stages
that have influenced my thinking about curricula and underline the complexity of the topic.
The first stage was when I began to intensively conceptualise what we mean by teaching and
learning in social work education. Beginning from the perspective of a recently qualified social
worker and a field instructor, I was appointed by the University of Toronto as a researcher to
a Health and Welfare Canada Project (Bogo & Vayda, 1986), on training field instructors. I led
compilation of an annotated review of the literature on social work field instructor training
(Taylor, Bogo & Vayda,1986). Further appointments as a ‘practice professor’ and ‘field coordina-
tor’ led to a joint paper on developing a curriculum for a practicum in a health specialisation
(Bogo & Taylor, 1990), then a novel way of thinking about the practicum, yet perhaps one that
has not progressed far forward in relation to field education.
The second stage was on my return to the UK in 1990, when I took up a three-year post
researching Enquiry and Action Learning (EAL), an exciting, creative and widely influential
innovation in self-directed problem-based learning in social work at the University of Bristol
(Burgess & Jackson, 1990). Problem-based learning had been pioneered and substantially eval-
uated in medical education in Canada, where the overall stated aim was that students acquire
process knowledge essential for lifelong learning in a changing environment. To this end, stu-
dents must learn to recognise what they need to know about a problem, define their learning
objectives, decide how they will find out what they need to know in order to understand and
work with the problem, access and share relevant information and evaluate what they have
learnt. They in effect set their own curricula exploration in relation to the ‘problem’, framed
in EAL as an enquiry into a case scenario. It is a group approach to learning, and we argued
strongly that it also supports student learning about teamwork, essential in many helping profes-
sions (Taylor & Burgess, 1996).This early work was a foundation for considering the similarities
and differences between professional and higher education (Taylor, 1997), in a context where
universities may not sufficiently differentiate between the two.
The third stage was our successful bid in 2001 (with Hilary Burgess and Jackie Rafferty) to
establish and lead the new UK Learning and Teaching Support Subject Centre in Social Work
and Social Policy, a discipline wide initiative funded by central government.This led us into new
knowledge about learning and teaching, and I briefly highlight here three aspects relevant to
knowledge building for the curriculum. First, we explored educational concepts such as “con-
structive alignment” (Biggs, 1996) useful in learning how to plan courses. Key is the design of
teaching so that the following components support each other: the curriculum, teaching meth-
ods or learning activities, assessment procedures, the climate we create in our interactions with
students, and the institutional climate, rules and procedures (Burgess & Irving, 2005). Second,
I focused with members of cognate Subject Centres (including Health Sciences and Medicine)
on interprofessional learning.The latter challenged us to consider how to build interprofessional
40
or shared learning that reflects collaborative practice into our curricula, a topic thought to be
particularly important in the context of the children’s workforce (Taylor, Sharland & Whiting,
2008) and subsequently widely researched by scholars such as John Carpenter (see for example
Carpenter, 2011).Third, the Subject Centre network was introduced to educator Norman Jack-
son’s scholarship (2014) on building creativity and imagination into curriculum design. Burgess
and Irving took up Jackson’s concepts, including that:
Creative curriculum construction is likely to entail personal innovation (new to that

academic) and creative working at and across the boundary of acceptability within the
institution (that is, norms and expectations must be tested and risks taken). This will
involve making sense of complexity, working with multiple, often conflicting factors,
pressures, interests and constraints.
(Burgess & Irving, 2005: 25)
I return to the creativity theme at the end of this chapter.

The fourth stage of learning about building curricula capacity was in the process of involving
service users and carers in learning and teaching. The new social work degree (Department of
Health, 2002) required UK curriculum planners to involve service users and carers in the design,
delivery and review of social work programmes. This new initiative was supported by Social
Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) funded research into user and carer involvement in social
work education (see for example Taylor, Braye & Cheng, 2009). Crucially, it generated challeng-
ing questions about ownership, power and participation in curriculum design and delivery. It has
become a core activity in UK social work programmes, although as Ann Anka explores in Chap-
ter 25, the contentious issue of user and carer involvement in assessment activities shows the
limits of their power in a university context. With some exceptions, for example in Norway
(Askheim, 2012), user and carer involvement has not become a core element in social work
education internationally.
The fifth pivotal stage of development in exploring curricula issues was in increasingly work-
ing globally. As an ‘external reviewer’ for a diverse range of international stakeholders, I partici-
pated in international in-depth social work programme reviews. As editor-in-chief of Social Work
Education: The International Journal, I learnt to work with regional advisory boards (chapters in
this Handbook by Yuen-Tsang and Vimla Nadkarni are outcomes of this experience). Initially,
I built on my Canadian and UK experience, and I increasingly came to appreciate the in-depth
thinking behind CSWE’s work on the EPAS, learning to ask what was or should be different
about social work education in different cultural contexts, a topic explored by a number of
authors in this Handbook. I return to this question later in the chapter when I explore how our
curricula can prepare globally competent social workers.
In this section, I have examined the interaction of the university and wider educational
context with curriculum design. Before moving on to examine the study data, it is important
to refer briefly to accreditation requirements, something many social work educators must take
account of, although the stories of emerging social work education in Section Two of this
Handbook reveal that for others, accreditation is seen as necessary and desirable, but not yet
achieved. In the UK, when the ‘new’ degree in social work was introduced as the core require-
ment to qualify as a social worker, central government specified that students must study five
curricula areas: human growth and development, mental health and disability; assessment, planning,
intervention and review; communication skills with children, adults and those with particu-
lar communication skills; law; and partnership working and information sharing across profes-
sional disciplines and agencies (Department of Health, 2002). No further detail was given about
41
Imogen Taylor
what these areas should include. Two further sets of national requirements also contribute to
accreditation requirements in England, albeit these are not the focus of this chapter. First, the
professional regulatory body, now the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), designate
threshold ‘Standards of Proficiency’, or competences, necessary for safe and effective practice
(HCPC, 2012) which students must meet if they are to qualify as social workers. Secondly, the
Quality Assurance Agency in Higher Education (2008) sets out the ‘subject benchmark state-
ments’, general expectations about standards for the award of undergraduate qualifications in
terms of attributes and capabilities for each discipline.
Methodology for this study

The overall intentions of the study were to understand the predominant narratives governing the
national direction of travel for social work curricula; to understand how social work educators
implemented curricula requirements; and to explore the potential consequences of both. Data is
drawn from a synthesis of two contrasting sets of evidence. First was a scrutiny of the recurring
narratives used to identify and explain “the problem” with the social work education curricula
in 16 government policy documents, predominantly emerging from policy processes designed to
support the reform of social work and social work education in England (2009–12). These were
encapsulated in the work of two sequential government-appointed committees, the Social Work
Task Force (2009–10) and the Social Work Reform Board (2010–12). Both were multi-stakeholder
groups including civil servants; representatives from relevant professional associations; educators,
practice assessors and students; employers, managers and practitioners from a diverse range of organ-
isations; researchers; and, service users and carers. The trigger for establishment of the Social Work
Task Force (SWTF) was the child abuse death of Baby Peter Connolly in London in 2008, and as
a result of this tragic event, two separate experts were also commissioned by government to examine
the protection of children in England (Laming, 2009; Munro, 2011a, 2011b); both included social
work education in their brief and as such these reports were included in the 16 documents.
Second, practice knowledge was examined in the shape of a secondary analysis of findings
from six Knowledge Reviews commissioned by SCIE and undertaken between 2004 and 2010.
Each addressed a specific curriculum topic or, where the breadth and complexity demanded it, a
sub-topic.The reviews examined how government-prescribed curricula requirements were prac-
tised by universities in England,Wales and Northern Ireland (regions covered by SCIE) following
introduction of the new social work degree. In some cases the reviews included systematic reviews,
and in all cases empirical practice surveys of the views and practices reported by stakeholders,
including university educators, involved in the design and delivery of social work education.
A thematic qualitative textual analysis of data from the policy and practice knowledges was
used as a basis for synthesis (Popay et al., 2012). Related literatures about the design and imple-
mentation of the social work education curriculum were also examined, to help explain find-
ings.Where relevant, reference is also made to the American Council on Social Work Education
educational standards, whose work was examined in two linked papers in the British Journal of
Social Work (Taylor, 2015; Taylor & Bogo, 2014).
Dataset I – Policy narratives of the problem

In its final report, the Social Work Task Force (SWTF) set out their view of the problem:
We have concluded that the current requirements governing the degree are too loosely
determined. They lack clarity and are not widely understood. The degree needs to be
42
delivered with greater consistency and a greater focus on linking theory to practice.
Feedback from employers, practitioners, and practice assessors and from independent
research strongly suggests that there are certain areas of knowledge and skills which are
not being covered to the right depth in social work initial training.
(Final Report, 2009a, 1.19)
Among its 15 recommendations, the SWTF called for “an overhaul of the content and the
delivery of social work degree courses” (Final Report, 2009a, 1.41).
Analysis of the policy narratives identified two interrelated themes relating to curriculum
content. First, a recurrence of terms such as ‘consistency’, ‘standard’ and ‘variability’. For example,
the House of Commons Report (2009) on the training of children and families social workers
referred to “too much variability in the standards of courses” (p. 36), and the need for “greater
clarity and consistency in course content” (p. 39). Government Ministers in their letter to the
SWTF said “we very much welcome the Task Force’s recommendations to secure consistency
in the quality of initial training for social work” (SWTF, 2009b: 8). Munro shared the concern:
“Evidence suggests that degree courses are not consistent in content, quality and outcomes in
child protection” (2011b: 97).
The second predominant narrative was of ‘gaps’ and ‘missing’ curriculum coverage:
“Important areas of knowledge and skills are missing from the curriculum or are not taught
in the right depth” (Social Work Reform Board, 2012a: 15). Typically the reference to gaps
was associated with diverse lists of topics needed to fill them and, notably, different stakehold-
ers highlighted different gaps. For example, the SWTF noted gaps in assessment frameworks,
risk analysis, communication skills, managing conflict, working with other professionals, and
understanding research, legislation and policy for practice (SWTF, 2009c, 1.19). This list was
reduced from their Interim Report, which also included communication technology skills,
child development report writing, the impact of substance misuse and mental health prob-
lems, stress management and reflective practice (2009a). The House of Commons Report
(2009) listed gaps in preparation for court work, children’s rights, medical conditions and dis-
abilities. Munro’s list of “crucial elements missing in some courses” included “detailed learning
about child development and attachment. Theory and research are not well linked to practice
and there is a failure to align what is taught with the realities of contemporary social work
practice” (Munro, 2011b: 97).
Third, and important to a discussion later in this chapter about containing tensions between
different stakeholders, was a narrative about “shared understandings” and “lack of consensus” between
stakeholders. “There is simply not enough shared understanding about the division of responsi-
bilities in education and training among universities, employers and social workers themselves”
(SWTF, 2009b: 7). The SWTF expressed concern about differing expectations:
We have heard that it is important to get the balance right of, on the one hand, educat-
ing students in terms of developing knowledge, critical and analytical thinking so they
are better able to exercise judgement and apply knowledge to a range of situations; and,
on the other hand, training students to carry out specific processes and prescribed tasks.
(2009a: 23)
Reassuringly to those concerned about the direction of the employability agenda, the SWTF
adopted a clear position on the education/training debate. “The evidence strongly suggests that
the completion of a degree course should not be treated as, in effect, a full preparation for prac-
tice by employers understandably anxious to fill vacancies” (SWTF, 2009b: 24).
43
Imogen Taylor
The social work educators and curricula prescription

Practitioner knowledges were drawn from six Knowledge Reviews of social work education,
commissioned by SCIE (Trevithick et al., 2004; Braye et al., 2005 ; Luckock et al., 2006; Taylor
et al., 2006 ; Le Riche, Boushel, & Sharland, 2008; Boushel, Whiting, & Taylor, 2010). Collec-
tively these addressed the five curriculum areas prescribed by the Department of Health for the
new social work degree and referred to earlier.
Analysis of findings from the Knowledge Reviews showed that prescription did not result in
consistent practices in relation to the selection of social work knowledges, curricula structures
or the approach to teaching (Taylor, 2015). A striking recurring theme was the degree of con-
ceptual hybridity and a lack of clarity and/or agreement about the nature of each curriculum
area and how it was defined or approached. For example, Human Growth and Development
tended to focus on children and was not self-evidently applicable to adulthood, mental health or
disability, with perspectives often different depending on ‘normal/abnormal’ development and
whether the medical and/or social models were addressed.
A second recurring theme was the variability in whether programmes treated the five cur-
riculum areas as discrete, i.e. designed into a module named after the curriculum area. For exam-
ple Law and Social Work was predominantly taught in discrete modules, whereas in contrast,
learning about ‘Partnership Work’ was likely to be integrated into other modules, including into
the experience of learning in small groups. With integrated curricula it was often less easy for
researchers to identify whether and where a specific curriculum topic was addressed, and nom-
inated programme respondents (providing data for the Knowledge Reviews) might themselves
not be clear about this unless they were doing the teaching themselves.
It was evident that prescription of the curricula introduced by the Department of Health did
not result in uniform or consistent practices in relation to curricula knowledges or structures,
Indeed, it could be concluded that the recurring themes of variability and inconsist-
ency in the policy documents were on one level understandable, and that the implied
message of the need to increase ‘consistency’ and reduce variability in relation to cur-
ricula content, delivery and structure might be seen as a logical step.
(Taylor, 2015: 503)
One seemingly logical response might be to increase prescription of inputs, an option that it
would appear, from the lists of additional topics provided by SWTF/SWRB members, they
were inclined to take. However, although perhaps surprisingly not referred to in the SWTF/
SWRB policy documents discussed earlier, American CSWE colleagues in revising the EPAS
were moving in the opposite direction. In 2008, they decided to drop prescribing inputs in the
form of detailed required curricula and instead refocus on outputs or ‘competencies’. As Hol-
loway stated,
The 2008 EPAS no longer mandates academic content and significantly loosens expec-
tations regarding curriculum reform or structure. Instead, it introduces the notion of
requisite student competencies comprised of interrelated practice behaviours as the
organising principle for curriculum design.
(Holloway et al., 2009: 1)
The architects of this radical and contentious change gave two key reasons for it. First they
questioned the assumption behind adding in more content:
44
A comprehensive analysis was never undertaken to assess the extent to which

required curriculum content, added to and modified over the years, related to the
functioning of the contemporary entry level social worker. It was almost as if the
presumption was that the content required was the content necessary to prepare
students for the arduous work of professional social work practice, whether or not
this was truly the case.
(Holloway et al., 2009: 1)
It is to their credit that they were not prepared to make changes on the basis only of assump-
tion. Indeed, Moriarty and Manthorpe (2014), in their scoping review of the content of
the social work curriculum in England, noted that “an evidence-based curriculum in terms
of course content and delivery remains a priority for social work education in England”
(abstract).
Second, the EPAS architects expressed concern that the level of prescription left little or no
room for programmes to innovate (Holloway et al., 2009). Similar concern about this unin-
tended consequence was expressed by the SWTF. “We also recognise however, that a balance
needs to be struck. Educators need room to innovate in driving up quality and relevance of their
courses and the curriculum must remain responsive to the changing realities of practice” (SWTF,
2009, 1.20). Furthermore, Moriarty and colleagues from the team that evaluated the new degree
in England submitted a report to the SWTF stating, “the curriculum could sometimes feel over-
loaded because of the number of topics that needed to be covered, and that students also felt that
programmes were pressurised” (Moriarty et al., 2010: 35).
Munro, in her government-sponsored Review of Child Protection, provided another rea-
son for questioning the value of increased prescription and drew attention to the unintended
consequences.
As the system’s dependency on rules and prescription has grown, there has been insuf-
ficient freedom and confidence in the exercise of professional judgement. . . . The pre-
scription of how to practice has sapped the profession’s ability to develop its own
knowledge and skills base.
(2011b: 133)
Drawing on her interviews with social work employers, managers and practitioners, Munro
made an important connection between increased prescription, a decline in practitioners’ ability
to exercise professional judgement, and the lack of professional self-confidence amongst social
workers. In drawing attention to a lack of professional self-confidence, Munro counterbalanced
the SWTF/SWRB focus on confidence by the system in social workers.
So, the evidence presented above points to the following conclusions. Curricula prescription
does not result in ‘consistency’ of inputs. Indeed, prescription may have the unintended conse-
quences of stifling innovation in curriculum design as well as eroding professional judgement
and undermining professional confidence. In the next section we examine the possible implica-
tions of this discussion for a global workforce.
The curriculum and a global workforce?

There has been considerable attention to internationalisation of higher education and the glo-
balisation of social work. Earlier I explored the risk that prescription overemphasises local and
employer needs, and now I go on to propose that this may result in the unintended consequence
45
Imogen Taylor
of squeezing out the global.Yet, pressures towards increased prescription of the curriculum are
occurring at a time when there are two relatively recent significant pressures on the curriculum:
increases in recruitment of migrant social workers to meet UK labour shortages; and increases
in the global migration of vulnerable people. This escalated into a global crisis in 2015 continu-
ing into 2016 as millions of refugees and asylum seekers escaping conflict and violence in their
war torn countries try to cross borders into Europe, a matter of huge international concern.
The question of migrant social workers has attracted international attention. Hussein and
colleagues (2011) report important demographic data on migrant social workers in England.
They found that most employers do not invest in induction, support or training, particularly in
relation to differences in the international discourses of social work and the need to understand
local cultural practices (for example in relation to parenting practices). They note that UK prac-
titioners may need to expand their own understandings and expectations of the migrant social
workers who will become their colleagues. Fouché et al. (2014) also examine these issues from
the perspective of migrant social workers in New Zealand, and Beddoe and Fouché report on the
experience of New Zealand social workers in the UK (2014). A key message from their research
is that social workers need to be aware of a coherent local professional discourse “especially when
local practice is obligated to indigenisation“ (Fouché et al., 2014: 2020), a theme explored by Gray
in Chapter One.
A timely Special Issue of the British Journal of Social Work (Williams & Graham, 2014) exam-
ined “A World on the Move: Migration, Mobilities and Social Work”. The compelling editorial
by Guest Editors Charlotte Williams and Mekada Graham drew our attention to how social
work education has paid scant attention to the changing global patterns of migration and their
implications, and they note,
The dilemma for the profession is its rooted and contextual nature vis-à-vis the often
turbulent, complex and dynamic demographic it confronts. This focus on the national
contexts, however, infused by a domestic politics of integration, obviates the ways in
which social structures, as well as decisions in everyday life, are situated within a global
context.
(p. i7)
They point to the importance of including migration theory in curricula – including topics
such as understanding transnationalism, mobilities, the feminisation of migration, and the impact
on sending and receiving societies. Williams expands on this topic in Chapter 2.
What should we do about the curriculum?

To recap, we have seen that curricula prescription does not result in inputs that are clear
or consistent. We have noted that whereas it could be argued that curricula prescription in
England is too light touch, the remedy is not to increase prescription further. We have also
seen that American colleagues abandoned a more prescriptive focus on inputs, concerned
about the absence of an evidence base that demonstrates this is an effective way forward
and about the risk of stifling innovation by overloading. Furthermore, Munro’s concern
that prescription undermines professional confidence and judgement is an additional com-
pelling argument. Finally, it has been argued that prescription appears to increase pressures
towards the national and the local at a time when, in light of massive increases in global shifts of
population, we are faced with compelling reasons to consider how to globalise our curricula.
I propose three key elements to the way forward: refocusing from inputs to outputs; further
46
developing partnerships with our stakeholders; and taking steps to enhance our creativity
and confidence.
There has been an encouraging surge in research in the field of outcomes and outputs. In
Chapter 23, colleagues Marion Bogo from Canada and Mary Rawlings from the USA pres-
ent their research on using simulation in teaching and assessing social work outcomes, and in
Chapter 16, John Carpenter from the UK social work education outcomes at qualifying and
post-qualifying levels. It could of course be argued that outcomes are related to inputs, but
I hope that I have argued convincingly here that we must keep propositional, process and per-
sonal knowledge in balance in our curricula and not drift to an overemphasis on the informa-
tional and operational inputs.
Social work education partnership with stakeholders is in contrast a much less well under-
stood and researched topic. We noted earlier that the SWTF expressed a concern about differ-
ing expectations of different stakeholders. We would do well to heed advice from Engeström
a Scandinavian pedagogic researcher who has researched collaborative practice and found that
“Multi-voicedness is a source of trouble and a source of innovation, demanding actions of
translation and negotiation” (2001: 136). Translation and negotiation are subject to the vagaries
of power, and social work educators might examine their curricula for its attention to learning
theory and research about power and for opportunities to learn the processes of negotiating
power differences. Croisedale-Appleby, in his recent England government commissioned review
“Revisioning Social Work Education” (2014), recommended that funding be provided to uni-
versities to help build and sustain partnerships with stakeholders, recognising that this takes
time and resources. Early indications are that government is prepared to invest some funding
to support academics to update their knowledge by spending time in practice. A new govern-
ment-funded pilot of ‘early adopter partnerships’ between local authorities and universities will
give 10% of academic staff in a given year protected time in practice to update their skills (DfE &
DoH, 2015).
The proposed third way forward is that we prioritise development of a confident and creative
workforce of social work educators. In Chapter 31, Teater, Lefevre and McLaughlin provide a
much needed baseline for understanding the pressure points in the workforce. We found in the
Knowledge Reviews that social work educators were not always clearly enough signposting what
they aim to achieve, how and why. Small staff groups characterise many UK social work education
programmes, and a staffing plan that begins with an audit of staff specialisms and progresses to
reviewing opportunities for retraining and/or for eliciting contributions from other stakeholders
in areas where there are gaps might begin to address how to build capacity and achieve critical
mass. Strengthening our pedagogic research base is crucial if we are to take informed decisions
about what we do and defend our decisions. We need better ways to increase the evidence base
to counteract the weight of public opinion and anecdote (Moriarty & Manthorpe, 2014). Finally,
Jackson (2014) argued that as educators we need to engender a belief that obstacles can be over-
come and students need to learn in ways that develop their self-confidence and self-esteem,
encouraging them to take risks in safe environments.The same might be said about our educators.
References
Askheim, O. P. (2012). Meeting face to face creates new insights: Recruiting persons with user experiences
as students in an educational programme in social work. Social Work Education: The International Journal,
31(5), 557–569.
Beddoe, L., & Fouché, C. (2014). ‘Kiwis on the move’: New Zealand social workers experience of practis-
ing abroad. British Journal of Social Work, 44(4), 1193–1208.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.
47
Imogen Taylor
Bogo, M., & Taylor, I. (1990). A practicum curriculum in a health specialisation: A framework for hospitals.
Journal of Social Work Education, 1, 75–86.
Bogo, M., & Vayda, E. (1986). Social work: Theory and process. Toronto, ON and New York, NY: University
of Toronto Press.
Burgess, H., & Irving, Z. (2005). Designing the curriculum: Complexity, coherence and innovation. In
H. Burgess & I. Taylor, I. (Eds.), Effective learning and teaching in social policy and social work (pp. 82–94).
Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.
Burgess, H., & Jackson, S. (1990). Enquiry and action learning. Social Work Education, 9(3), 3–19.
Carpenter, J. (2011). Evaluating social work outcomes: A review of outcomes, measures, research designs,
and practicalities. Social Work Education:The International Journal, 30(2), 122–140.
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) (2015). 2015 Educational policy and accreditation standards.
Available at www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=81660 [Accessed 29 August 2015].
Croisedale-Appleby, D. (2014). Revisioning social work education: An independent review. London: Department
of Health.
Department for Education and Department of Health (2015). Teaching partnerships 2015–2016: Invi-
tation to express interest. Available at www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/6188796/workforce+-+
social+workers+-+Teaching+Partnerships+2015–16+-+Invitation+to+Express+Interest.pdf/
ed48d80d-a39b-4350-b0c6–6885dfd743e3 [Accessed 1 August 2015].
Department of Health (2002). The requirements for social work training. Available at www.scie.org.uk/
publications/guides/guide04/files/requirements-for-social-work-training.pdf?res=true [Accessed 29
September 2015].
Engeström,Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Towards an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Jour-
nal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.
Fouché C. Beddoe, L., Bartley, A., & de Haan, I. (2014). Enduring professional dislocation: Migrant social
workers’ perceptions of their professional roles. British Journal of Social Work, 44(7), 2004–2021.
Gould, N., & Taylor, I. (1995). Reflective learning for social work: Research, theory and practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Health and Care Professions Council (2012). Standards of proficiency. Available at www.hpc-uk.org/
publications/standards/index.asp?id=569 [Accessed 29 September 2015].
Holloway, S., Black, P., Hoffman, K., & Pierce, D. (2009). Some considerations of the import of the 2008 EPAS
for curriculum design. Unpublished manuscript, Council on Social Work Education, Alexandria,VA.
House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee (2009). Training of children and families social
workers. London: Stationery Office.
Hussein, S., Stevens, M., Manthorpe, J., & Moriarty, J. (2011). Change and continuity: A quantitative inves-
tigation of trends and characteristics of international social workers in England. British Journal of Social
Work, 41(6), 1140–1157.
Jackson, N. (2014). Tackling the wicked problem of creativity in higher education. Available at www.
normanjackson.co.uk/uploads/1/0/8/4/10842717/_tackling_the_wicked_problem.pdf [Accessed 26
August 2015].
Laming, Lord (2009). Protection of children in England: A progress report. Available at www.gov.uk/
government/publications/the-protection-of-children-in-england-a-progress-report [Accessed 29 Sep-
tember 2015].
Moriarty, J., & Manthorpe, J. (2014). Controversy in the curriculum: What do we know about the content
of the social work qualifying curriculum in England? Social Work Education: The International Journal,
33(1), 77–90.
Moriarty, J., Manthorpe, J., Stevens, M., Hussein, S., Sharpe, E., Orme, J., MacIntyre, G., Green Lister, P., &
Crisp, B. (2010). A depth of data: Research messages on the state of social work education in England.
Research, Policy and Planning, 28(1), 29–42.
Munro, E. (2011a). The Munro review of child protection, interim report: The child’s journey. Available at
www.education.gov.uk/munroreview [Accessed 29 September 2015].
Munro, E. (2011b). Munro review of child protection, final report: A child-centred system. Available at
www.education.gov.uk/munroreview [Accessed 29 September 2015].
Parton, N. (2008). Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: From the ‘social’ to the ‘informa-
tional’. British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 253–269.
Popay, J., Poe, C., & Mays, N. (2012). Reviewing and synthesising diverse evidence to inform policy and
action. In S. Becker, A. Bryman, & H. Ferguson (Eds.), Understanding Research for Social Policy and Social
Work (2nd ed.). Bristol: The Policy Press.
48
Quality Assurance Agency in Higher Education (2008). Benchmark statement for social work. Available
at www.qaa.ac.uk/search-centre/results – k=Subject+Benchmark+Statement+Social+Work [Accessed
29 September 2015].
Taylor, I. (1997). Developing learning in professional education: Partnerships for practice. Buckingham: Society for
Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.
Taylor, I. (2015). Discretion or prescription? Exploring confidence in qualifying social work education.
British Journal of Social Work, 45(2), 493–510.
Taylor, I., & Bogo, M. (2014). Perfect opportunity~perfect storm? Raising the standards of social work
education? British Journal of Social Work, 44(6), 1402–1418.
Taylor, I., Bogo, M., & Vayda, E. (1986). The practice of field instruction: An annotated bibliography. Toronto, ON
and New York, NY: University of Toronto Press.
Taylor, I., Braye, S., & Cheng, A. (2009). Carers as partners (CaPs) in social work education. London: SCIE.
Taylor, I., & Burgess, H. (1996). Facilitating enquiry and action learning groups for social work education.
Groupwork, 8(2), 117–133.
Taylor, I., Sharland, E., & Whiting, R. (2008). Building capacity for the children’s workforce: Findings
from the knowledge review of the higher education response. Learning in Health and Social Care, 7(4),
184–197.
Williams, C., & Graham, M. (2014). Editorial, A world on the move: Migration, mobilities and social work.
SCIE Knowledge Reviews

The following are available at www.scie.org.uk/publications/knowledgereviews/index
[Accessed 29 September 2015]:
Boushel, M., Whiting, R., & Taylor, I. (2010). How we become who we are: The teaching and learning of human
growth and development: Mental health and disability on qualifying social work education programmes. London:
Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Braye, S., & Preston-Shoot, M., with Cull, L., Johns, R., & Roche, J. (2005). Teaching, learning and assessment
of law in social work education. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Le Riche, P., Boushel, M., & Sharland, E. (2008). Teaching and learning human growth and development in social
work education: Older people. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Luckock, B., Lefevre M., Orr, D., Jones, M., Marchant, R., & Tanner, K. (2006). Teaching and learning
and assessing communications skills with children in social work education. London: Social Care Institute for
Excellence.
Taylor, I., Sharland, E., Sebba, J., Le Riche, P. with Orr, D., & Keep, E. (2006). The learning, teaching and
assessment of partnership work in social work education. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Trevithick, P., Richards, S., Ruch, G., & Moss, M. (2004). Teaching and learning communication skills in social
work education. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Social Work Reform Board

The following Social Work Reform Board Reports are archived and are available on the
Department for Education website. Available at www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/
publicationdetail/page1/DCSF-01114-2009 [Accessed 29 September 2015]:
SWRB (2011a). Implementing SWRB proposals to improve the provision of social work degree programmes, final
statement on social work education issued by the SWRB.
SWRB (2011b). Letter, chair of SWRB to vice chancellors and programme leaders, 15 September.
SWRB (2010a). Recommendation 2. Curriculum and delivery; An overhaul of the content and delivery of social
work degree courses, Working paper adopted by the education working group.
SWRB (2010b). One year on report.
SWRB (2012a). Final paper Improving the quality and consistency of initial qualifying social work edu-
cation and training.
SWRB (2012b). Final report.
SWRB (2012c). Maintaining momentum, progress report.
49
Imogen Taylor
Social Work Task Force: Building a Safe and Confident Future

The following Social Work Task Force Reports are archived and may be accessed through the
Department for Education website. Available at www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/
publicationdetail/page1/DCSF-01114-2009 [Accessed 29 September 2015]:
SWTF (2009a). Facing up to the task: The interim report.

SWTF (2009b). The final report of the social work task force.
SWTF (2009c). Letter to Vice Chancellors and Social Work Education Providers from Ministers: Depart-
ment for Children, Schools and Families; Department of Health; and, Department for Business, Inno-
vation and Skills.
50
5
THE ACADEMISATION
OF SOCIAL WORK
Sweden – a case study
Introduction
At the time of writing it is 100 years since the medical doctor and researcher on professions,
Abraham Flexner, claimed social work in the USA was not a true profession (Flexner, 1915).
His argumentation built on the fact that social work did not have its own knowledge base, did
not have scientific journals and independent research. Social work was professional in spirit and
had professional groups, organisations and a culture, but it was too political and built its inter-
ventions on values rather then on scientific knowledge. So, Flexner’s conclusion was that social
work lacked academisation, even if he did not use the concept. During the 1900s a great number
of researchers from the sociology of professions have tried to pinpoint the traits of professions
and made lists of what differentiates the true professions from the semi-professions or other
occupations (Etzioni, 1969). On all these lists, scientific knowledge is placed as number one. So
from Flexner and onwards the link between professionalisation and academisation is paramount.
In Sweden, social work education was integrated in the universities in 1978, and a social
work discipline was introduced with PhD education and professorships of its own. Social work
is now an established part of the university; Sweden has (to our knowledge) the highest number
of PhDs in social work in Europe, and there is available research on the development of the
discipline. Therefore, a case study of Sweden in relation to the academisation process in social
work can be justified.
In this chapter our aim is to describe and discuss the academisation process in social work
and some implications for research, education and practice. More precisely, the following aspects
will be addressed: (i) what characterises academisation in more general terms, especially with
respect to unavoidable and inherent tensions; (ii) the state of the art and some achievements of
the disciplinary development of social work in Sweden; and (iii) current trends and demands
(scientific, political and professional) that challenge the discipline’s dual legitimacy.
What is academisation?
In this paper, the definition of the academisation process is simply as a process where academ-
ics and academic knowledge are being ascribed increased importance and growing influence
in the professional group we are studying and in society as a whole. The ultimate goal for
51
academicisation is often described as a joint political and professional venture to strengthen

the conditions for a research orientation within professional practice by the establishment and
consolidation of a specific academic discipline, addressing knowledge interests and demands in
a certain corresponding professional field such as social work. This will give a greater research
orientation to, in this case, social work education. One effect of this process is to symbolically
enhance its professional status. However, the dynamics of the development of science-based
occupations of this kind are characterized by complexity and tensions. Academics in applied
sciences have to, in one way or another, and on a more or less regular basis, respond and relate to
these tensions, individually as well as on a more collective level – more on these later.
Academisation can be studied at an institutional level: is there a university education, is it at
bachelor’s or master’s level, is there a social work discipline with PhD holders and professorships?
Questions can also be asked about what influence these institutions have on social work as a
profession and on society as a whole.
The position of research in social work has for a long time been one of the perennial ques-
tions that absorb the discipline (Reynolds, 1942; Greenwood, 1957; Kirk & Reid, 2002; Smith,
2012). There seems to have been a consensus about the need for research-based practice and
education, however, not about how this could and should best be achieved. From an interna-
tional point of view, one of many issues has been whether or not research is best developed in
a social work discipline of its own, whether there is a need for a PhD education in social work
(Orme, 2003; Anastas, 2012).
Other debated issues in relation to the academisation process in social work concern the
position of professional doctorates instead of the traditional PhD (Fenge, 2009; Anastas & Videka,
2012), and if social work dissertations, journals, academics and indeed social work disciplines are
as good as their counterparts in other disciplines (Fraser, 1993; Holden, Rosenberg & Barker,
2005; Blyth et al., 2010).When the claimed gap between research and practice in social work has
been discussed, social work research has been both a saviour and a scapegoat (Lemlem, 1999). In
many countries there is substantial debate on the quest for an evidence-based practice, if such
a mission is at all possible, and what challenges this brings for social work research, education
and practice. Ultimately these debates concern the autonomy and conditions for social work
research on one hand, and politically and professionally formulated demands on the other.There
are also different perceptions about how knowledge is best produced, disseminated and used.
These understandings are often formulated in a normative way about what should be done,
rather than descriptions about what could be done. All in all, the argumentation often seems
political, but interestingly enough, debate about the politics of social work research is not very
often based on empirical research findings.
The academicisation process and its inherent tensions

Our observation is that the academisation process is intertwined with the professionalisation
process in any occupation with professional claims. Creating a distinct knowledge base normally
presupposes creating education and research opportunities, scientific journals, and development
of theory and a research culture, among other things (Macdonald, 1995). The academisation
process is hence taken for granted in the striving for professionalisation, but in disciplines such as
social work, it also creates challenges and tensions. According to our definition of the academi-
sation process, academics and academic knowledge are being ascribed increased importance and
growing influence in the professional field and in society as a whole. In the academisation process
of a professional field such as social work, there is also an inherent tension between scientific,
academic knowledge on the one hand and other factors influencing the conditions and content of social
52
The academisation of social work: Sweden
work practice and education on the other. Scientific knowledge may have become more influential
in society as a whole, but other conditions such as traditions, political commitments, economic
prioritisations, organisational structures and values still play a major role in policy and decision
making in social work practice and education. One manifestation of this is that social work
research is not always read and known by practitioners (Dellgran & Höjer, 2003).
The overall academisation process has two inherent processes, as subsets of each other. The
first we identify as the disciplinarisation process, which focuses on the establishment of the specific
academic discipline. In Sweden, as described above, the disciplinarisation process has led to
independent departments of social work, within the faculty of social sciences. The disciplinari-
sation process develops within two competing demands, in relation to the field of practice and
in relation to other academic disciplines. The first tension is between scientific demands, norms,
rationalities and considerations on the one hand, and the demands and needs articulated outside science
and academia on the other.The academic traditions and norms influence the content and form of
a doctoral thesis as well as other scientific products. Despite the fact that these scientific norms
vary between disciplines and national contexts, they may collide with what is considered as use-
ful for practice in the eyes of external stakeholders. For instance, the focus on the meaning for
practice may collide with the demands on a PhD student of doctoral studies. In social sciences
it is important that the doctoral student also shows scientific craftsmanship when discussing the-
oretical or methodological considerations. In social work practice, the findings and their implica-
tion for practice are often most valued.
The internal tension within academia in the disciplinarisation process is between disciplinary
autonomy on the one hand and dependence on other disciplines on the other. Social work normally is
considered to be a discipline that imports theoretical knowledge from other disciplines but also
needs to maintain autonomy and legitimacy within academia. In some countries this tension
is actually an argument, from actors in other disciplines, not to have a social work discipline
(Smith, 2012).
Finally, we have the process of paradigmatic development, which involves the development
within the research discipline in relation to its aims, scope and the formulation of researchable
issues – see for example Restivo (1995), Pfeffer (1993) and, in relation to social work, Tucker
(1996). The tension here is between the need for consensus and the ongoing specialisation and growth
of different research areas. For instance, social work can be accused of being too heterogeneous, as
a research area with no distinct focus, with eclecticism and pluralism as its only distinctive fea-
ture. So this tension revolves around maintaining the unity of the discipline and preventing its
fragmentation into subdisciplines or allowing strong research areas to achieve a dominance that
can eclipse other fields of study.
Of course, the academisation process has developed differently in different European coun-
tries. Nevertheless, our point is that in a discipline such as social work, where legitimacy is
needed both in relation, on the one hand, to social work practice, and on the other to the sci-
entific world, such tensions are not only unavoidable but could actually also be claimed to be
productive and valuable in the development of the discipline.
The establishment of the discipline in Sweden

The academic discipline of social work was introduced in Sweden in 1978 when social work
education was integrated into the universities. A number of significant factors contributed to
its establishment. The first, and perhaps most important, factor was the prolongation of the
government’s aim to develop a welfare state. People with close links to the government and the
political party at that time – the Social Democrats – encouraged universities to offer degrees
53
in social work and create opportunities for social work research. This was based on a political
tradition with a strong belief in science’s ability to solve social problems – in other words, social
engineering.
Another important factor was the profession itself. Social workers’ unions and associations
saw research as a means of enhancing the professional status of social work. Schools of social
work also played an important role. When social work was established as an academic discipline,
these already large schools were transferred en masse to the universities, creating huge depart-
ments of social work, some with over 100 lecturers. Two other factors facilitated the disciplin-
isation of social work: the lack of advanced research institutes that could have seen the new
discipline as a competitor, and the fact that there was little resistance from related disciplines,
especially sociology.
In some other European countries (e.g. France, Denmark), sociologists have claimed social
work as part of their discipline: they see social work as a form of applied sociology, and hence did
not want social work to form its own discipline. In Sweden, however, leading sociologists were
very proactive in the establishment of social work and offered no resistance to the establishment
of the new social work discipline. Later, when the social work PhD program was established, ten
full professors were hired: seven came from sociology departments.
Compared with the experiences of some other European countries, the consolidation of
social work as a discipline in Sweden can be described as a success story. In any discipline,
doctoral education is a core activity and the basis of establishing future researchers in the field.
Although Sweden has a very small population (almost 10 million), it has (to our knowledge)
the largest number of PhDs in social work in Europe. Up till the end of 2012, 319 PhDs in
social work were awarded – 60 per cent to women (Brunnberg, 2013). To date, there are PhD
programs at 13 universities, with growing faculty ‘self recruitment’, in other words, where an
increasing number of lecturers have a PhD in social work (Dellgran & Höjer, 2012).
In addition to PhD theses, there has been a rapid growth in research, and a national evalua-
tion considered social work research to be highly productive (Högskoleverket, 2003), evidenced
by increased publication in international journals. Despite the success of social work as a disci-
pline in Sweden, its doctoral program still has a long way to go, especially when compared to
disciplines such as medicine, which has 40 times as many professors and PhDs per 1,000 profes-
sionals as social work, and psychology with 10 times as many (Dellgran & Höjer, 2000, 2012).
As we will describe later, social work as a discipline is not always successful in being awarded
research funding when in competition with other university disciplines.
Social work research in Sweden – so far

In Sweden there are about 35,000 university-educated professional social workers. Less than one
per cent have a PhD. Social work in Sweden is a profession dominated by women. About 84
per cent of all professional social workers (with a social work degree) are women. Among PhD
holders this is reduced to 65 per cent women, and if we include those who are full professors in
social work, the figure is just below 50 per cent. This is sometimes described as a glass escalator,
moving men to higher positions in a field otherwise dominated by women (Kullberg, 2013).
Topic landscape
Research in Swedish social work shows great heterogeneity (see Dellgran & Höjer, 2003, 2012).
General social phenomena and specific social problems are common themes, as are legal and
organisational conditions affecting social work or social workers. A substantial number of theses
54
are about particular social work methods or interventions, although few evaluate specific inter-
ventions. An even bigger number of the dissertations describe and analyse the condition of
certain client groups. Approximately one out of ten of Swedish doctoral dissertations have eval-
uative ambitions in that at least one of the research questions are evaluative in nature.
Not all dissertations address social work practice, but over two-thirds do (Dellgran & Höjer,
2012). Some areas of practice receive particular attention, and social care (for elderly people or
people with disabilities), child welfare, and alcohol and narcotics abuse and treatment are more
popular research topics than health care, education, poverty, criminal justice, and migration. On
the whole, research and publications in Sweden (and the resulting accumulated knowledge)
show, metaphorically speaking, the rather unbalanced pattern of a rural landscape with some
urbanisation. Most potential areas of study attract only a few researchers, although some areas
are more urbanised and have begun to acquire research networks.
Research methods and theory

The theoretical and methodological underpinnings of Swedish social work PhD theses are plu-
ralistic and eclectic. Qualitative methods are popular; more than half of Swedish theses in social
work rely on qualitative methods alone, and close to one-third on a combination of qualitative
and quantitative methods. Only 12 per cent are based on quantitative methods, although this
proportion is slowly increasing (Dellgran & Höjer, 2012). In earlier studies, we examined the
reasons for this preference and formulated four hypotheses: social work culture favours quali-
tative methods; social workers lack statistical knowledge or have anxiety about the mathemat-
ics necessary for quantitative methods; social workers often have listening competencies that
make them particularly suited to qualitative interviews; and, finally, the preference for qualitative
methods is historic and linked to the period when social work became an academic discipline
(see Dellgran & Höjer, 2001).
Looked at collectively, the theses seem to share the theoretical orientations of sociology, but
there is great heterogeneity among individual works and many different traditions are repre-
sented (see Dellgran & Höjer, 2012). Few theses are based on theories that had their origin in
the discipline of social work. Most are characterised by paradigmatic openness and substantial
importation of knowledge from other disciplines. There is no clear consensus, as evidenced by
the theses, on the objects, epistemology, theories or ultimate tasks of social work. This does not,
however, seem to impede development.
Views on the tasks for research

In an ongoing study the PhD holders were asked about the main task for social work research;
see Table 5.1. More than half of the PhD holders in social work agreed that the main task for
research is to develop knowledge about the condition of clients, to critically examine soci-
etal changes and to influence social policy.1 More practice-oriented tasks, such as contributing
to methods development in professional practice, to the development of organisations, or to
evidence-based practice, were not seen as a main task for social work research by the majority
of social work researchers.The low figure in relation to contributing to evidence-based practice
(EBP) is worth further comment. The call for EBP, and the actual conditions for both produc-
tion of relevant knowledge of this type and the implementation of evidence-based methods
in practice, has been a most controversial issue in Swedish social work. Through the National
Board of Health and Welfare, the government has increased its demands for a certain type
of research in line with the evidence-based movement’s ideal – that is, useful, instrumental
55
knowledge, particularly with a focus on studies of intervention effects. Not many PhDs in Swe-
den are evaluations that follow the randomised control trial (RCT) ideal.
Table 5.1 highlights the lack of consensus, and when asked specifically about this, the PhD
holders confirmed this picture; see Table 5.2.
The level of consensus in social work is low in relation to the object of knowledge, research
methods, theories and the main task of research. This can be seen as a weakness, in relation to
the argument on paradigmatic development where disciplines that have a high consensus seem
to have more unity and more easily achieve high status in the academic world. On the other
hand, the pluralistic and paradigmatically open picture presented here matches heterogene-
ous social work practice – on different levels, with different client groups and using different
methods.
One issue that is discussed from time to time in relation to the academisation of social work
is where the PhDs will work after graduation. Will they all stay in academia as researchers and
lecturers in social work education, or will they work closer to professional practice, making
it more linked to research and scientific knowledge? Of course this issue both relates to the
motivations of the PhDs as well as the structural opportunities and demands of human service
organisations. For social workers with a PhD in Sweden, more than nine out of ten work in
academia totally or to a great extent, most of them as lecturers involved in social work educa-
tion. So at this stage, the process of academisation of social work seems to affect the academy
Table 5.1 The main tasks for research according to PhD holders in social work in Sweden. Share of
persons who agree totally, by per cent. Presented in ranking order. n = 170
The main task of research Per cent
Develop knowledge about the conditions of clients 69

Critically examine societal changes 59
Influence social policy 57
Critically examine the professional practice 46
Contribute to theory development 45
Critically examine organisational conditions 44
Contribute to method development in professional practice 30
Strengthen the status of the discipline 27
Strengthen the status of the profession 22
Contribute to organisational development 20
Contribute to evidence-based practice 13
Table 5.2 The level of consensus in the discipline on the object of knowledge, research methods, theory
and the main tasks for research. Per cent who answered “to a very high degree” and balance-
measure (high degree subtracted by low degree)
Level of consensus about: Very high degree Balance measurement
Object of knowledge 7.3 -38.5

Research methods 4.4 -26.4
Theory 9.1 -44.2
Main task of research 8.0 -34.8
56
more than social work practice. This is likely to strengthen social work education both in
cognitive terms and in terms of legitimacy for producing well-educated future social work
practitioners.
Current demands challenging the dual legitimacy of social work

Social work is an academic discipline with a professional practice and has to live with (the curse
of) dual legitimacy. It needs to be relevant for policy makers and practitioners and produce
research-based knowledge for social work practice. However, it also needs to be as good as other
social sciences in academia and produce excellent and trustworthy research.
There are a number of trends and demands that influence social work researchers, both
from inside and outside of academia. Senior researchers are under increasing pressure to achieve
external funding for research projects. And as a result of the economic downturn, European gov-
ernments are tending to prioritise research in areas that can enhance economic growth rather
than address social science and social work issues. Also, the demands to publish in international
scientific journals have increased both as a part of individual career development and as a part
of collective struggle for resources inside the universities. Furthermore, worldwide new public
management (NPM) strategies in universities have developed where bibliometric methods and
other means of managerial control are used to reward research groups that can demonstrate
strength and excellence. So, in the world of academia, the call for excellence has increased.
In practice, however, there are strong government-supported initiatives to develop more
evaluations built on the RCT ideal and studies of intervention effects. There are also a number
of government activities where the state plays a strong role in order to create systematic reviews
of knowledge in relation to interventions that should be used.
So where are we heading?

For a range of reasons, professionals like social workers do not, and cannot, only use scientific-
based interventions or scientific knowledge in their daily practice. Scientific knowledge in
social work has indeed been growing substantially, and it may have become more influential
at a general level, but other conditions such as economic prioritisations, laws and regulations,
organisational structure and values still play a major role in both policy and decision making
in these and other areas of professional practice. So even if academisation gives legitimacy to
professional practices such as social work, striving for academisation needs to be balanced with
the need for relevance in professional practice. The political and professional demands in social
work are strong for answering questions such as what works, and how research can inform
practice in order to create a better practice. This has to do with the relevance of the social work
research. On the other hand, in the above mentioned development of academia and the quest for
excellence, social work has a difficult position. Social work has this quest for double legitimacy,
between excellence and evidence. The trick will be to stay relevant for social work practice
AND excellent enough to have a good position in the world of academia.
The climate has hardened since the establishment of the social work discipline in Sweden in
the late 1970s, both in relation to the internal dynamic in the scientific world, and the exter-
nally formulated demands on what the discipline should do. In the middle of all this stands the
struggle between, on the one hand, the ideal of academic autonomy and, on the other, demands
from a wide range of external actors representing different interests and needs. Consequently,
the survival of the discipline will in the future be dependent on the ability to find a balance
between these needs.
57
Note
1 The study is financed by Riksbankens jubilieumsfond (P12_1098:1): “Watching the academics. Research
and professional practice among PhDs in social work, nursing and pedagogy”.
References
Anastas, J. W. (2012). Doctoral education in social work. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Anastas, J. W., & Videka, L. (2012). Does social work need a practice doctorate? Clinical Social Work Journal,
40(2), 268–276.
Blyth, E., Shardlow, S., Masson, H., Lyons, K., Shaw, I., & White, S. (2010) Measuring the quality of peer-
reviewed publications in social work: Impact factors – Liberation or liability? Social Work Education,
29(2), 120–136.
Brunnberg, E. (2013). Om socionomutbildningar, forskarutbildningar och samtliga avhandlingar i social arbete 1980–
2012. Förteckning över samtliga doktors- och licentiatavhandlingar i social arbete i Sverige. [Social work education,
research education and all PhD theses in social work 1980–2012. A list of all PhD and MPhil theses in social
work in Sweden]. Report, Mäldardalens högskola [Mäldardalen University College].
Dellgran, P., & Höjer, S. (2000). Kunskapsbildning, akademisering och professionalisering i socialt arbete [Knowledge,
academization and professionalization in social work]. Gothenburg: Institutionen för socialt arbete, Göte-
borgs universitet.
Dellgran, P., & Höjer, S. (2001). Mainstream is contextual. Social Work Research, 25(4), 243–252.
Dellgran, P., & Höjer, S. (2003). ‘Forskning i praktiken’. I Högskoleverket & FAS Socialt arbete. En nationell
genomlysning av ämnet [Research in practice, in Högskoleverket & FAS Social Work. A national analyses of the
discipline]. Högskoleverkets Rapport 2003: 16.
Dellgran, P., & Höjer, S. (2012). The politics of social work research – Ph.D. theses in Sweden. European
Etzioni, A. (Ed.) (1969). The semi-professions and their organization: Teachers, nurses, social workers. New York,
NY: The Free Press.
Fenge, L-A. (2009). Professional doctorates: A better route for researching professionals? Social Work Educa-
tion, 28(2), 165–176.
Flexner, A. (1915). Is social work a profession? School and Society, 1(26), 901–911.
Fraser, M. (1993). Social work and science: What can we conclude about the status of research in social
work? Social Work Research & Abstracts, 29(2), 40–44.
Greenwood, E. (1957). Attributes of a profession. Social Work, 2, 45–55.
Högskoleverket (The Swedish Agency for Higher Education) (2003). Socialt arbete. En nationell genomlysning
av ämnet. [Social work: A national analysis of the discipline]. Report, Högskoleverket.
Holden, G., Rosenberg, G., & Barker, K. (Eds.) (2005). Bibliometrics in social work. New York, NY: The
Haworth Press.
Kirk, S. A., & Reid W. J. (2002). Science and social work. A critical appraisal. New York, NY: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
Kullberg, K. (2013). From glass escalator to glass travellator: On the proportion of men in managerial posi-
tions in social work in Sweden. British Journal of Social Work, 43(8), 1492–1509.
Lemlem, T. (1999). The politics of social work research: A critical analysis of the stated reasons for the research gap.
Dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Macdonald, K. (1995). The sociology of the professions. London: Sage.
Orme, J. (2003). Why social work need doctors. Social work education, 22(6), 541–554.
Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent
variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599–620.
Restivo, S. (1995).The theory landscape in science studies: Sociological traditions, In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Mar-
kle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social dimensions of science (pp. 95–110). Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press.
Reynolds, B. (1942). Learning and teaching in the practice of social work. New York, NY: Russel & Russel.
Smith, R. (2012).Values, practice and meaning in social work research. European Journal of Social Work, 15(4),
433–448.
Tucker, D. (1996). Eclecticism is not a free good: Barriers to knowledge development in social work, Social
Service Review, 70(3), 400–434.
58
6
AND THE BORDERLESS
UNIVERSITY EXPERIENCE
Ira Colby
Introduction
Writing in 2007, Microsoft Corporation co-founder Bill Gates noted that the ever-changing
technologies would create “. . . a new world of connected experiences that link our interests
and our communities into a seamless whole that extends across home, work, school, and
play. . . . people envision a world of anywhere access – a world in which the information, the
communities, and the content they value is available instantly and easily, no matter where they
are” (B. Gates, February 6, 2007, Personal Communication). At that time, Gates estimated that
one billion people worldwide used digital technology on a daily basis; seven short years later,
in 2014, Internet users alone worldwide totaled more than three billion people or 42.3 per-
cent of the world population, an astonishing 741 percent increase since 2000 (Internet World
Stats, 2014).
Gates’s bold observations were similar to those raised by Thomas L. Friedman in the classic
work The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century (2005). Friedman contended
that an expanding global competitive environment, supported with the fast-changing and avail-
able technologies, resulted in nations’ geographic borders becoming meaningless as people
worldwide were communicating and working with each other in ways never done before. The
leveling of the global community’s markets created a “newfound power for individuals to col-
laborate and compete globally” (Friedman, 2005: 10). Political, geographical, and social barriers
were reduced and, in many cases, disappeared, resulting in new pathways to meet and work with
people around the world.This so-called flattening of the world formed “new opportunities, new
challenges, new partners, but also . . . new dangers” (Friedman, 2005: 468).
Higher education felt the full force of this evolving new world of the twenty-first century.
Academics today are embracing the idea of a global borderless university to augment the students’
traditional educational experiences while strengthening global partnerships. Suffice to say, the
internationalization of tertiary education yields significant benefits: intellectual enrichment is
enhanced by broadening the individual and institution’s cultural outlook; meaningful friend-
ships and collaborations are now possible with colleagues around the world; professional skills
are strengthened by a deeper understanding and appreciation of diversity, critical thinking, and
innovation; and communication skills are further refined through group discussions and inter-
active sessions in multicultural and multilingual settings.
59
Ira Colby
Social work education too has experienced a sea change in its experiences, a direct conse-
quence of globalization. It is commonplace to see programs offering worldwide opportuni-
ties such as international travel courses, study abroad, faculty exchanges, online forums, virtual
courses, participation in international conferences, and collaborative degree/certificate programs.
A noteworthy component of the global growth in higher education is the development
of the so-called cross border university (CBU). In this model, a university establishes a branch
campus in another country which in turn creates a mechanism to export and sell their degree
programs in the global market. This chapter explores the growing twenty-first-century CBU
phenomenon, their purported purposes, and related opportunities and challenges as social work
education further extends its footprint into the global community.
Cross border university – defined

The CBU construct has grown with increasing frequency as universities establish branch cam-
puses outside of their home country. The CBU is much more than an online course, a virtual
classroom, or a student-faculty exchange program. A robust CBU involves a consistent, physical
presence of staff, with facilities necessary to deliver an on-site program replicating the spon-
soring university’s curriculum, and leads to a certificate or degree granted from the external
university.
Vincent-Lancrin (2007: 11) defines a CBU as a “movement of people, programmes, pro-
viders, curricula, projects, research and service in tertiary (or higher) education across national
jurisdictional borders”. Gupta (2007: 1) describes the CBU as “. . . higher education that takes
place in situations where teachers, students, programmes, institutions/providers or course mate-
rials cross national jurisdictional borders . . . [in which] students [follow] a course or programme
of study that has been produced, and maintained, in a country different from one’s country of
residence”.
Sometimes used interchangeably with CBU is the International Branch Campus (IBC). The
IBC definition is somewhat similar to the CBU, though Kinser and Lane (2012: 9, 2013: 2)
note an IBC is “owned at least in part, by a foreign education provider”. The prerequisite of
ownership is also included in other definitions, such as Wilkins and Huisman (2012: 627), who
wrote that “an international branch campus may be defined as an educational facility owned, at
least in part, by a foreign institution, which operates under the name of the foreign institution,
where students receive face-to-face instruction to achieve a qualification bearing the name of
the foreign institution.”
A number of nations include their own CBU definition as part of the criteria to establish a
tertiary program within their homeland. For example, the National Universities Commission of
Nigeria defines a CBU as “. . . an educational service at university level provided within Nige-
ria’s national boundary by foreign educational institutions(s) singly or in partnership with local
institution(s) through conventional, part time or e-learning modes for the purpose of awarding
degrees, diplomas and certificates” (National Universities Commission, n.d).
What forms do CBUs take?

To say that CBUs come in all shapes, sizes, and formats is an understatement. Some programs
are housed on magnificent campuses that most academics would envy, while others are found
in small rented spaces with one or two small rooms. Lane and Kinser (2013: 10) identify five
prominent models that reflect a structural presence with the international university ostensibly
seeking to gain a strong foothold in the host country. These include:
60
The borderless university experience
• Wholly Owned – The most common CBU structure is the sponsoring university owning an
entire facility with no local partners or formal relationships in place. All collected tuition
and fees go to the international university;
• Government as Partners – A second format is for the host nation’s government to subsidize
the program while maintaining ownership of the campus. Ownership may be regional, city,
or national government, with the government receiving a share of the generated income;
• Private, For-Profit, Investors – A third structure involves the international academic institution
collaborating with a local private partner, usually an investment firm or property developer.
The local developer is responsible for building or renovating a campus or building and, in
return, uses the international university’s name as a “feature” for local development pur-
poses. In addition, the investor often receives a share of the generated income;
• Renting Space – Renting campus space typically involves two types. First, multiple universi-
ties share the cost of a building or site, which in turn creates a “shopping mall” of academic
options; and, second, renting space as a sole provider. The academic partners cover their
own specialized costs while sharing generic expenses required for the common space. In
some instances, shared renting is a transitional phase that allows a university to later build
or rent their own stand-alone campus building; and,
• Academic Partner – Sharing space with a local academic university is a common model. The
international program uses the facilities to offer stand-alone academic programs and oper-
ates separately from the host institution.
The joint degree program and double degree program are common alternatives to the models
identified by Lane and Kinser (2013). These two different models require direct collabora-
tion between the academic institutions while sharing the cost burden. The joint degree program
includes two or more universities. Together they construct a unique, integrated curriculum
with clear agreements in place regarding tuition and fees, credit recognition, and which institu-
tion awards the degree. In a joint degree program, it is common for the diploma/certificate to
include the names of the foreign and local institutions to avoid potential political issues. Con-
versely, the student in a double degree program is awarded a degree or certificate separately by each
of the universities involved in the program (Obst & Kuder, 2012: 6).
A recent phenomenon in the CBU is the franchise model. Franchising, according to Collyer
(2013), is essentially a licensing relationship between the “owner” – for example, a university –
and a local provider who agrees to implement, in whole or in part, the university’s degree or
certificate program.The university is basically selling the right to its “brand” – for example, insti-
tutional name – to a provider who agrees to adhere to the university’s regulations while insuring
the university’s “brand” is not tarnished.The actual curriculum is owned by the university while
the local provider works under the name of the university; the staff is typically comprised of
local persons, with the branding university occasionally sending some of its faculty to guest lec-
ture or teach a course in a truncated manner. This model is analogous to franchising a business
in the corporate world.When travelling internationally, companies such as Starbucks, Pizza Hut,
or McDonalds are commonplace. A latte, a thin crust pizza, or a Big Mac in the United States
is the same as a latte, a thin crust pizza, or a Big Mac in Hong Kong, Johannesburg, or Moscow;
the stores look similar and the menus are the same, though sometimes with minor differences
reflecting local customs. Altbach (2012: 7) questions the veracity of the franchise model, noting
that the exported curriculum may be the same or similar in course titles and academic require-
ments but the substance of the education is certainly different and questionable, as the academic
staffs’ credentials, for example, appropriate degrees and work experiences, are dissimilar from
those staff of the branding university.
61
Ira Colby
Delving into the numbers

The general public, policy makers, and academics alike are enamored with numbers: how many
homeless persons live in a particular city or nation; what percent of the world’s population lives
on less than $2.00 per day; how many child soldiers are there worldwide; and so on. We know
it is impossible to get an accurate number to such questions, but we continue to try to do so in
what takes on a Don Quixote search. Attempting to determine an exact number of CBUs is no
different from any count on any topical area – it is virtually impossible to achieve, with numbers
often confusing and contradicting each other.
According to the Cross-Border Education Research Team (C-BERT) at the State University
of New York at Albany, New York, USA, as of February 2015, there were 219 different CBUs
in place, with 23 programs planning to open in the future (Cross-Border Education Research
Team, 2015). However, Bischof (2014: 16) reported 253 different branch campuses and franchis-
ing programs between and among the 27 European Union members alone. To further muddy
the waters, Altbach (2012: 7) wrote that there were more than 400 franchise arrangements held
by universities in the United Kingdom with nations worldwide. So how does one account for
the differences, and is it possible to reconcile these clear variances in the data?
Kinser and Lane (2012) provide one plausible explanation to the differences in the reported
numbers.Their research found that many institutional leaders resist acknowledging the “branch”
designation. They found it common for universities to rely on the designation provided by
their own country rather than adopt the actual classification specified in the contract with the
international university. For example, the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Higher Education
designated one CBU as an autonomous university, yet the same program was listed as a “branch
campus” on the international partnering university’s web page (Kinser & Lane, 2012: 2). Kinser
and Lane’s findings suggest that the “branch campus” label implies a CBU program is not as
comprehensive as the “main campus” program, thus resulting in a second-tier education.
Table 6.1 rank orders the C-BERT data and includes all programs – those currently operat-
ing, those that closed, and those in development. The data reveals some interesting trends. As of
February 2015, there were 32 total exporting countries, that is, nations who operated a branch
campus in another country (Cross-Border Education Research Team, 2015). C-BERT reports
the United States (106), United Kingdom (39), Australia (22), France (16), India (11), and Russia
(10) as the largest exporters of branch campuses (see Table 6.1).
Table 6.2 breaks down the C-BERT data by host nations.There are 68 importing countries –
countries who partnered with another nation to establish a branch campus within its borders;
the largest importers of branch campus are the United Arab Emirates (36), China (31), Singapore
(15), Malaysia (14), and Qatar (11).
These data are somewhat surprising with the noticeable absence of programs in the south,
in particular among the low-income nations. CBUs are virtually non-existent throughout a
number of regions including Latin America, South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North Africa;
conversely, CBUs are more common among nations in East Asia, the Pacific, and Europe. In
a manner of speaking, the C-BERT data suggests that the wealthiest nations are helping the
wealthiest nations.
CBU considerations for social work education

Neither the IASSW nor any of the recognized national social work accrediting authorities – for
example, Council on Social Work Education, Australian Association of Social Workers, Hong
Kong Social Workers Registration Board, Malaysian Association of Social Workers, the Health &
62
Table 6.1 Number of cross border programs by exporter nation, February 2015
Nation Number of cross border Notes

branch universities
United States 106 15 closed; 8 pending

United Kingdom 39 1 closed; 5 pending
Australia 22 3 closed
France 16
India 11 2 closed; 1 pending
Russia 10 2 pending
Canada 7 1 closed; 1 pending
Netherlands 7
China 6 2 pending
Ireland 6 2 closed
Malaysia 6
Germany 5
Belgium 2 1 closed
Hong Kong 2
Lebanon 2 1 pending
Singapore 2
South Korea 2
Switzerland 2
Turkey 2
Bangladesh 1 1 pending
Chile 1
Egypt 1 1 pending
Estonia 1
Iran 1
Italy 1
Japan 1
Mexico 1
Pakistan 1
Portugal 1
Spain 1
Sri Lanka 1 1 closed
Sweden 1
Taiwan 1
The Philippines 1
Venezuela 1
Total Programs 271 26 closed; 22 pending
Source: Cross-Border Education Research Team (2015, February 21). C-BERT Branch Cam-
pus Listing. [Data originally collected by Kevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane]. Available: http://
globalhighered.org/branchcampuses.php Albany, NY: Author.
Care Professions Council in England, the Care Council of Wales, Scottish Social Services Coun-
cil, or the Northern Ireland Social Care Council – collect data that specifically address social
work education’s role within CBUs. There are some known CBU programs engaged in social
work education, including the University of South Carolina (South Korea), the University of
Southern California (China), and New York University (China).Yet, the absence of any uniform
63
Table 6.2 Number of cross border programs by host nation, February 2015
Nation Number of cross border branch Notes

universities
United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi 36 1 pending; 5 closed

China 31 1 pending; 3 closed
Singapore 15 2 closed
Malaysia 14 3 pending; 2 closed
Qatar 11
South Korea 9 3 pending
France 7
United Kingdom 7
United States 7 2 pending
Canada 6 3 closed
Greece 6 2 closed
United Arab Emirates, Ras Al Khaimah 6 2 closed
Germany 5
Italy 5 1 pending
South Africa 5 1 pending; 2 closed
Uzbekistan 5
Mexico 4 1 pending; 1 closed
Pakistan 4 3 pending; 1 closed
Spain 4
Australia 3
Bahrain 3 1 closed
China (Hong Kong SAR) 3
Japan 3
Mauritius 3 1 pending
Panama 3
Armenia 2 1 pending
Bangladesh 2
Dominican Republic 2
Ecuador 2 1 closed
Ghana 2
Israel 2 1 pending
Kuwait 2
Russia 2
Switzerland 2
Tunisia 2
Turkey 2
Vietnam 2
Albania 1
Argentina 1
Austria 1
Azerbaijan 1
Belgium 1 1 closed
Botswana 1
Brazil 1
Bulgaria 1
Cambodia 1
Cyprus 1
Czech Republic 1
Nation Number of cross border branch Notes

universities
Fiji 1 1 closed
Finland 1
Hungary 1
India 1 1 closed
Indonesia 1
Jamaica 1
Jordan 1 1 closed
Kazakhstan 1
Laos 1
Lebanon 1
New Zealand 1
Nicaragua 1
Nigeria 1
Norway 1
Oman 1
Poland 1
Rwanda 1
Saint Lucia 1 1 pending
Saudi Arabia 1
Slovakia 1
Sri Lanka 1 1 pending
Ukraine 1
Yemen 1
Total 263 21 pending; 29 closed
Source: Cross-Border Education Research Team (2015, February 21). C-BERT Branch Campus Listing.
[Data originally collected by Kevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane]. Available: http://globalhighered.org/branch
campuses.php Albany, NY: Author.
or systematic data collection makes it impossible to assess and fully understand the extent that
social work education is engaged in the current CBU revolution.
A convincing argument can be made that social work education should embrace and pro-
mote the CBU and franchising models. Certainly there is value in establishing quality social
work programs around the world, especially in low-income nations. The CBU and franchise
concepts seemingly create a wider pathway to higher education while operationalizing a widely
shared social work principle: to prepare individuals for professionally and ethically based practice
that is grounded in principles of social justice. The CBU allows students to remain and study in
their home nation rather than being forced to leave their country to pursue a degree. Further,
the CBU and franchise concepts theoretically support the building of strong academic structures
worldwide.
While there may be plausible reasons to support the CBU/franchise programming, there are
concerns as well that social work education must address.
Funding
The CBU and franchise models are built on the assumption that local students will pay full
tuition and fees, which are scaled differently and at a higher rate compared to the same fees of
65
Ira Colby
the sponsoring university. As a result, CBU enrollment tends to be limited to individuals who
have the financial wherewithal to afford these premium costs. Thus, it is not surprising to learn
that three of the top five richest nations in the world – Qatar, Singapore, and the United Arab
Emirates (Global Finance, March 27, 2015) – are also in the top five largest import or host
CBU nations (see Table 6.2). Conversely, the CBU is a rare commodity among the low-income
nations in the world – they simply cannot afford to support such a commercial enterprise.
Implementing a different and higher fee structure for the CBU raises a number of questions
for academics to consider. Do the collected fees become an additional “revenue stream” for
the sponsoring university to offset their own home escalating costs? Is the CBU a strategy to
limit the increasing tuition and fees for students in the sponsoring university? Are any of the
fees, other than token reallocations, returned by the international university to enhance and
strengthen the local program? Are scholarship and financial aid opportunities the same for stu-
dents enrolled in the CBU as for those students in the sponsoring university? Are staff salaries in
concert with those of the international university?
Curriculum
A simple question must be addressed by the staff in those universities sponsoring a CBU: to what
extent have the curricula been modified or adapted to reflect the unique cultures and values
of the differing nations? The largest “exporters” of CBU and franchise programs reflect a tradi-
tional, Western/Northern approach to higher education. The United States, United Kingdom,
Australia, and France, while representing 11.4 percent of the reported exporting universities,
account for 67.5 percent of all CBU programs (see Table 6.1), while European universities
reportedly have over 400 franchise agreements in place worldwide (Altbach, 2012: 7). The fran-
chise model requires the international university to fully implement the sponsoring university’s
curriculum and is devoid of cultural implications. Without integrating a curriculum into the
international country’s zeitgeist, the intrinsic value of the resulting program is minimal at best.
Adding a module in a semester-long course to account for difference and diversity simply does
not reflect a culturally competent curriculum.
Staff. The success of any academic programs rests with the staff. Their commitment and
passion for education must be matched with the appropriate level of education and practice
experience.Yet, who teaches in a social work CBU if that country does not have a professionally
degreed social work labor pool? How does this absence of qualified staff impact, either positively
or negatively, an educational program? China, which is experiencing a rebirth of the social work
profession, offers some clues to the possible issues resulting from few professionally educated
social workers or practitioners staffing the classroom or field internship sites.
Social work in mainland China was reintroduced to the country in the late 1980s following
the profession’s elimination as a course of university study in the 1950s (Law & Gu, 2008: 2).
The Chinese government has mandated that by the year 2020 there will be three million social
workers in place and, as a result of this directive, there has been a significant growth of baccalau-
reate and graduate social programs in the mainland (Ting & Zhang, 2012: 201) as well as signifi-
cant opportunities for individual practitioners (Liu, Lam, & Yan, 2012: 190). The majority of the
newly developed social work programs are part of sociology or philosophy departments, with
staff holding degrees in these disciplines teaching social work–specific courses. This has resulted
in differing interpretations of social work and how content should be taught, for example, the-
ory focused or practice directed (Law & Gu, 2008: 7–8).The staffs, while having a deep desire to
prepare students for social work practice, are limited by their lack of education and non-existent
practice experience. As one Chinese educator wrote, “I began to teach social work . . . with
66
quite limited knowledge about this field just like most social work educators in Mainland . . . I
often felt embarrassed about my ignorance of social work field education” (Tong, 2007: 645).
Further, the ongoing lack of professional social workers employed by NGOs has made it virtu-
ally impossible for students to “try out various social work ideas (learned in the classroom) and
to demonstrate the possible effects of social work intervention with service recipients” (Law &
Gu, 2008: 8). While social work education is once again part of university study in China, the
actual programs differ from each other, with the end result being a hodgepodge of approaches
to course instruction, students’ experiences, and resulting social work practice.
As social work academics consider CBU or franchising models, there must be a resolution
to who teaches the courses and how field internship sites are staffed. The Chinese experience
clearly shows the pitfalls of relying on non-social workers for program leadership and imple-
mentation. At the same time, building a CBU or franchise teaching staff with individuals who
are professionally educated, have significant NGO experience at all levels of practice, are cultur-
ally competent, and are able to translate a Western-based curriculum into a locally/regionally
relevant model requires a herculean effort.
Quality control
Social work education in the United States has placed a significant emphasis on program assess-
ment to determine attainment of curricula objectives and practice competencies. The CBU
models must too embrace a strenuous assessment protocol to insure program objectives and
practice competencies are realized. The mere importation of a curriculum will do little more
than collect tuition and fees and allow the sponsoring university to promote its “global reach”.
If, however, a university is serious in establishing a CBU as a vigorous, global initiative, then a
thorough, ongoing assessment process must be in place.
A collaborative approach
The United States-based Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), the China Association
for Social Work Education (CASWE), and the International Association of Schools of Social
Work (IASSW) created the “China Collaborative” as a demonstration project to foster the
development of graduate social work education programs in mainland China. This five-year
program, which began in 2012, involves 7 US graduate schools with 42 Chinese universities.
CSWE notes that the US graduate programs are working with
their Chinese partners in the development of MSW programs that reflect the unique
aspects of graduate education in mainland China.The academic programs are commit-
ted to building capacity through faculty, staff, and student exchanges; mentoring and
consultation; building research infrastructure; and further strengthening social work
education in an international context.
(CSWE, 2012)
This model differs significantly from the traditional CBU approach. The guiding tenet in
this joint initiative is that collaboration and partnership will result in programs that are cul-
turally relevant while not imposing a Western educational model. There is no franchising of
the American programs, no curriculum models are imposed, no tuition or fees are charged
to students, and the recruitment of students to the US programs is not permitted. Activities
such as faculty exchanges, joint conferences, Skype dialogs, and ongoing consultation facilitate
67
Ira Colby
the exchange of ideas and the enhancement of social work education in China. Similarly, the
US programs are finding their program staff and students directly benefit from the university
exchanges through seminars, guest lectures, and general dialog around global social justice and
social work matters.
Summary thoughts
Social work has quickly emerged into a global profession, as evidenced by the significant growth
in the number of social work educational programs around the world. In 2000, the International
Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) identified 1,384 universities worldwide that
offered social work as a degree or certificate program, and by 2010, the IASSW Global Census
reported 2,110 such universities, a 52.5 percent increase (Barretta-Hermann et al., 2014: 2).
While on the surface this rate seems impressive, it does not accurately reflect the real growth in
social work education. This IASSW Directory includes only institutions that offer a course of
study in social work while not differentiating or considering levels of study, that is, baccalaure-
ate, masters, or doctoral. This unintended undercounting was noted by Barretta-Hermann et al.
(2014: 3), who offered a cautionary note when considering the 2010 data:
. . . a simple comparison of the listings obscures the dramatic increase in degree pro-
grams during the past decade. . . . Many institutions offer more than one degree
program . . .
For example, the IASSW Directory lists 38 universities in Canada that have a social depart-
ment or school; yet these universities offer 84 different BSW, MSW, and/or PhD social work
programs, which paints a far different picture related to the size and scope of social work edu-
cation in Canada (Barretta-Hermann et al., 2014: 3).
While recognizing that neither the IASSW membership directory nor the association’s
decennial census clearly describe the size, scope, and scale of social work education worldwide,
it is safe to conclude that the number of universities offering social work degrees or certificates
has grown significantly and is found in all regions of the world. As Barretta-Hermann et al.
(2014: 20) conclude, “The growth of social work education reported here confirms the notable
coalescence and an emerging strength gathering around the profession of social work in every
part of the world.”
Yet, attempting to identify social work programs involved in CBU or franchising is an even
more difficult task. No governmental or NGO authority systematically collects CBU informa-
tion related to social work education. There are some obvious steps that can be taken to fill this
void.
One strategy might include an assessment of the C-BERT database to identify universities
with a social work program; from there, a simple survey of the respective social work programs
would provide some insight into their level of engagement in such activities. A significant lim-
itation to this type of study, however, is recognizing that C-BERT data does not capture all the
universities engaged in CBU or franchising programs.
A second approach entails a detailed examination of online social work programs to identify
those that offer enrollment for international students. Current online information sheds mini-
mal insight into cross border education activities. CSWE reported that 3 universities – Boston
University, California State University-Northridge, and University of New England – of the 31
online MSW programs accept international students for this distance learning approach (Coun-
cil on Social Work Education, 2014). While some online programs listed explicit geographic
68
limitations – for example, Fordham University and University of Hawai’i at Manoa – most
schools did not clearly state that international students were excluded from enrollment. Thus,
it is impossible to determine if the remaining online programs employ an international study
option. We also must consider that an online program does not meet the CBU requisite of
having a physical presence on-site. Even so, such research will help social work educators better
understand the borderless educational experience.
A third and certainly a more comprehensive, orderly approach to CBU education data col-
lection would involve the various national educational authorities routinely collecting this
information from their membership. There is value to gaining numerical insight into CBUs,
their various forms and structures, and resulting challenges and opportunities for the sponsoring
social work program. There is much to be learned from those universities already engaged in
CBU and franchising efforts as more social work programs move into this global enterprise.
Social work education must recognize the importance of the CBU as a new twenty-first
century educational strategy, lest the profession be left on the sidelines of mounting global
scholastic initiatives. There are ways, as evidenced by the CSWE-CASWE China Initiative, to
create unique and meaningful global relationships. The underlying objective for all social work
educators should be to establish “best practice models” that are not framed by Western educa-
tional structures; in addition, these programs must reflect the unique dimensions and zeitgeists
of the host nation. Further, social work educators must insure that all the necessary resources are
in place for a CBU or franchise program to offer a quality education. Finally, and most impor-
tant, there must be parity regarding tuition and fees between the sponsoring university and the
CBU/franchise; engaging in global education should not be driven by the prospects of adding
an “alternative revenue stream” for the sponsoring university.
The CBU offers an exciting opportunity for global learning while creating channels that
open up and encourage meaningful friendships and collaborations. Social work educators must
engage in this new world knowing that communities worldwide will be better served as stu-
dents and future practitioners develop a deeper appreciation of the richness of diversity, the
importance of critical thinking, and the role of innovation in a flattening world.
References
Altbach, P. (2012). Franchising – The McDonaldization of higher education. International Higher Education,
66, 7–8.
Barretta-Hermann, A., Leung, P., Littechild, B., Parada, H., & Wairire, G. (2014). The changing status and
growth of social work education worldwide: Process, findings and implications of the IASSW 2010
census. International Social Work. Available at http://isw.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/10/06/00208
72814547437 [Accessed 20 January 2015].
Bischof, L. (2014). Franchising, validation, and branch campuses in the European union. International Higher
Education, 74, 16–17.
Collyer, S. (2013). The future of higher education – the franchise model. Elearningthoughts, [blog] 13 April.
Available at http://elearningthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-franchise-model-as-future-of-higher.
html [Accessed 19 January 2015].
Council on Social Work Education (2012). China–United States social work collaborative. [online] Council
on Social Work Education. Available at www.cswe.org/CentersInitiatives/KAKI/50754.aspx [Accessed
19 January 2015].
Council on Social Work Education (2014). Distance education. [online] Council on social work edu-
cation. Available at http://cswe.org/Accreditation/Information/DistanceEducation.aspx [Accessed 18
January 2015].
Cross-Border Education Research Team (2015). C-BERT branch campus listing. [online] [Data originally
collected by Kevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane]. Albany, NY: Author. Available at http://globalhighered.
org/branchcampuses.php [Accessed 18 January 2015].
69
Ira Colby
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux.
Global Finance (2015). The richest countries in the world. Available at www.gfmag.com/global-data/
economic-data/richest-countries-in-the-world [Accessed 2 April 2015].
Gupta, A. (2007). Cross border higher education: India’s response. A Regional Conference on Strategic Choices
for Higher Education Reform. Available at http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEV1xIQfdU94AA
94VXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByNXQ0NThjBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM1BHZ0aWQDBH
NlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1425519048/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fsiteresources.worldbank.
org%2fEDUCATION%2fResources%2f278200–1121703274255%2f1439264-1193249163062%2fA
sha_Gupta_DAY3.ppt/RK=0/RS=lvgQgaEteK.3I78qFwuhQ8_Eh8A- [Accessed 19 January 2015].
Internet World Stats (2014). Internet users in the world distribution by world regions – 2014 Q4. Inter-
net World Stats [online] 30 June. Available at www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm [Accessed 19
January 2015].
Kinser, K., & Lane, J. (2012). Foreign outposts of colleges and universities. International Higher Education,
66, 2–3.
Lane, J., & Kinser, K. (2013). Five models of international branch campuses. International Higher Education,
70, 9–11.
Law, A., & Gu, J. (2008). Social work education in mainland China: Development and issues. Asian social
work and social policy, 2(1), 1–12.
Liu,Y., Lam, C., & Yan, M. (2012). A challenged professional identity: The struggles of new social workers
in china. China Journal of Social Work, 5(3), 189–200.
National Universities Commission (n.d.). Guidelines for cross border provision of university education
in Nigeria. Available at http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO8yEDQfZUCboACVtXNyoA;_ylu=X
3oDMTByMjR0MTVzBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwM3BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/
RE=1425453444/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nuc.edu.ng%2fcms%2fnews%2fuploads%2f
Guideline%2520for%2520cross%2520border%2520education.pdf/RK=0/RS=Vfgj1Te1RfLYfwe
ja5BDqmWFH6I- [Accessed 19 January 2015].
Obst, D., & Kuder, M. (2012). Internal joint and double-degree programs. International Higher Education,
66, 5–7.
Ting, W., & Zhang, H. (2012). Flourishing in the spring? Social work, social work education and field
education in China. China Journal of Social Work, 5(3), 201–222.
Tong, M. (2007). Reflection on social work field education in China: A journey to become a professional
social work educator. Social Work Education, 26(6), 645–648.
Vincent-Lancrin, S. (Ed.) (2007). Cross-border tertiary education, a way towards capacity development. OECD
Publishing and World Bank.
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2012). The international branch campus as transnational strategy in higher edu-
cation. Higher Education, 64(5), 627–645.
70
SECTION 2
Emerging and re-emerging

7
DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL
WORK EDUCATION IN CHINA
IN AN ERA OF RAPID REFORM
AND TRANSFORMATION
Introduction
Social work was first introduced to China in the 1920s, but it was eliminated in the early 1950s
both as a discipline in the universities and as a profession in the country, due to the dominance
of leftist ideologies in the newly established People’s Republic of China. After a lapse of over
30 years, social work was restored to the university curriculum in the Chinese mainland in 1988
because of the growing need for social work professionals to help in resolving escalating social
problems triggered by the introduction of the open door economic policy in 1979 and the
demise of the comprehensive state welfare system.
While social work training programmes and welfare services rapidly expanded throughout
China during the subsequent decade, the social work profession was not at all visible and did
not receive much public recognition in the country. But since the late 1990s, China has under-
gone phenomenal reform and reconfiguration of its political, economic and social security
systems, which have resulted in lasting impact on the social work profession. In 2006, the Chi-
nese Government announced its national policy “to construct a harmonious society” and the
establishment of “a grand team of professional social workers” to help in the achievement of this
national goal. These policy initiatives have not only quickened the professionalization process of
social work, but have also drastically shifted the trajectory of social work development in China
(Yuen-Tsang & Wang, 2008).
In this paper, the authors will take a close look at the development of social work education
since its reintroduction to China in 1988 and will analyze the challenges confronting its devel-
opment, as well as projecting the future trajectory for the development of social work education
in China. In this chapter, China refers to the Chinese mainland.
Overview of the development of social work education in China

Since the reintroduction of social work education in China in 1988, the development of social
work programmes has gone through several stages of development and experienced phenome-
nal growth in leaps and bounds.
73
1988–1998: Rebuilding the social work education system

In 1988, only five institutions of higher education were given approval by the State Committee
of Education1 to launch social work programmes at degree level. Many other universities and
colleges, including some cadre colleges, also started their social work programmes in the 1990s.
Almost none of the social work educators had received any formal social work training prior
to teaching, and they only learned to teach social work through attending short-term training
programmes, borrowing teaching materials from their Hong Kong and Taiwan counterparts, and
learning through trial and error.
The development of social work education in the 1990s was extremely tedious and encoun-
tered considerable difficulties and tensions. Some of the major challenges include the lack of
public recognition and understanding of the social work profession; an unclear role distinction
between the social work professionals and government cadres; lack of professionally trained
social work teachers; lack of career prospects for social work graduates; lack of indigenous teach-
ing materials and thus the tendency to directly borrow from Western concepts and methods;
and the lack of professional practice experience to facilitate theory-building.2 However, the
early social work educators were able to withstand these challenges and persist in their effort to
develop social work programmes to suit the needs of the local contexts. The China Association
for Social Work Education (CASWE) was formed in 1994 to develop comradeship among social
work educators and to foster the advancement of social work education in China.The CASWE
has subsequently played a pivotal role in supporting the development of social work education
and advancing the professionalization of social work in the country.
1999–2005: Rapid expansion of social work programmes

Between 1988 and 1999, institutions that offered social work programmes rose from 5 to
27. In 1999, the Ministry of Education launched “The Revitalization of the 21st Century
Action Plan for Education”, raising the ratio of university enrolment and extending the size
of universities. This opportunity has resulted in the fastest growth of social work education at
degree level in this period, with the number of universities offering social work programmes
rising from 27 in 1999 to 172 in 2005. However, many of these social work programmes were
not adequately staffed with trained social work teachers, and their curricula, especially their
fieldwork placement arrangements, were not well developed (Yuen-Tsang and Wang, 2002).
It was against such a background that much effort was made during the period to improve
the standard of social work education programmes and to “train the trainers”. The CASWE
played an important role in providing training opportunities for its members by inviting
experts from Hong Kong, Taiwan and overseas to help in its intensive training programmes.
Many educators were sent out by their universities to study for their MPhil and PhD degrees
in social work, and the first Masters in Social Work (MSW) programme was launched in 2000
by Hong Kong Polytechnic University in collaboration with Peking University with the aim
of nurturing a critical mass of social work educators to lead the future development of social
work education in China.
2006 to now: Institutionalization of social work education in China

In 2006, the Central Government announced the policy paper “The Decision Concerning
Several Major Problems in Building a Socialist Harmonious Society” during the 16th Cen-
tral Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. This spelt out the necessity of establishing
“a grand team of professional social workers to help in building a harmonious society” and
74
Social work education in China
proposed strategies to recruit, train, evaluate and professionalize the social work workforce of
China so that they could help in building a stable and harmonious society. In 2012, 19 Ministries
and Committees in China jointly issued the “2011–2020 Medium Long-term Strategic Plan on
the Development of Social Work Professional Manpower Team”, confirming the urgent need
to develop professional manpower to support the development of a harmonious society, and
stipulated a target of training 500,000 social workers by 2015 and 1,450,000 by 2020. This plan
was received with great excitement by the social work community in China and has given a
clear direction for the social work education community to expand both the depth and breadth
of social work programmes in China (Yuen-Tsang & Wang, 2008).
In line with the Government’s initiative of promoting social work education, the Academic
Degrees Committee of the State Council decided in 2009 to allow universities to offer Chi-
na’s own MSW programmes. Between 2009 and 2011, a total of 58 key institutions of higher
education were approved to offer MSW programmes across China. As of June 2015, there were
310 universities and colleges offering social work programmes at degree level and 104 offering
MSW programmes, with another 60 or so colleges providing professional education in social
work at postsecondary level. According to CASWE, the annual intake for undergraduate degree
students was 15,398 in 2012 and for MSW students was 1,851 in 2014.3
Figure 7.1 vividly reflects the rapid rise in social work programmes in China between 1988
and 2012.
Factors contributing to the rapid development of

social work education in China
The rapid development of social work education in China was unprecedented elsewhere in the
world. Its rapid development was made possible by a host of factors, including the acceleration
of social problems by the introduction of a market economy; the concerted effort of key stake-
holders of the social work community; leadership provided by the Chinese Government; as well
as the staunch support by the Chinese and international social work community.
Accelerating social and economic problems in China

The announcement of the open door economic policy and the introduction of market econ-
omy by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 was a response to the urgent need to modernize China’s
industry and to improve economic productivity and growth. However, economic reform also
brought about the demise of the collective welfare system and dismantling of the safety net for
the vulnerable groups previously provided for by the State. Massive social problems resulted,
including poverty, unemployment, crime, corruption and a widening gap between the rich
and poor.
In view of the escalation of social problems, the Chinese Government was searching for ways
to resolve these problems and to maintain social stability. Some leading academics and political
leaders, such as Madam Lei Jie Qiong, Professor Fei Xiao Tong and Professor Yuan Feng, who
were previously educated in social work and applied sociology and were involved in teaching
social work before liberation, proposed the reintroduction of social work to China and fervently
advocated for the restoration of social work to the university curriculum. They argued that
social work should be introduced to fill the welfare gap created by the removal of the collective
welfare system and that social workers should be trained to help in solving the accelerating social
problems created by market economy. The restoration of social work in the university curricu-
lum in 1988 was largely a result of their vision and their persistent advocacy.
75
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Total number of schools Schools with post- Schools with social work
offering social work secondary social work degree programmes
programmes programmes
Schools with social work Schools with MSW

research degree programmes programmes
Figure 7.1 The development of schools of social work in China at various levels between 1988 and 2012
(Source: Wang, S.B., Yuen-Tsang, A.W.K., & Shi, B.N. [2014]. The Development of Social Work Education in
China, p. 48.)
Concerted effort and active involvement of key stakeholders

of the social work education community in China
The concerted effort of key social work education stakeholders in the sector played a pivotal
role in the revitalization of social work in China. As mentioned above, some social work aca-
demics involved in teaching social work before liberation fervently advocated the reintroduction
of social work into the university curriculum, and their influential positions and active involve-
ment was critically instrumental in the restoration of social work in China. Moreover, the fleet
of newly recruited social work teachers, who were attracted to teaching social work because of
their belief that social work might help in providing solutions to the growing social problems in
China, were to become the new pioneers in developing social work education in China. While
these young scholars initially lacked professional training and practice experience, they were
able to make up for their inadequacies through self-study, short-term training, attachments, and
taking MSW and PhD studies in Hong Kong and overseas.
76
The China Association of Social Work Education (CASWE), established in 1994, had become
the national platform for networking, training and policy advocacy relating to social work edu-
cation. While CASWE only had 27 institutional members in its early days, the number of its
institutional members had risen to 310 by 2015, comprising all the institutions of higher learn-
ing that offer professional social work programmes in China. The CASWE organized annual
conferences, regular training programmes, practice workshops, student forums and international
exchange seminars; developed practicum sites in different parts of China on different special-
ized areas; published social work textbooks through a concerted effort; and provided policy
consultation for Government Ministries on the future development of social work education.
The Presidents of CASWE have always come from Peking University, while its Secretariat has
always been based at the same university. Peking University’s eminent status and leading role in
China’s social work education sector has provided the Association with enormous advantage in
promoting social work education in the country.
The Sociology Curriculum Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Education of China has
also provided great support to the development of social work education in China. Being a par-
tially State-affiliated body, it was authorized by the Ministry of Education to promote and regu-
late the development of subjects relating to Sociology (Social Work has been categorized as part
of the broad discipline of Sociology), as well as to provide consultation to various institutions of
higher learning and to assess their performance. The Committee has played a dominant role in
determining the course syllabi for social work education across China and was instrumental in
supporting the introduction of the MSW programme to China in 2009. The close partnership
between sociologists and social work academics is a distinct feature of China, with its roots in
the strong “Applied Sociology” tradition that started in the 1920s and continued until today.
Government leadership in spearheading the development

of social work education in China
The Chinese Government has played a decisive role in spearheading the development of social
work education in China. As seen earlier, the 2006 Government plan to build “a grand team
of professional social workers to help in building a harmonious society” and the subsequent
strategies introduced to ensure the successful implementation of this plan has resulted in the
phenomenal growth of social work education programmes in China. The “2011–2020 Medium
Long-term Strategic Plan on the Development of Social Work Professional Manpower Team”
jointly issued by 19 Ministries and Committees has given added impetus for the development
of social work education in China and has helped in consolidating and even elevating the status
of social work in China. As a result, many leading universities in China have now established their
social work departments, introduced MSW programmes, recruited qualified staff to teach these
programmes and have started to undertake research programmes relating to social issues as well
as social work solutions to these problems. It is hoped that social work will gradually become a
mainstream discipline in the universities, providing high-quality education programmes to nur-
ture competent social workers who can make a significant impact on social betterment.
The Chinese Government has also indirectly supported the development of social work
education by giving resources to support the professional training of frontline social workers, for
starting pilot projects, and for the purchase of social services provided by service agencies estab-
lished by university social work departments. Many university social work teachers were invited
by local Governments to start their social service organizations and provide social work services
for their respective communities. These organizations are all non-profit in nature, they have to
be registered with relevant Government departments and may apply for Government-sponsored
77
projects through competitive bidding. The teachers play a supervisory and monitoring role as
the legal personnel in charge of these organizations, and the paid staff are usually recruited
from graduates of the university social work departments supporting these organizations. Many
social work teachers were motivated to start their respective social service agencies because
these organizations could provide direct practicum opportunities as well as future employment
prospects for their graduates. Given the lack of social service organizations in China with high
professional standards and good practice models, this opportunity provided an attractive model
for many social work departments and their teachers to draw on government funding to exper-
iment with innovative service models. This innovative initiative by the Government has helped
in expanding the breadth and scope of social work services in China and also helped in provid-
ing practicum opportunities for both the students and the teachers of social work programmes
(who might not have gone through direct professional practice themselves). While concerns
have been raised about the potential conflict in the dual roles as social work teachers and agency
directors, and the quality of services provided by students to community service users, this initi-
ative has received a very positive response from the public. It is considered as an interim measure
which could serve community needs while helping to bridge the theory-practice integration
gap for social work education in China.
Staunch support from the international

social work education community
The restoration of social work education in 1988, following its elimination in 1952, has created
both opportunities and challenges. Fortunately, the social work education community in Hong
Kong, Taiwan and overseas immediately rendered its support with open arms through the pro-
vision of short-term training programmes, attachments, scholarships for PhD studies, books and
teaching resources, as well as sending academic staff to teach in some of the programmes.
The support rendered by the Hong Kong social work education community was particu-
larly notable. Because of its proximity and the shared cultural heritage and language, Hong Kong
became the most logical choice for collaboration and destination for training. During the 1990s
and 2000s, many social work educators received their MPhil and PhD degrees from various uni-
versities in Hong Kong, with scholarships provided by the Hong Kong Government, and most
graduates have returned to China and have taken up leadership positions in different universities,
Government Ministries and professional organizations. In 2000, Hong Kong Polytechnic Uni-
versity launched the MSW Programme in collaboration with Peking University, with the aim of
developing a critical mass of social work educators to provide leadership in spearheading the future
development of social work education in China.This programme focused on “training of trainers”
and, between 2000 and 2014, has produced 238 graduates from seven study cohorts. These grad-
uates have taken up key social work positions in universities, Government Ministries and NGOs,
and have become key players in steering the development of social work education in China.
The international social work community has also offered staunch support. The Working
Group on Relationship with China of the Asia and Pacific Association for Social Work Educa-
tion (APASWE), consisting primarily of social work educators from Hong Kong, proposed to
co-organize a regional seminar on social work education in collaboration with Peking Univer-
sity in 1988 and received an extremely positive response from the social work community in
China and overseas.This seminar marked the beginning of regional and international collabora-
tion in social work capacity building in China and has nurtured partnerships that have spanned
nearly three decades. During the 1990s, a series of APASWE “training of trainers” workshops
and attachment programmes were organized in Hong Kong through the concerted effort of
78
the Hong Kong social work schools, sometimes involving educators in Taiwan and Singapore in
the process. The APASWE also provided overseas attachment and conference attending oppor-
tunities for Chinese social work educators in Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand and India, thus
helping to raise the horizon of these educators and exposing them to international social work
standards and practices.
The International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) has also contributed to the
development of social work education in China through capacity-building initiatives. IASSW
has partnered with CASWE on many occasions in co-organizing international seminars and,
since 2010, has partnered with CASWE to organize capacity-building workshops for MSW
educators on a regular basis, so as to empower them to effectively take the lead in designing
and teaching MSW programmes in China. Since 2012, IASSW has worked with the American
Council of Social Work Education to facilitate the development of a China-US Collaboration
whereby seven American social work schools were linked with seven universities in China to
foster long-term partnerships including academic exchanges, collaborative research and profes-
sional development.
All the above-mentioned capacity-building and partnership programmes could never be
achieved without the unfailing support of many Hong Kong-based and international philan-
thropic foundations. For example, the Keswick Foundation has provided generous donations
since 1988 to support the development of social work education including the APASWE train-
ing seminars, scholarships for students enrolled in the MSW programme offered by the Hong
Kong Polytechnic University and Peking University, and the CASWE operating budget for two
5-Year Plans. Such support has played a decisive role in the successful implementation of many
strategic plans that otherwise would never have materialized.
Opportunities and challenges confronting the development

of social work education in China
There is a Chinese saying that there are three critical factors for success: “at the right time, at
the right place, and with the right people” (天時、地利、人和). The development of social
work education in China has met all three conditions and therefore was able to progress at a
remarkable pace and manner within a relatively short span of time.
In terms of the “right timing and right climate” (天時), social work education was restored
at the time when China was undergoing rapid social reform and transformation and was des-
perately in need of practical solutions to solve its growing social problems. Social work, with
its long history of development across the globe and its impressive track record accumulated
throughout its over 100 years of development, provided the theories, methods and tools that the
Government believed could bring answers to these social problems and could help in building
a harmonious society in the process. The staunch support rendered by the now deceased social
work patriarchs such as Madam Lei Jie Qiong during the formative years of the restoration of
social work education was extremely crucial, and it has given much credibility and legitimacy
to social work in the eyes of the national leaders. The late restoration of social work to China
was in fact to become a blessing in disguise because of its lack of professional rigidity and its
relative flexibility in accommodating innovative ideas for development. Certainly, the growing
economic prosperity of China at the turn of the twenty-first century has provided the necessary
resources to support the massive development of social work services and experimentation with
new practice models at this particular juncture when resources were much needed.
In terms of the “right place and right location” (地利), the development of social work
education in China has greatly benefitted from the steadfast support of the Hong Kong and
79
Taiwan social work communities, located just next door. The strong cultural heritage and blood
ties shared by social workers from the Chinese mainland and overseas Chinese communities,
especially Hong Kong and Taiwan, provided a solid foundation for long-term partnerships. The
overseas Chinese social work education community provided immediate support to their main-
land counterparts through training, teaching resources, scholarships, study opportunities and
international networks, and they even secured the necessary funding to support these endeav-
ours. The fact that the CASWE as well as the National Supervisory Committee for the MSW
Professional Degree Programmes were both located at Peking University also helped symbol-
ically in raising the status of social work education by placing these organizations at the top
university in China.
In terms of the “right people and right relationship” (人和), the harmonious partnership
relationship among key stakeholders of the social work community within and outside China
was pivotal to positive development. The humble beginning of social work education in the
1990s and the lack of public recognition and resource support meant that only those with vision
and passion were attracted to this new occupation. The founding CASWE leaders were driven
by their common vision of social work education as a catalyst for positive social change and
development. As such, these leaders were able to work in close partnership and harmony towards
a common good. Moreover, many of the younger CASWE leaders were close-knit, as they had
been PhD and/or MSW classmates. These leaders were able to work in close partnership with
Government officials at national and local levels since many were their friends, schoolmates
and/or students, and they were able to consult on policies and practices relating to social work
education and social work services for China.
However, despite the highly positive developments presented above, there are also many
challenges in the development of social work education in China that need serious attention.
Disconnect between the social work education system and the

welfare service and manpower placement system
When social work education was reintroduced to China in 1988, there was already a well-
developed system of social security in place, with the Ministry of Civil Affairs taking responsi-
bility for providing basic support for the most vulnerable sectors of the population including
orphans, elderly, disabled persons and those without any support system. Other Ministries and
Government-affiliated organizations such as the All-China Federation of Women, All-China
Youth Federation, and All-China Federation of Trade Unions also provided different social ser-
vices for their members. Even with erosion of the State welfare system and dominance of the
market economy, these basic welfare provisions remained primarily staffed by grassroots-level
cadres recruited through the usual civil service system and not required to undergo professional
training, including social work training. Thus, the university social work education system that
strongly emphasizes professional training coexists in parallel with the Government welfare ser-
vice system. When the Ministry of Civil Affairs introduced annual Social Work Professional
Examinations in 2009 with a view to gradually raising the professional standard of practising
social workers, it had to allow those who had not gone through formal social work education
programmes to take part in the junior level of this examination4 in order not to antagonize
the vast number of practicing welfare workers. This structural problem has negatively affected
the pace of professionalization in China, but hopefully measures can be introduced in the near
future to resolve this disconnect and synchronize the two systems.
A related problem is the mismatch between social work education and related placement
opportunities. For more than two decades, social work education in China has concentrated
80
mostly on building up social work programmes and providing high-quality professional education.
However, relatively little has been done to ensure the placement and subsequent employment of
graduates in social work-related organizations. This lack of coordination between social work
education and the employment opportunities for graduates (Liu Zheng, Huang Wei Sheng & Liu
Dong Sheng, 2012) has resulted in a wastage of resources devoted to training students and impeded
growth of the social work profession in China. In recent years, the establishment of social service
agencies by university teachers to provide professional social services for community service users
has created many new social work positions that require professional expertise. These initiatives
will hopefully help in increasing the employment rate of social work graduates in professional
social work organizations, and in turn, help in the professionalization of social work in China.
Tension between internationalization and contextualization

The tension between internationalization and contextualization has been an issue since the
reintroduction of social work education in China. Since social work is a profession with strong
international roots and influences, there were robust debates on whether social work in China
should be built on the Western model by borrowing wholesale from overseas curricula, or
whether China should develop its own indigenous curriculum derived from local practice and
experience. The debate seems to have subsided, and most social work educators appear to sub-
scribe to the view that while international experience and global social work education stand-
ards should be followed as far as possible, these should be integrated with the practical realities
of China. This discourse has strongly influenced the development of social work education, and
many pioneering practice models have been undertaken in different parts of China with differ-
ent target groups and communities, the aim being to develop indigenous theories and practice
models that could be integrated into social work curricula. However, as indicated above, the
pre-existing welfare service system was based on practices that were not related to social work
principles, and there were bound to be some tension and conflicts in the service delivery process.
Up to now, social work has operated alongside the existing welfare service model in the form
of “embedded development” (Wang, 2011), whereby social work principles and practices were
integrated into the existing service system through an implanting process so that the structure
of existing services remained intact, but the principles, values and methods of social work were
inserted and gradually became dominant.
On the plus side, the continuing tension between internationalization and contextualization
has provided opportunities for innovative development for social work education in China.
The ongoing tension between the need to adhere to international standards and the need to
contextualize education practices that are culturally appropriate and relevant to local needs will
remain a constant concern as well as a source of inspiration and debate. Being situated at a time
of rapid reform and transition, social work education in China has to take up the challenge of
developing innovative strategies and approaches that may be unheard of in other parts of world,
but which may provide useful insight for other developing countries in the future in their search
for indigenous social work education models.
Tension between Government leadership and education autonomy

Social work education in China has been strongly influenced by the Government. In fact,
social work education would not have been able to achieve its phenomenal growth and social
impact without Government intervention. However, such strong influence has also generated
some potential concerns, especially with regard to overdependence on Government support
81
and guidance and thus the possibility of losing its vibrancy and self-sustainability. The strong
administrative capacity of the Chinese Government and its unquestionable ability to influence
the trajectory of social work education in China through development of policy initiatives and
resource allocations is clearly evident. Although the Government initiatives have been extremely
positive and facilitative so far, and have steered the development of social work education in
China towards positive goals, the risk is that overdependency may give rise to complacency and
inertia. Efforts must be made to develop multiple avenues and sources of funding, and to moti-
vate community and civic engagement to support the development of social work education
and service innovation in China. The social work education sector in China must continue to
search for its own path forward and engage in constant reflection and experimentation so as to
ensure its ongoing creativity, vitality, innovative spirit and commitment to social betterment.
Epilogue
The development of social work education in China has gone through dramatic changes and
phenomenal growth since its reintroduction in 1988. While the growth and development dur-
ing the past three decades had been extremely positive and pleasing, there are issues of concern
and potential setbacks which must not be overlooked.
The pace of reform and transformation in China is extremely fast and dynamic, and this will
impact on the future development of social work education in China. The changing environ-
ment will, on one hand, provide opportunities for development, but it might also create tensions
and challenges. The future development of social work education in China is dependent on
the ability of the social work community to respond to the dynamic changes of society in a
proactive and creative manner. Social work educators in China must not lose sight of their com-
mitment to serving the people or their belief in the catalytic role of social work education to
foster social change and social development. As such, social work educators must be sensitive to
the needs and voices of the people; they must actively engage in interactions and dialogue with
their stakeholders; they must constantly engage in critical reflection on the quality and mode of
social work education that they provide for students; they must keep abreast with global trends
and developments in social work education; and they must constantly improve policies and prac-
tices that may have a long-term impact on the development of social work education in China.
Notes
1 Now renamed as the Ministry of Education.
2 Please refer to Yuen-Tsang, A.W.K. (1996). Social work education in China: Constraints, opportunities
and challenges. In T.W. Lo & J.Y. Cheng (Eds.), Social welfare development in China: Opportunities and chal-
lenges (pp. 85–100). Chicago, IL: Imprint Publications Company.
3 Figures provided by the China Association of Social Work Education.
4 This examination has two levels at present: the Assistant Social Worker level and the Social Worker level.
The latter level primarily requires the candidates to have undergone social work training, though those
who have attained the first level and have long working experience in welfare services could also apply.
References
Liu Zheng, Huang Wei Sheng, & Liu Dong Sheng. (2012). The localization of China’s social work: Current
development and prospects. The Journal of Guangdong Industrial University (Social Science Edition), (4).
Wang Si Bin. (2011). The embedded development of China’s social work. Social Science Front, 2(2).
Wang Si Bin & Yuen-Tsang, Angelina W. K. (2009). Social work development in China against the back-
ground of the construction of a harmonious society. Chinese Social Sciences, (5).
82
Wang Si Bin, Yuen-Tsang, Angelina W. K. & Si Bo Nian. (2014). The development of social work education in
China. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Yuen-Tsang, A.W.K. (1996). Social work education in China: Constraints, opportunities and challenges.
In T. W. Lo, & J. Y. Cheng (Eds.), Social Welfare Development in China: Opportunities and Challenges
(pp. 85–100). Chicago, IL: Imprint Publication Company.
Yuen-Tsang, A.W.K. & Wang Si Bin. (2002). Tensions confronting the development of social work educa-
tion in China: Challenges and opportunities. International Social Work, 45(3), 375–388.
Yuen-Tsang, A.W.K. & Wang Si Bin. (2008, April). Revitalization of social work in China:The significance
of human agency in institutional transformation and structural change. China Journal of Social Work, 1(1),
5–22.
83
8
TREADING THE LONG PATH
Social work education in Malaysia
Jonathan Parker, Sara Ashencaen Crabtree and Azlinda Azman
Introduction
Social work education has successfully permeated higher education institutions in Malaysia. It
is offered across a number of universities, where it is regarded as a popular discipline attracting
many students. However, the professionalization of social work remains something of an aspi-
ration. This chapter examines future directions for social work education at Malaysian higher
education institutions (HEIs) with a view towards strengthening current programmes and con-
sidering the complexities of training at sub-degree levels in order to maintain supply. Accord-
ingly, educational issues pertaining to social work education and minimum qualifying standards
for social work curricula are considered, together with the inception of a council of social
work education and finally, accreditation issues. This discussion is set within a context that
acknowledges the historical colonial legacy informing current social work education in Malay-
sia and contemporary social policy that has drawn on indigenous and authenticized thought
and practices.
Malaysian social work: a historical context

Modern-day Malaysia was formed in 1963, followed Malaya’s independence in 1957 and the
later joining of Sarawak and Sabah in Borneo, and, until 1965, Singapore. Malaysia is a multi-
cultural society with three main ethnic groups – Malays, Chinese and Indian – and a minority,
0.6 per cent, indigenous Orang Asli peoples in West Malaysia and a large Dayak minority in
East Malaysia. Indigeneity in Malaysia encompasses numerous and distinctive ethnic groups.
Developmental planning, since independence, has led to Malaysia becoming an industrialized
economic success story in Southeast Asia with an expressed political will for socio-ethnic inte-
gration. Surface stories, however, occlude tensions that stem from a policy of affirmative action
in favour of the bumiputera (sons of the soil) Malay majority, and a process in some States espe-
cially of Islamification, which sits alongside a national policy of religious tolerance.
Social welfare and social work, in peninsular Malaysia especially, is associated with its colo-
nial past. Formal welfare services were developed, as in Britain, in the early twentieth century.
In 1912 a social welfare programme was established by the colonial administration to improve
the well-being of migrant labourers (Baba, 1992). Whilst this department was closed owing to
financial constraints during the depression of the 1930s, a new Social Service Department was
created in 1937 within the Colonial Office in Malaya (Mair, 1944).
84
During this short pre-war period, Malayan social services covered education, labour and
health issues, not just social work, in urbanized and settled kampung (village) areas but also focused
on the social development of the indigenous community of the interior rural areas, the non-
Malay, Orang Asli, tribes of interior Malaya protected by the anthropologist-administrators of
the Department for Aboriginal Affairs (Mair, 1944; Ashencaen Crabtree et al., 2016). In addition,
housing, poverty relief, youth services, home industries and penal services also formed part of the
remit of the Social Welfare Department. This represented the beginning of more systematic and
formalized social services in Malaya, which were re-established after World War II.
The first Department of Social Welfare was established in 1946. In 1964, the Department was
elevated to the Ministry of Social Welfare. However, the Ministry was abolished in 1985 and was
reduced again to departmental status under the Ministry of National Unity and Community
Development (Baba, 1992). In 2004, the Ministry of National Unity and Community Devel-
opment was dissolved and renamed the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Develop-
ment (MWFCD). The MWFCD provides wider coverage in addressing social issues related to
women, family and community development. It has been granted power to oversee four other
agencies: the Department for Development of Women ( JPW), the Department of Social Wel-
fare, Malaysia ( JKMM), the National Population and Family Development Board (LPPKN) and
finally, the Social Institute of Malaysia (ISM).
Under the MWFCD, the Department of Social Welfare (DSW) has a duty not only to
provide professional services but also to implement government policies on matters pertaining
to welfare. The social welfare services carried out by the DSW include casework, foster care
and adoption, juvenile probation and parole, protective services for the aged, institutions for
delinquents and child protection. It remains the largest government agency and employer of
professional social workers in the country, although actual numbers are not known (Baba, 2002).
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have always been supportive in assisting the gov-
ernment and local communities to carry out some social services, which might otherwise have
fallen under the responsibility of the DSW. People with disabilities and those with mental health
problems living in the community continue to be supported by NGOs and independent organ-
izations, as well as by their families. The context to this lies in the minimal State intervention
ideology that Malaysia follows, where, like the Confucian welfare model, the responsibility
for and care of the young and old, sick and needy are deemed to rest first and foremost in the
family domain.
The formation of a professional body, the Malaysian Association of Social Workers
(MASW), in 1973 was a major event in the development of social work in Malaysia. Its main
objective is to promote and maintain standards of social work in Malaysia, and MASW made
a major contribution towards the development of the first social work education programme
in Malaysia.
Health issues had been an early preoccupation for the colonial authorities, and rudimen-
tary services were located in primarily urban areas holding a concentrated colonial presence
(Manderson, 1996). In 1952, the Ministry of Health introduced medical social work into local
hospitals, focusing on public health issues. One of the earliest medical social work departments
in Malaysia was established in 1964 at the University Hospital Kuala Lumpur (Baba, 2002).
Medical social work retains a very important position among the social work specialisms in
Malaysia today (Ashencaen Crabtree, 2005). However, initially health services were primarily
oriented to the needs of expatriates, and only secondarily for the indigenous population, whose
first recourse was local traditional healers.
Although predominantly, and officially, a Muslim country, with Christian and Buddhist
minorities, traditional healers remain highly regarded in Malaysian society, practising within
85
Jonathan Parker et al.
various religio-cultural milieus, such as the Muslim bomohs (of pre-Islamic tradition) or the
Chinese Taoist Tang’ke, while varying animistic forms are embraced by many indigenous people,
a large number of whom remain rurally based. The popularity of traditional healing remains
evident among rural and urban communities represented unevenly by all ethnic groups, despite
the prevalence of biomedical models of health care (Barrett, 1993; Fidler, 1993; Lewis, 1995;
Laderman, 1996; Wintersteen et al., 1997; Ashencaen Crabtree, 2007). Traditional healing is not
a topic regularly covered in social work curricula in Malaysia, but social workers need to engage
constructively with the phenomenon of traditional healing, particularly when it involves the
health-seeking behaviour of vulnerable service users and their families, who are likely to couch
explanations regarding illness and recovery in terms of the supernatural (Swami et al., 2009).
Academic interest in international social work has gradually moved from a fringe interest
among a few outward-looking individuals, to a more pivotal position in the discipline’s corpus
of knowledge and epistemology.This appears to be commensurate with the increasing awareness
of the nature of multiculturalism in societies. In addition, there exist the paradoxes of globali-
zation, where the impact of political influence and the flow of capitalism and finance, together
with political migration of populations, have dissolved some national boundaries while asserting
fragmented concentrations of diverse identity among the people of former power blocs in the
form of nationalism. Equally, this trend can also be seen among those who seek to distinctly
define themselves in opposition to the perceived values and conduct of superpowers. In this
vein, James Midgely’s (1990) critique was a footnote to the evolutions of social work when
he condemned the transference of Western social work models, particularly American ones, to
developing countries as a form of cultural imperialism.There has since been a body of literature
discussing the question of the incongruence between the so-called Western focus on the cult of
the individual as opposed to the interdependency and collective perspective prevalent in Asian
societies (Ngai, 1996; Tsang, 1997, 2001; Fulcher, 2003; Ling, 2004).
Two particular social work paradigms have been identified as having emerged in developing
countries in order to meet local needs, and thus diverge from the US-British models. These are
‘indigenization’, a process by which Westernized models are adapted to fit local contexts; and
‘authenticization’, which is fundamentally grounded in the cultural schema and knowledge
base of ethnic groups (Ling, 2007). Due to the hegemony of professional literature and research,
which continues to be dominated by Western authors and publishers, both indigenization and
authenticization are primarily grassroots phenomena, rather than regularly debated and analyzed
in social work curricula within developing countries (Ashencaen Crabtree, 2008).
Much of our knowledge of authentic and indigenous practice has been gathered through
qualitative research that reveals the extent of variation in perspective, knowledge and con-
duct underpinning social welfare in societies. Ling (2007) draws on her experiences as a
local Malaysian academic attempting to research her own community via an insider-outsider,
subjective-objective stance through which she can defamiliarize and duly analyze the familiar.
Using these means she explores the concepts of malu (loosely translated as the ‘shame’). Malu
colours the interactions and behaviour of many Malaysian people and comes to the fore in terms
of the potential difficulties individuals may have seeking social work assistance (Ling, 2007).
Other concepts she considers include the beliefs in karma, fate and nature, said to create an atti-
tude of acceptance towards the vicissitudes of life (Ling, 2007). Ashencaen Crabtree (2008) and
Ashencaen Crabtree and Baba (2001) developed insights into Islamic perspectives and cultural
variation in connection with social work across Muslim societies, primarily based on teach-
ing experiences and research in the context of local immersion. In connection with this, they
compare the experience of teaching counselling with Malay Muslim students and Buddhist stu-
dents. The authors concluded that although more existential conceptualization, which might be
86
thought to be a very Westernized approach, worked well with Buddhist students, the majority
of Malay students tended to prefer a solution-based approach embedded in culturally expected
and religiously mandated outcomes.
Counselling skills (and theory) are frequently taught as part of the social work programme
universally. However, with the exception of some Western countries, the USA in particular,
counselling per se remains the preserve of a select few. In Malaysia this is also the case, as
the counselling profession has attained pre-eminent status compared to social work, despite
the problematization of fit regarding established Westernized counselling models in developing
countries and specifically Muslim ones, where the Muslim counsellor may adopt the role of a
religious and moral guide (Hassan, 1993; Soliman, 1988). Counselling in this context may there-
fore be viewed as a form of indigenization of Western models. Nonetheless, the continued need
for this kind of intervention has been raised based on the clinical social work case studies of the
second author with Malaysian cancer patients (Ashencaen Crabtree, 2005), and such interven-
tions clearly must remain within the purview of Malaysian social work.
Another important form of authenticized practice is that of gotong-royong: a form of commu-
nity aid that coalesces to address particular issues affecting local people (Ling, 2007; Ashencaen
Crabtree, Husain & Spalek, 2008). Gotong-royong activities act as highly effective forms of partic-
ipatory action that serve a useful need and validate grassroots community action, with normally
minimal intervention by State services and from whom such community groups may remain
largely independent (Ashencaen Crabtree, Wong & Mas’ud, 2001). Gotong-royong is therefore
not exclusively a social work preserve, but is part of the profession’s indigenized tool kit. There
are clear similarities here to the more familiar models of social development and community
work that were once important aspects of the eclectic and creative social work profession in
Britain, now virtually extinct for day-to-day practice due to petrification of the role into rigid,
bureaucratized specialization.
The development of social work education in Malaysia

Need among the immediate post-war population proved a watershed for the establishment of
recognized social work in Malaya. The need for qualified practitioners was met by a two-year
social welfare officer training course at the London School of Economics; the majority of grad-
uates during this period were British (Mair, 1944; Baba, 1998). Following Merdeka (independ-
ence) in 1963, many Malaysian social workers were trained within the region at the National
University of Singapore, then known as the University of Malaya (Baba, 2002). Other social
workers studied in Indonesia, the Philippines, India, the UK, Australia and the USA. However,
socio-economic, cultural, and political factors strongly encouraged the establishment of national
social work education programmes.
The development of social work at undergraduate level in Malaysia began at the Universiti
Sains Malaysia (USM) in 1975, due to a recognized need for more professionally trained social
and community workers (Yasas, 1974; Ali, 1988; Baba, 1992, 2002). A BA social work course
at USM was established by the Ministry of Social Welfare following the 1968 United Nations
Conference of Ministers Responsible for Social Welfare and advice of the United Nations Eco-
nomic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) (Yasas, 1974). The need
to educate professionally qualified social workers in the country focused on staff at the Min-
istry of Social Welfare and other relevant ministries, such as the Ministry of Health, Ministry
of Education, Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports and the Ministry of Rural and Economic
Development, who already had some working experience in areas relevant to social work (Yasas,
1974; Baba, 1992).
87
The formation of social work education programmes at Universiti

Sains Malaysia (USM) and other Malaysian universities
Initially, UNESCAP proposed a ‘Social Work and Community Development’ degree at USM,
but this was replaced by the title ‘Social Development and Administration (SDA)’. The latter
title was considered more appropriate for Malaysia at that time in its need to develop social
capacity and public administration (Yasas, 1974; Baba, 1992; Fattahipour, 1992).Twenty years later,
the programme was renamed ‘Social Work’ to reflect its actual identity and curriculum, as the
previous name created misunderstanding and confusion (Desai, 1991). Additionally, the current
programme title coheres with both national and international professional bodies.
An important aspect of the social work programme at USM and many of its sister universities
in Malaysia is their location in Schools of Social Sciences. Social work at USM sits alongside
four other programmes: Anthropology and Sociology, Development Studies, Political Science,
and Economics. This is thought to protect social work programmes from extraneous influ-
ences that may remove social work from its social science disciplinary roots (Parker, 2007; Gray,
Parker & Immins, 2008).
In its first four years, the USM programme selected students via a special intake programme
for staff at the Ministry of Social Welfare (Baba, 1992). This intake programme continues to run;
however, it is now open to the staff of other relevant ministries as well. Eventually, the programme
began to take in baccalaureate students, beginning in 2011. In 2015, at the time of writing, the
student population remains small, with no more than 60 students per intake, along with 10
places for special intake students. Since its inception, the USM programme has produced more
than a thousand graduates. USM has also expanded its postgraduate social work programme.
Both a research master’s and doctoral degree in social work were introduced in 1975. In 2006,
postgraduate studies were expanded at USM by introducing a social work qualifying master’s
degree with the aim to train more professional social work educators and practitioners. With
the offerings of all of these programmes, USM has become the social work training hub for
the many local and regional social work educators, especially those serving the other six HEIs
that offer a social work degree. To date, USM has produced more than 30 doctoral graduates in
social work and contributed to the education of a similar number of regional and international
research graduate students through its international collaboration with other institutions.
In the 1980s, new social problems such as HIV/AIDS and substance misuse emerged in
the context of a shortage of trained government-employed social work staff, necessitating the
development of further social work programmes.The changing social situation also provided an
important social indicator that Malaysia needed to develop better services for its people. Com-
mensurately, in the late 1980s and early 1990s a government campaign was orchestrated with the
aim of creating a caring and civil society. This period also saw the formation of new NGO-run
human service organizations, with both governmental and non-governmental organizations
attempting to address the unmet needs of service user groups.
These factors contributed towards the development of new social work education pro-
grammes in Malaysia in the 1990s (Baba, 1992; Cho & Muhd Salleh, 1992). Between 1993
and 2002, seven HEIs introduced their own social work education programmes, primarily at
bachelor level.
The professionalization of social work in Malaysia and

implications for education
Schools of social work globally have based their social work education on the criteria devel-
oped by the International Association of Schools of Social Work, which also allows indigenous
88
interpretation and application (IFSW/IASSW, 2004).The international standards for social work
education developed by IASSW have been instrumental in developing Malaysian social work
education (IFSW/IASSW, 2004). Evaluation of programmes is normally based on the philos-
ophy of social work education and the global social work education criteria as laid down by
IASSW (Hokenstad & Kendall, 1995; IFSW/IASSW, 2004).
The MASW, social work educators and others – individuals, government and non-
government agencies – who are concerned about the future of professional social work in
Malaysia have debated standards and professionalization for over 40 years. In order to maintain
its standards, MASW set down specific criteria for candidates seeking full membership. To be
a full member, a candidate requires a social work degree (undergraduate or graduate) from a
recognized or accredited HEI or social work education programme.
However, Malaysia does not yet have an accreditation body that scrutinizes professional
issues, such as accreditation, standards, quality and needs. Social workers who have received their
social work education from recognized institutions are normally acknowledged as having been
trained into the profession. Nevertheless, whether they see themselves as professionals or not
remains in question. Not all qualified social workers have the opportunity to receive supervision
and professional support from within agency settings or to have their status as ‘professional’ social
workers acknowledged.
Since there is, as yet, no legislation implemented in Malaysia, standards of accreditation of
social work education were left to each respective institution offering such programmes. Pro-
grammes with better resources – more qualified social work educators, adequate library facilities,
mission statements and a clear set of objectives – may consider that they produced professional
social workers. Others without such resources may have seen themselves in a transitional stage
towards meeting the international professional standards. Debates towards accreditation, stand-
ards and regulation continue.
However, moves to professionalize social work education in Malaysia are not without contro-
versy and cannot be accepted simply as a ‘received’ good or panacea.These developments require
critique and analysis and a commitment to adopting the best local traditions in the context of
global standards.
Whether social work is a ‘profession’ or ‘semi-profession’ is a well-rehearsed argument whilst
raising questions concerning social work’s homogenous or heterogeneous global status (Hutch-
ings & Taylor, 2007; Parker & Doel, 2013). Trait theories demand two core elements: a) social
workers must operate according to a systematic knowledge and philosophy of social work; and
b) must apply professional norms when practising social work (Etzioni, 1969; Parker & Doel,
2013). There has been a long debate concerning the best ways forward to professionalize social
work and social work education, culminating in the Ministry of Women, Family and Commu-
nity Development (MWFCD), Department for Social Welfare ( JKM), the Malaysian Association
for Social Work (MASW) and UNICEF agreeing to adopt and promote global standards of
competency.This agreement led to the championing of a proposed Social Worker’s Act designed
to implement these global standards at national level, to create more standardized education
for social workers across universities and to regulate further both practitioners and educators
(MASW, n.d.).
The problems resulting from the protracted gestation of a professionalized system of social
work education in Malaysia was greatly emphasized by many national and international experts.
UNICEF, JKM and MASW have collaborated in promoting an accredited system of appropriate
education, training and qualifications for social work, particularly in working with children.The
premise was that creating a system of qualifying education based around accepted international
competencies for social workers would bring Malaysian social work into line with other systems
89
around the world, would protect the public by licensing, regulating and professionalizing prac-
tice and provide the best social work services, in the end, for all.
Initially a degree-level qualification was sought and promoted. However, a growing dis-
quiet emerged that recognized the need for a ‘twilight period’, a period of grace in which
existing social workers could gain qualifications or move into different roles within the sector.
This rumbling unease emerged into concerns that there may not be enough people with the
pre-university education necessary to study for a degree, and therefore demanding a degree-
level qualification may result not in the professionalizing of social work practice by employing
more qualified practitioners but the diminution of social workers available to work in Malaysian
social work agencies.
The issue of training at sub-degree level was debated at a planning and discussion meeting
that two of the authors attended with Malaysian academics, social workers, government depart-
ment officials and the international consultant at the Methodist College of Kuala Lumpur
(MCKL) in January 2014. The implication for the workforce of a degree-only qualification was
accepted, and discussion focused on levels of qualification for different levels of responsibility
or work, allowing entrants to gradually gain a qualification in social work and not to lose out
intellectually or financially by having to study for prolonged periods at a level too advanced for
some. Problems at this stage, however, concerned the demands for a full and extensive documen-
tation for introducing and getting the proposed Diploma programme approved by the Malaysian
Qualification Agency (MQA). In addition, the requirement for face-to-face delivery of degree
has also created issues for people needing to work whilst studying. On 7 March 2015, just over
a year later, a further meeting at the MCKL finally agreed on the curriculum of the Diploma in
Social Work to be put to the MQA for approval.
Concerns about social work being a degree-entry profession have continued to rage. This is
because many of the agencies in Malaysia and some states are not convinced of the difference
between professional social work and voluntarism. There is an argument that the introduction
of a Social Worker’s Act for example would ‘kill the spirit of volunteerism’ (Fernandez, 2014).
MASW have pointed out clearly the erroneous alignment of contemporary social work and vol-
unteering, praising the humanity, compassion and concern of those who volunteer on behalf of
others and illuminating the complexities of professional social work (Borneo Post Online, 2014).
Such debate has somewhat delayed the process of passing the Social Worker’s Act and confirms
that more effort is needed to educate wider society about professional social work practice.
Current issues in the development of social

work as a profession in Malaysia
The promotion of social work in Malaysia is restrained by negative public perceptions and a lack
of understanding of its roles and functions. These problems have been compounded by the hiring
of untrained social workers in the past, where for example in one instance, psychiatric social work
posts have been filled by graduates in the humanities and other equally unrelated fields. Unqualified
‘social workers’ have been employed in hospitals and welfare departments because their primary
role has been regarded as solely providing financial assistance to clients, or routine administrative
tasks. Circuitously, a lack of knowledge and skills in social work by these untrained social workers
has somewhat tarnished the image of the social work profession itself (Baba & Azman, 2008).
Many government and non-government agencies do not understand what qualified social
workers can do to promote the well-being of individuals, families and communities, typified by
the response of the Department of Social Welfare and the Health Department, which continue
to employ untrained social workers to do social work. Furthermore, over the last ten years, these
90
departments have decided to hire counsellors for clients’ psychosocial intervention, and this
has created role confusion, with many social workers unsure about when and whether they are
enabled to provide psychosocial intervention for clients (Baba & Azman, 2008).
In terms of employment, students who graduated and trained in social work are still strug-
gling to obtain jobs relevant to their training. Regrettably, the Public Service Department (PSD),
which controls and monitors job intake for civil servants, does not appear to recognize a social
work degree as a specialized qualification for designated social work positions. As a result, many
social work positions for relevant ministries have been filled by others not trained in social work
(Baba & Azman, 2008).
Social work education programmes in Malaysia vary across universities. Some programmes
still lack lecturers who are qualified social workers, which is assumed to affect the standards and
quality of social work education in the university setting and also understanding the centrality
of practice or field education. In 2010, the majority of social work educators in Malaysia had
no formal training or professional working experience in social work prior to entering HEIs
(Baba, Ashencaen Crabtree & Parker, 2011). Large intakes of students additionally create a high
student/staff ratio, stretching staff capacity, which further affects the quality of social work edu-
cation and research.
To address this, Baba et al. (2011) argued that Malaysia needs a unified, strong professional body,
such as a council on social work education but adapted to Malaysian needs, and an accreditation
body that can monitor quality and standards for the profession. These could be separate bodies
that should serve as advisor to all relevant organizations that deal with social work (Baba, 2002).
At present, almost all Malaysian universities offering social work education focus on under-
graduate social work, with the exception of two universities where a master’s programme is
offered through coursework and research. The majority of undergraduate students are aged
between 19 and 21 and have very little experience of life. At a time when many struggle with
their own personal growth, many graduates may not be able to handle certain situations and
interventions that require more sophisticated knowledge and skills in social work, and there is a
recognized need to increase numbers of mature students.
Certain universities continue to offer a special intake programme for mature students with
appropriate work experience. Although these students are expected to serve their respective
organizations upon completion of their studies, many decide to change careers. Unable to be
promoted, qualified workers may search for better opportunities elsewhere, even those not
relevant to their training. Ultimately, a large number of mature students use the special intake
programme for personal gain and for easy access to universities, defeating the purpose of a spe-
cial intake programme.
Finally, the Institute of Higher Education Management Department must work alongside
professional accrediting bodies through monitoring HEIs that want to introduce social work
education programmes, and ensuring that the basic infrastructure supports such as staffing,
library facilities and appropriate fieldwork placements are in place.
Continuing needs in Malaysian social work education

There are five areas which need attention if social work education in Malaysia is to move
forward.
Developing standards for social work curriculum

There are seven HEIs currently offering social work education at the bachelor level in Malay-
sia (although two universities offer social work as a minor but are hoping to expand their
91
provision). Consistent standards are needed to guide the development of social work education.
Some universities have used IASSW guidelines, but this has not been ubiquitous, and a profes-
sional accrediting body can help in ensuring consistency here.
The National Joint Consultative Committee on Social Work Education (NJCCSWE), set up
in January 2002, aimed to help HEIs promote social work by developing minimum standards
on social work education in respect of facilitating student learning and integrating knowledge
and practice. Consisting of seven universities developing the minimum standards of social work
education in Malaysia, the NJCCSWE acts as a resource organization for social work educa-
tion in Malaysia (Baba 2002). It is important that Malaysia develops locally specific standards
which accord with IASSW’s global guidelines. The experiences of other countries continue to
hold important resonances for Malaysia; but these experiences should be looked at critically
and lessons learned where stultification and overprescription has resulted from the desire to
professionalize.
More qualified social workers as educators in HEIs

Universities need to increase qualified social work teaching staff to meet future needs in social
work education and reduce reliance on overseas postgraduate education by developing master’s
and doctorate-level programmes nationally (Desai, 1991). Such programmes must be carefully
planned so that the standards remain high, and this may require a phased approach, working
with overseas universities whilst developing research capacity that focuses on Malaysian issues.
Social work research is often focused on Western, high-income country concerns and is
located within a dominant health and social care paradigm rather than specific social work and
social science disciplines.There is very little research being carried out on social work education
in Malaysia (Orme & Karvinen-Niinikoski, 2012).
Graduate employment
All universities offering social work in Malaysia need to work together to lobby government
and non-government agencies to hire more qualified social workers. When it comes to govern-
ment posts, like that of ‘welfare officer’, ‘medical social worker’ and ‘school social worker’, the
Malaysian Association of Social Workers, with the support of the Department of Social Welfare,
can play a more proactive role to work with the Public Service Department and the respective
ministries, so that appropriate jobs can be allocated to qualified social workers. A central role
of the MASW, therefore, will be to work towards the complex identification of specific social
work roles and tasks.
It appears that increasing numbers of NGOs in Malaysia are recognizing the need to employ
qualified social workers. Student placements at these NGOs are particularly useful in helping
such organizations to develop their understanding of social work roles. But it will be necessary
for NGOs and educators to identify the particular contribution made by social workers and to
link this to research programmes.
Staff exchanges across HEIs

Staff exchanges should be encouraged, particularly between more experienced social work edu-
cation programmes and those that are newly established. This process not only encourages a
closer working partnership across institutions but also promotes good practice in social work
92
education. While important intra-nationally these are also important internationally so as to

gain from wider experience and allow for the contextualization of social work education at the
local level.
Developing criticality
Traditional emphases on respect and deference for rank and hierarchy may, at times, hamper the
acquisition and promotion of critical thinking skills and being able to challenge. However, the
development of professionalized education demands a sceptical approach to standards and com-
petences and the potential for instrumental political control of social work services as opposed
to human-focused, fluid and intuitive practice wisdom. Debates concerning criticality, tradition
and indigeneity are assisting the formation of appropriate and authentic models of social work in
Malaysia, in which aspects of the colonial legacy integrate with indigenous thought and practice
(Ling, 2007; Ling, Martin, & Ow, 2013). What is clear is that the three main ethnic groups –
Chinese, Indian and Malay, widened by the inclusion of the indigenous peoples of Malaysia – bring
a multitude of different perspectives and traditions which add to a more multicultural rather than
uniform mix that echoes the call for critical approaches within an indigenously sensitive frame.
Conclusion
The future direction of social work education in Malaysia requires all stakeholding bodies
within the social work profession and allied educational sectors to give their support to the pro-
motion of social work in Malaysia. The National Joint Consultative Committee on Social Work
Education needs to take an active role in sharing knowledge and developing social work cur-
ricula, without compromising quality. Furthermore, the value and knowledge base of Malaysian
social work education should reflect the need to improve social services and enhance the social
well-being of individuals, families, groups and communities without discrimination in terms
of age, gender, race, religion, sexual preference and political ideology. Importantly, social work
education and social work practice should reflect an authentic and appropriately indigenized
approach befitting Malaysian society and its contemporary context. Given the transitional state
of social work education in Malaysia and the socio-political context in which it is practiced,
there are many challenges, but also many opportunities.
References
Ali, S. H. (1988). Social work education in Malaysia. Paper presented at seminar on social work education in
the Asian and Pacific region. Organized by Sociology Department of Peking University, Beijing, China.
Ashencaen Crabtree, S. (2005). Medical social work in Malaysia: Issues in practice. International Social Work,
48(6), 741–742.
Ashencaen Crabtree, S. (2007). Madness and the hegemony of healing: The legacy of colonial psychiatry
in Sarawak. In H.E.W. Cheng Sim (Ed.), Village mothers, city daughters: Women experiencing urbanisation in
Sarawak, Malaysia (pp. 71–87). Singapore: University of Singapore Press.
Ashencaen Crabtree, S. (2008). Dilemmas in international social work education in the United Arab Emir-
ates: Islam, localization and social need. Social Work Education, 27(5), 358–536.
Ashencaen Crabtree, S., & Baba, I. (2001). The Islamic perspective in social work education. Social Work
Education, 20(4), 469–481.
Ashencaen Crabtree, S., Husain, F., & Spalek, B. (2008). Islam & social work: Transforming values into practice.
Bristol: Policy Press.
Ashencaen Crabtree, S., Parker, J., Crabtree Parker, I., & Crabtree Parker, M. (2016). Death of the dragon lake:
Voices from Tasik Chini. Kuala Lumpur: SIRD.
93
Ashencaen Crabtree, S. Wong, C. M., & Mas’ud, F. (2001). Community participatory action in dengue
prevention in Sarawak, Malaysia. Human Organization, 60(3), 267–281.
Baba, I. (1992). Social work: An effort towards building a caring society. In Cho Kah Sin, & Ismail Muhd
Salleh (Eds.), Caring society: Emerging issues and future directions (pp. 509–529). Malaysia: ISIS.
Baba, I. (1998). The need for professionalism of social work in Malaysia. A report on advancing social work
education. Organized by Faculty of Social Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak 16–17 November 1998.
Baba, I. (2002, January 17–18). A report: The establishment of council on social work Malaysia. A first round-table
meeting at the school of social sciences. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Baba, I., Ashencaen Crabtree, S., & Parker, J. (2011). Future indicative, past imperfect: A cross cultural com-
parison of social work education in Malaysia and England. In S. Stanley (Ed.), Social work education in
countries of the east: Issues and challenges (pp. 276–301). New York, NY: Nova.
Baba, I., & Azman, L. (2008). A report on the development of the Bachelor of Social Work, Social Work
Program, School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Penang, Malaysia: USM.
Barrett, R. J. (1993). Performance, effectiveness and the iban manang, In R. L. Winzeler (Ed.), The seen and
the unseen: Shamanism, mediumship and possession in Borneo (pp. 235–280). Williamsburg, VA: Ashley
Printing Services.
Borneo Post Online (2014). Social workers and volunteers separate entities – MASW. Available at www.the
broneopost.co/2014/09/02/social-workers-and-volunteers-separate-entities-masw/ [Accessed 23rd
March 2015].
Cho, K. S., & Muhd, Salleh (1992). Caring society: Emerging issues and future directions. Kuala Lumpur, Malay-
sia: ISIS.
Desai, A. S. (1991). Report of the academic assessor to the Social Development and Administration (SDA)
Program, School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia. October 27 – November 2, 1991.
Etzioni, A. (Ed.) (1969). The semi-professions and their organizations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Fattahipour, A. (1992). A search for identity and development. A paper presented at the expert group
meeting to review the Social Development and Administration Program, Universiti Sains Malaysia: Its
objectives and directions, July 1991, 19–20.
Fernandez, J. (2014). Sarawak rejects social workers act. Free Malaysia Today. Available at www.freemalaysia
today.com/category/nation/2014/08/28/sarawak-rejects-social-workers-act/
Fidler, R. C. (1993). Spirit possession and exculpation: The Chinese of Sarawak. In R. L. Winzeler (Ed.),
The seen and the unseen: Shamanism, mediumship and possession in Borneo (pp. 207–234).Williamsburg,VA:
Borneo Research Council Monograph, Inc.
Fulcher, L. (2003). The working definition of social work doesn’t work very well in China and Malaysia.
Research on Social Work Practice, 13(3), 376–387.
Gray, I., Parker, J., & Immins, T. (2008). Leading communities of practice in social work. Groupwork or
management? Groupwork, 18(2), 26–40.
Hassan, R. (1993). The interface between Islam and psychiatric practice in Malaysia: A personal viewpoint.
Malaysian Journal of Psychiatry, 1, 93–101.
Hokenstad, M. C., & Kendall, K. A. (1995). International Social Work Education, in National Association of
Social Workers, Encyclopedia of Social Work, pp. 1511–20. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Hutchings, A., & Taylor, I. (2007). Defining the profession? Exploring an international definition of social
work in the China context. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16(4), 383–390.
IFSW/IASSW. (2004). Statement on Ethical Principles. [online] Available at http://ifsw.org/policies/
statement-of-ethical-principles/.
Laderman, C. (1996). The poetics of healing in Malay shamanistic performances. In C. Laderman, &
M. Roseman (Eds.), The performance of healing (pp. 191–206). New York/London: Routledge.
Lewis, I. M. (1995). Ecstatic religion: A study of shamanism and spirit possession. London: Routledge.
Ling, H. K. (2004).The search from within: Research issues in relation to developing culturally appropriate
social work practice. International Social Work, 47(3), 336–345.
Ling, H. K. (2007). Indigenising social work: Research and practice in Sarawak. Selangor: Strategic Information
and Research Development Centre.
Ling, H. K., Martin, J., and Ow, R. (2013). Cross-cultural social work: Local and global. South Yarra: MacMillan.
Mair, L. P. (1944). Welfare in the British colonies. Great Britain: The Broadwater Press.
Manderson, L. (1996) Sickness and the State, Health & Illness in Colonial Malaya 1870–1940. Hong Kong:
Cambridge University Press.
MASW (n.d.) History of Social Workers Act. Available at www.masw.org.my/images/socailact.html
[Accessed 24th March 2015].
94
Midgely, J. (1990). International social work: Learning from the Third World. Social Work, 35(4), 295–299.
Ngai, N-P. (1996). Revival of social work education in China. International Social Work, 36(2), 289–300.
Orme, J., & Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. (2012). Social work research. In K. Lyons, T. Hokenstad, M. Pawar, N.
Huegler, & N. Hall (Eds.), The Sage handbook of international social work (pp. 179–197). London: Sage.
Parker, J. (2007). Developing effective practice learning for tomorrow’s social workers. Social Work Education,
26(8), 763–779.
Parker, J., & Doel, M. (2013). Professional social work and the professional social work identity? In
J. Parker & M. Doel (Eds.), Professional social work (pp. 1–18). London: Learning Matters/Sage.
Soliman, A.M. (1988). The role of counselling in developing countries. International Journal for the Advance-
ment of Counselling, 14, 2–14.
Swami,V., Arteche, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Maakip, I., Stanistreet, D., & Furnham, A. (2009). Lay per-
ceptions of current and future health, the causes of illness, and the nature of recovery: Explaining health
and illness in Malaysia. The British Psychological Society, 14, 519–540.
Tsang, A. K. T. (2001). Representation of ethnic identity in North American social work literature: A dos-
sier of the Chinese people. Social Work, 46(3), 299–243.
Tsang, N. M. (1997). Examining the cultural dimension of social work practice:The experience of teaching
students on a social work course. International Social Work, 40(1), 133–144.
Wintersteen, R. T., Wintersteen, L. B., Mupedziswa, R., & Cheah, A. (1997). Families and mental illness:
Observations from two developing countries. International Social Work, 40(1), 191–207.
Yasas, F. M. (1974). The greatest revelation is stillness. International Social Work, 17(2), 50.
95
9
CREATING SOCIAL WORK
EDUCATION IN THE
REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA
Mark Doel, Iago Kachkachishvili, Jo Lucas,
Salome Namicheishvili and Natia Partskhaladze
Socio-political development of Georgia

Georgia is a very old country, referred to in ancient historical sources and its language codified
by the fifth century. It lies in the Caucasus between Russia to the north and Turkey to the south.
Georgia restored its independence from the Russian Empire in 1918, but its social democratic
government lasted only three years and the country was occupied by Bolshevik Russia in 1921,
incorporated a decade later into the Soviet Union, the modernised Russian empire. In 1991,
Georgia regained independence as a result of perestroyka in the Soviet Union and the national
independence movement within Georgia itself.
During the 70 years of Soviet occupation, Georgians found themselves with limited options,
all ‘deviant’: adaptation to the party patronage system; activity in a shadow economy; or criminal
accumulation of wealth at the expense of the state. All these options were corrupting, and cor-
ruption became endemic towards the end of this period (Нижарадзе, 2010). Overcoming this
corruption was the main challenge for independent Georgia.
The current situation in Georgia can be best described as ‘hybrid’: its political regime is nei-
ther fully democratic nor fully autocratic (Freedom House, 2015). Georgian society is neither
strictly traditional nor modernist, and Georgian culture bears the signs of both collectivism and
individualism. Liberalism and conservatism can coexist within the same social group. Georgia is
scored as ‘negative, close to the neutral’ when measured on a scale of liberal democracy, moder-
nity and individualism (Matsumoto et al., 2008; ISSA, 2012).
In terms of independent Georgia’s social development, the period from 1991–1995 was
characterised by great hardship. The economic and social situation deteriorated catastrophically,
with civil war and territorial and ethnic conflicts. The newly formed post-soviet states faced
enormous economic problems – an unprecedented fall in Gross Domestic Product of 72%
GDP (Greece’s fall of 32% from 2008 to 2014 is modest by comparison) and a massive deteri-
oration in the social situation. The state withdrew from its responsibilities, including the virtual
abolition of pensions, which were reduced to $1 a month. A very high inflation rate decreased
the effectiveness of systems of social protection and eroded what benefits there were. Interna-
tional humanitarian aid, provided in the form of food and clothes, was the main form of social
assistance, but it was unreliable and the social system was unable to cope with various waves of
internally displaced persons, the victims of civil unrest. Basic needs for food, shelter and safety
were not met, and criminal groups replaced or absorbed the failed state structures.
96
Social work in the Republic of Georgia
The beginning of rehabilitation started in 1995 with a return to economic growth, introduc-
tion of the national currency (lari) and a sevenfold increase in the pension (less than $7 a month).
The power of criminal groups became restricted, and there were improvements in the basic
infrastructure such as electricity and gas supplies. Social assistance programmes were launched,
notably for family assistance and unemployment. The greatest social and cultural change was a
high level of freedom of speech, largely due to the weakness of the state. However, the pace of
change lagged behind the population’s expectations and, significantly, corruption still flourished
and reduced the benefits of positive changes.
The period from the 2003 ‘Rose Revolution’1to the present day is characterised by an
extraordinary strengthening of government, which made it possible to carry out radical reforms
in many sectors. Economic deregulation had the most significant impact on the social situation.
Revenues showed an unprecedented increase, largely because of the successful fight against cor-
ruption.This made it possible to focus on the social sector and introduce redistributive measures,
most evident in the social assistance system, where the focus moved to targeted support for
people in poverty via a means-tested subsistence allowance. Old age pensions increased to a rate
of approximately $63 per month by 2015.
However, the years of authoritarian governance based on ‘those who are not with us are
against us’ proved difficult to eradicate, and the governing party lost the 2012 elections amidst
fears of increasingly authoritarian government. It is only very recently, then, that Georgia had its
first peaceful, democratic transfer of power. Georgian Dream, the new governing party, faced the
challenge of preserving its predecessor’s achievements whilst filling the evident gaps. Despite the
success of some specific social projects (topped by the introduction of the universal health insur-
ance system), the Georgian government fails to cope with the single major challenge – poverty.
GDP per capita was $3,681 in 2014 (Geostat, 2015a), ranking 116th out of 194 countries (World
Bank, 2014), and economic growth for 2015 was 2.5%. Approximately 40% of the Georgian
population is unable to secure subsistence-level income ($72 a month for a working-age per-
son), and the nominal unemployment rate is about 17%, but much larger when acknowledging
those tired with the fruitless search for a job and those considered to be ‘self-employed’ (Geostat,
2015b). Georgia continues to struggle with difficulties common to transitional societies (Kach
kachishvili, 2014).
It is against this social and political background that developments in social work and social
work education need to be considered.
Antecedents for social work in Georgia

In Georgian culture, the family and community have traditionally been the main basis of sup-
port.Where this support did not exist or ceased to function, or where resources had disappeared
altogether, the only option was old-fashioned residential institutions. By early in the twenty-first
century, the impact of the soviet system and the changes thereafter meant that family resources
were heavily stretched and the need for alternative or supplementary systems became apparent.
So, acknowledgement of the value of social work – this ‘new to Georgia’ profession – was in part
because there was so little provision for people with social and physical problems. Additionally,
there was growing professional contact between Georgians and international colleagues, espe-
cially from Europe and North America, and increasing recognition of the value of professional
social work for Georgia and its people.
Social care institutions in Georgia were far from residents’ families and communities, and
contact was frequently lost. This was less a problem for orphanages, which tended to be smaller
and nearer the centres of population. Many children in these institutions were what became
known as social orphans – ‘orphans’ solely because their families could not afford to care for
97
Mark Doel et al.
them. Institutions for people with physical and mental disabilities were frequently inaccessible
and often inappropriate. For example, one psychiatric hospital had originally been used for the
workers who built a hydroelectric power station and was sited deep down a wooded valley with
no local centres of population or transport system. It was inaccessible for family or friends who
wanted to remain in contact, and it discouraged return by patients to their families, work or
neighbourhoods.
As noted earlier, the pensions and benefits system was frugal and unable to support people
who were out of work and living in poverty, even less those with any complex social and phys-
ical problems.
Services for children with disabilities were limited and confined to the NGO and church
sectors, and most have only been established since the millennium. A UNICEF review of these
services (2011, unpublished) found that some were still located in inaccessible buildings without
sanitary facilities or specialist support for staff and the children and their families.
In 1999, the Georgian Association for Mental Health (GAMH) invited cooperation with a
small UK-based organisation, the Hamlet Trust, and it became clear that there was a desire for
social work training. In parallel, several self-help groups and an advocacy project were estab-
lished in the Georgian mental health system. In their sole day centre, GAMH employed people
who carried out tasks that could be expected of social workers. Although employed as ‘social
workers’, they could not be required to have social work qualifications, because these did not yet
exist. Several local organisations were undertaking ‘pre-qualifying’ social work training for the
NGO sector, and this enabled staff at GAMH and in the voluntary sector to develop new skills
on a regular basis.The Hamlet team offered a series of short workshops on social work skills that
also saw the involvement of students and staff from the National University of the Kiev Moyhla
Academy, making links between newly independent nations of the former Soviet Union; as
we will see, this became a theme of later developments. These workshops proved popular and
made use of a book on social work practice skill development whose lead author later became
involved directly in Georgian social work education (Doel et al., 1996).
The Project Manager ( Jo Lucas) had learned from a similar project in Ukraine that the key
to success was the quality of the relationships between the international and the local teams.
Trusting, open communications were essential to meet the problems and challenges that would
undoubtedly arise. Happily, these relationships were achieved to support the social work educa-
tion partnerships between Georgians and their international supporters.
UNICEF took a leading role in promoting the development of services for children and
families and, by 2005, the Georgian government followed this lead by identifying children and
families as a priority. In addition, a lively and well-established NGO sector in Georgia and a sup-
portive set of International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) provided fertile ground
to develop and support a wide range of practice placements for future students (see later).
The beginnings of social work education in Georgia

A number of post-soviet societies, including the Russian Federation, started to develop social
work education in the 1990s (Walker, 2014). However, the situation in Georgia prevented
an opportunity for this kind of development. In 1999, with UNICEF Georgia’s support, 18
pioneers representing different professions were trained as childcare social workers through a
non-degree course provided by EveryChild (a British charity). Hired by NGOs, these trainees
were tasked to support the de-institutionalization process in Georgia, which had just started.
At the same time, the Open Society Foundation (OSF), established and supported by the philan-
thropist George Soros, announced the first Scholarship Programmes in social work to develop the
98
profession in post-soviet countries. In close collaboration with Washington University, St. Louis,
and Columbia University, New York, OSF provided support to selected candidates who held a
degree and experience in a related field, and who were passionate about advancing social change
in their home countries. At the initial stage this programme operated in Azerbaijan, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia,Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, offering 16 scholarships a year in all.
The Georgian scholarships began in 2000 (two per year).The high return home rate demon-
strated the commitment of Georgian graduates and played an enormous part in raising the
profile of social work in Georgia to support subsequent developments. In 2004 five graduates of
the Programme established the Georgian Association of Social Workers (GASW), two of whom,
Salome Namicheishvili and Natia Partskhaladze, are co-authors of this chapter. By 2015 GASW
membership stands at 600, which includes 51% of all qualified social workers in the country.
GASW also represents semi-qualified practitioners, social work students and some other pro-
fessionals supporting GASW objectives and is highly regarded for its role in strengthening the
profession nationally and for its international profile.This success can be attributed to the energy
and teamwork of its leaders. From its early days, the organisation has succeeded in gaining the
trust and support of many local, national and international partners.
GASW’s founding mission to foster the social work profession in Georgia had a central goal
of establishing and supporting social work education. In 2002, with support from the Civic
Education Project (Open Society Institute), the first two social work classes were introduced
at the Faculty of Psychology at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University (TSU), taught by a
future founder of GASW; in 2006 a graduate degree programme in social work was initiated at
TSU with support from the Academic Fellowship Programme of the Open Society Institute,
moving to Ilia State University in 2007. Starting from 2006, academic social work education at
three levels – bachelor, master and doctoral – was established at TSU with support from the EU,
which we explore in this next section.
The development of EU partnerships

In addition to the quality of the personal relationships, a key issue in most new developments is
funding. In this case, how could funds be secured to support and expand these beginnings in the
development of professional social work education in Georgia? The development costs could
not be met by the Georgian state, so it was necessary to seek funds from an international source.
In 2004 the EU and the Georgian government agreed that social policy and social change
would be a priority for the Tempus III programme in Georgia. This was an opportunity to
build on the existing infrastructure which had relied entirely on the Georgian voluntary sector
and the nascent GASW. A collaboration between Tbilisi State University, GASW, and two EU
universities (Sheffield Hallam, UK, and Ljubljana, Slovenia) was successful in securing a Tempus
programme to establish social work education at different levels. Partners were agreed that the
education created must be responsive to the Georgian context and avoid cultural imperialism
(Doel & Penn, 2007), and that it must meet internationally recognised standards, including com-
pliance with the EU’s Bologna higher education requirements (EUA, 2015).
The initial project, Establishing Social Work Education in Georgia (ESWEG), was funded at
€500,000 for three years with the aim of establishing an undergraduate and master’s pro-
gramme in social work, a certificate programme for experienced practitioners in social care
(a pre-qualifying award), a training programme to develop practice teachers and the develop-
ment of practice placements.
Building on the success of ESWEG, in 2009 the team secured a second Tempus project,
which brought €1m for a further three years’ development and consolidation. The existing
99
Mark Doel et al.
partners were joined by two Ukrainian universities (National University of Kyiv Mohyla Acad-
emy [NaKMA] and Uzhgorod University) and two universities in former soviet EU countries
(Tallinn University, Estonia; and Vilnius Pedagogical University, now the Lithuanian University
of Educational Sciences). Doctoral programmes were established in Tbilisi and Kyiv; a social
work master’s programme at Uzhgorod; a social work Certificate course at Batumi University
in the Georgian regions; an East European-based Journal of Social Policy and Social Work in Tran-
sition, published twice a year; a module in international social work taught across all partner
universities; and a linkage between the master’s degrees at TSU and Sheffield Hallam University.
All of these ‘packages’ within the overall project were designed to embed social work education
in Georgia and its regions, to secure it for the future, and to strengthen links with social work
in Western and Eastern Europe and across four former countries of the Soviet Union (Georgia,
Ukraine, Estonia and Lithuania).
In addition, the popularity of the Certificate in Social Work for unqualified practitioners led
to five cohorts of mature students whose practice was greatly enhanced by their learning. The
Certificate course is institutionalised at TSU, so further cohorts are possible if the Georgian
government wishes to engage in future sponsorship.
The starting point for the design of both these EU-Tempus projects was the express wishes
of the local partners, in terms of what they stated was needed and wanted. Happily, there was
agreement that the Georgian context was the crucial starting point; the few qualified social
workers in Georgia (ten when ESWEG began in 2006) had returned from their American
training with a determination not to impose US-style social work on Georgia, but to adapt
what they had learned to the local context.This was equally true of what the European partners
could bring.
In addition to the factors already described, the willingness of staff in the relevant Ministries
(social policy, education, justice, health, employment and the Ombudsman’s Office) should be
noted as critical to successful implementation. Although the staffing and configuration of these
ministries changed regularly, the interest and support of key staff in the development of this new
profession continued. Within the university (TSU), there were also frequent changes at many
levels, but the consistent support of the Head of Sociological Studies (Iago Kachkachishvili)
was critical to success. Indeed, key personnel in the two successive EU-funded projects did not
change throughout the period of implementation (2005–2012).
These developments were supported by Georgia’s relatively small population and geography,
and a government that was strongly committed to rooting out corruption. For example, inter-
views for prospective social work students were not permitted because of the potential for the
corrupt outcomes that were, in post-soviet societies, associated with admission through inter-
view.There are good reasons to interview students who are potential social workers, but this was
an example of the local context overruling the general principle.
Social work as a profession in Georgia

As a result of collective efforts, social work was recognised as a profession by the Georgian
government in 2006. However, available definitions of social work do not illustrate the scope
of the profession and are not in line with international definitions (e.g. International Federa-
tion of Social Workers and International Association of Schools of Social Work). Different laws
have introduced a variety of definitions of a social worker, limiting the professional social work
role to the specific activities pertinent to the field of regulation of the law. According to the
Georgian Law on Social Assistance, a social worker is a professional requiring academic edu-
cation and certification and legally representing the guardianship and care agency; the Law on
100
Non-Imprisonment Sentences and Probation defines a social worker as a person with higher
education in medicine, psychology, sociology or pedagogy.
The adoption of a legal definition of social worker is a positive development, but the existence
of multiple definitions risks fragmentation and allows for too broad an interpretation. The lack
of overall mandatory occupational standards and current lack of regulation in social work makes
it more difficult to ensure the quality of service provision.
Years of advocacy have resulted in tangible outcomes for reform in the child care system,
implementation of which has largely been undertaken by statutory (state-employed) and NGO
social workers, and have sharpened the state’s awareness of the social work profession – both its
role and its importance to the nation. The Georgian government supported the developments
in social work education described earlier and has recognised the need for the training of
its overall social work workforce through university-based education. Social work professional
qualifications, roles and responsibilities were reflected in the Law on Social Assistance, the Law
on Adoption and Foster Care, and other relevant legislation and Orders.
The Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia (MoLHSA) is responsible for the
child care system and requires bachelor- or master-level social work education for social work-
ers employed in Tbilisi, and Certificate training for underserved locations in the regions. Other
state Departments have introduced social work roles, building on the experience in the field of
child welfare. The National Probation Agency (Ministry of Corrections), the Crime Prevention
Agency (Ministry of Justice), and Psycho-social Support Centres (Ministry of Education and
Science) have promoted the role of social work.
Since 2000 the social work workforce has increased by a factor of 40! A workforce assess-
ment by GASW (2011) indicates that the state sector is the largest employer of qualified social
workers and staff trained through the university-based certificate program. In 2015, the Social
Service Agency (SSA) remains the largest employer of statutory (state-employed) social workers
and deploys them in every municipality in the country. At the same time, the SSA is responsi-
ble for procuring a variety of family support services from NGOs, including alternative family
substitute services for children with disabilities, children deprived of parental care and other
vulnerable children. SSA social workers are responsible for identifying, assessing, planning and
monitoring provision of services for children in formal care and children receiving state fund-
ing for community-based care, as well as providing a limited range of services for persons with
disabilities and older people. Social work with children has been a priority area, though this is
decreasing.
However, the social work profession became the victim of the government’s neoliberal pol-
icies and, only three years after regulation, it was deregulated in 2009. Civil societies, including
GASW and international organisations, continue to lobby for regulation of the profession and
for improving social work service provision.
GASW pioneered developing social work professional standards and a code of ethics (GASW,
2005, 2007) and continues to advocate for professional regulation. GASW membership implies
subscription to these standards and codes and GASW provides regular advice and support in
dealing with professional dilemmas and strengthening capacity.
The current state of Georgian social work education
Educational curriculum
As we have seen, Georgia had no history of social work education and, hence, development
of the academic programmes and curricula in social work were guided by experiences from
101
Mark Doel et al.
Europe and the US. Due to the considerable contrasts in context, including demographic dif-
ferences, there was a strong emphasis on how the academic curriculum was best adapted to the
Georgian situation, not imported wholesale, whilst ensuring it would square up to international
expectations. Here are some illustrative modules taught on the master’s social work programme:
• Social work practice

• Social work research methods
• Social work and social policy
• Social work with organisations and communities
• Cultural competence and diversity
• Human behaviour in the social environment
• Social work with various client groups: social gerontology; child welfare and protection;
mental health; health care; persons with disabilities; substance abuse; criminal justice
• International social work
• Advanced social work practice
The topics that are presented in each module are based on both the international context and
the local one. Students are challenged to critically analyse existing local policy, legal frameworks
and practices in relation to social work and to gain an understanding of the local constraints and
opportunities.
In addition to some translated textbooks and compilation readers, students’ learning is sup-
ported by training materials developed by the Georgian social work educators, most of whom
are leaders in GASW. The social work library was enhanced by a large number of social work
books donated by a retiring UK professor, Ann Davis.
There is a continuing need to strengthen social work academic programmes, especially evi-
denced by the lack of resources in regional universities and limited Georgian language study
materials. There remains insufficient practice skills teaching in the agencies. The paucity of
Georgian social work academics with doctoral-level degrees (a general requirement for perma-
nent positions to teach at master’s level) is a further challenge.
Practice learning arrangements

Social work practice teaching is a key component of social work education in Georgia, though,
in common with most continental European social work education, the proportion of the
course spent in practice learning in agencies is well under half, comprising 30 of the 180 credits
during the last three years of the bachelor’s degree, and 15 credits of the two-year master’s. The
development of the practice curriculum was guided by international experience, especially from
the UK and US, but – like the academic curriculum – it was adapted to the Georgian context.
Georgian teachers were mindful that social work capabilities rest on three basic components:
the value base, theoretical knowledge and practical experience. The vital part of the practice
curriculum was the integration of all three.
The aim of practice teaching and learning in Georgia is twofold; first, to support the devel-
opment of students’ competence and, second, to introduce social work practice into social
service provision. In a country with, initially, so few social workers, the latter is of paramount
significance.
Practice learning is concurrent with academic learning, with students spending two days
a week in agencies and three days at the university. The decision to have concurrent place-
ments, rather than block learning, was based on the team’s belief that students benefited from
102
this parallel learning process which stimulates connections between practice and theory and
introduces live, current case material into the academy. There are no online facilities as yet, and
students outside the capital commute, spending two days a week in their placement agency. In
common with international experiences of practice education, the partnership of student, prac-
tice teacher and university practice coordinator is important for a successful outcome.
The social work BSW programme started in 2006 with the collaboration of 20 social service
organisations, which by 2015 had grown to more than 60, including government agencies and
civil society (voluntary) organisations.These placement agencies work with a wide variety of ser-
vice user groups: children and families; young people; offenders and people at risk of offending;
people with physical and learning disabilities, mental health issues, medical needs, or HIV; older
people; substance abusers; victims of violence and trafficking; homeless people; and minorities.
Partnership between the academy and social service agencies in Georgia is mediated via
GASW through a formal Memorandum of Understanding between TSU and the association, to
build placement capacity and strengthen networks. GASW has also built some capacity outside
Tbilisi in order to strengthen provision in the near regions.
Pedagogic approaches and innovations in

Georgian social work education
It is common for Georgian social work students to go directly from school to university to
obtain their bachelor’s degree. Thus, students are 17 or 18 years old and have no prior work
experience; the pedagogies they have experienced in school contrast with those they will expe-
rience in their social work education (Lalayants, Doel & Kachkachishvili, 2014).
An innovation in the organisation of practice education is the introduction of random allo-
cation of placements. During the first year of placements (the second year of the four-year BA)
there is, literally, a lottery for practice placements: a hat from which each student draws the
name of a placement setting. For the second placement year the practice coordinators assign
practice organisations to students, aiming to find a contrast with their first placement, and in
the final year of placements, students choose their own field, often with an eye to their future
employment.
The logic behind the random allocation of the first placement is to take students out of
their comfort zone and highlight the key underpinning principles of social work. It challenges
students’ thinking, prejudices and stereotyping by placing them in organisations working with
diverse populations, including disabled people, people with HIV, offenders and older people.The
incremental system of random allocation of placement setting, through to tutor allocation, then
to choice is well received by students, as evidenced in their feedback. The random allocation
process, potentially controversial, has proved effective, as it encourages social work students not
only to learn the social work values of respecting diversity and promoting social justice but also
to test ‘the doing’ of these values in practice.
During practice learning seminars at the university, tutors facilitate student groups to talk
openly about their feelings, confident that they will not face criticism for acknowledging exist-
ing prejudices and stereotypes. Social work values and principles often run contrary to accepted
cultural practices and thinking in traditional, orthodox Georgian society, and so it is important
to give young social work students the opportunity for open discussion and to encourage
mutual challenge in a non-judgemental setting. Social work education is a journey in which
the students first discover themselves before any changes they want to see in others.This enables
them to prepare for professional work, to develop the capability to protect the rights of margin-
alised individuals and groups, and to feel empowered to overcome barriers to inclusion.
103
Mark Doel et al.
The future of social work education in Georgia
Challenges and opportunities

One of the fundamental challenges to social work education in Georgia is a universal one:
how to respond to the changing role of social work, especially in the light of the neoliberal
resurgence. The collapse of the soviet system coincided with an era when collective, ‘big state’
solutions were falling from fashion in the West (or perhaps the one was related to the other?).
Perhaps countries like Georgia, which have a strong collectivist tradition, are better placed
to moderate the march of individualism. Community and non-governmental organisations in
Georgia are central to social provision and viewed, in general, without suspicion.
The country’s own finances pose another kind of economic challenge. Ranking the 9th
best country in the world in which to do business in 2013, up from 112th in 2005 (World
Bank Group, 2015), reflects improvements in the political and legal infrastructure and success at
squeezing corruption largely out of the system. Even so, there are significant levels of extreme
poverty and deprivation and high levels of unemployment. Georgia has limited resources to
fund a modern welfare state, not least education for its social workers.
UNICEF research in Georgia indicated that only one in ten of its respondents had heard of
social work, and that even this 10% was unclear as to what social workers did or how they could
be accessed (UNICEF/USAID, 2010). The same research highlighted the low level of uptake
of benefits. A positive aspect of the relative ignorance of social work is that there is little stigma
attached to it; students on placement have a part to play in increasing the public’s understanding
of the profession and ensuring that marginalised groups have access to benefits and other state
resources.
A challenge that is common to most nations is the gap between the demand and need for
social work services and the supply and resourcing of social workers to meet this demand.
Georgia is remarkable in moving from a position where social work can be described as being
at ‘Ground Zero’ to its current situation. GASW’s (2011) survey found that among the 558
social workers employed across Georgia, 334 were employed by the state (estimated at 400 in
2015) and 224 by NGOs, so the Georgian state is making a commitment to social work and
to social work education. In 2016, sixty more are expected to be added as the state social work
service starts working with victims of domestic violence. However, demand is likely to grow
even stronger as awareness of social work increases, and maintaining social work and social work
education as a priority for government resources will be a challenge.
How can the voice of people who use social work be incorporated into the education and
training of future (and current) practitioners? Developments have been slow in the rest of the
world, but can a country like Georgia make best use of others’ experiences by integrating user
participation from the early days? Currently, the involvement of service users in social work
education is a missing element.
GASW remains in the forefront in influencing social work’s future development in the
country. There is hardly a professional association in the world that enjoys GASW’s position in
relation to social work education, practice and policy-making. If its leadership can be sustained
and continuing large numbers of social workers see it as their professional home, then Georgia
will have much to teach countries whose social work voice has been lost or fractured.
Georgian social work’s relations with its professional neighbours are only just forming, as
might be expected with such a newborn profession. Education and training is largely uni-
professional, as the profession finds its feet. It has benefited from incorporating the role that in
some continental European countries is seen as that of the social pedagogue.There is no impetus
104
to develop education for social pedagogy, which could have proved a competitor for social work.
The recognition by the Georgian state that social work is an important element in its aim to
develop civil society in the country – and, therefore, to prioritise social work education – was
commendable and significant, but it now needs to back this recognition with safeguards to reg-
ulate the profession.
Georgian social work education continues to need further homegrown teaching and learn-
ing materials in the Georgian language and a growing research base. As the number of qualified
practitioners increases, year on year, this creates a virtuous circle, with alumni becoming practice
educators, staff supervisors and, some, eventually lecturers.
Perhaps the most telling indicator for the success of social work education in Georgia is the
popularity of the courses. The bachelor’s and master’s in social work are oversubscribed; indeed,
the story is told of the time the Rector (VC) of TSU passed a sobbing student and asked what
the problem was. She announced through her tears that she had failed to get on to the social
work programme (all students in the Faculty of Social Sciences have a general first year, in which
social work is one stream, and then they make a specialist choice for their final three years).
Each year 30–35 BSW students are accepted, and there are 25–30 applicants for 10–15 MSW
places. However, making sure that the courses are taught by qualified social workers will mean
that already overstretched champions of Georgian social work will have to complete doctoral
research in order to fulfill university requirements for permanent lecturing staff. This research
will benefit the educational experiences of future social work students.
Note
1 ‘Rose Revolution’ refers to the mass peaceful protests in Georgia in 2003, followed by Shevardnadze’s
resignation and changes in Georgia’s political regime.
References
Doel, M., & Penn, J. (2007). Technical assistance, neo-colonialism or mutual trade? The experience of an
Anglo/Ukrainian/Russian social work practice learning project. European Journal of Social Work, 10(3),
367–381.
Doel, M., Shardlow, S. M., Sawdon, C., & Sawdon, D. (1996). Teaching social work practice. Aldershot: Arena.
EUA (2015).What is the bologna process?, European University Association. Available at www.eua.be/eua-
work-and-policy-area/building-the-european-higher-education-area/bologna-basics.aspx]
Freedom House (2015). Nations in transit. Freedom House. Available at https://freedomhouse.org/report-
types/nations-transit#.VauQivmeDGc.
GASW (2005). Social work code of ethics: Georgian association of social workers. Available at http://gasw.
org/ka/component/content/article/132.html.
GASW (2007). Social work professional standards: Georgian association of social workers. Available at
http://gasw.org/ka/component/content/article/132.html.
GASW (2011). Social work situation analysis in Georgia: Georgian association of social workers. Available
at http://gasw.org/docs/Soc%20Mushaobis%20Situaciuri%20Analizi%20-GASW.pdf.
Geostat (2015a). Gross Domestic Product (GDP), National Statistics Office of Georgia. Available at www.
geostat.ge/?action=page&p_id=119&lang=eng.
Geostat (2015b). Subsistence minimum, National Statistics Office of Georgia. Available at www.geostat.ge/
index.php?action=page&p_id=179&lang=eng.
ISSA (2012). Democratisation process, regional context, national minority issues and conflict transforma-
tion in Georgia (Situational Analysis): Tbilisi, ISSA ‘UNIVERSAL’.
Kachkachishvili, I. (2014). ‘Postmodern condition’ of internal politics in Georgia in Armenia and Geor-
gia in the context of current political developments, New Challenges and Opportunities in the Realm
of Regional Security. Available at www.scribd.com/doc/256933425/Armenia-and-Georgia-in-the-
105
Mark Doel et al.
Context-of-Current-Political-Developments-New-Challenges-and-Opportunities-in-the-Realm-
of-Regional-Security.
Lalayants, M., Doel, M., & Kachkachishvili, I. (2014). Pedagogy of international social work: A comparative
study in the USA, UK and Georgia. European Journal of Social Work, 17(4), (August), 455–474.
Matsumoto, D.,Yoo, S. H., Fontaine, J. G., & Nizharadze, X. (2008). Mapping expressive differences around
the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and Individualism v. Collectivism. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 55–74.
Нижарадзе, Г. [Nizharadze, G.] (2010). ‘Лэптоп и крест’. Дружба народов, #2. Available at http://
magazines.russ.ru/druzhba/2010/2/ni13.html.
UNICEF/USAID (2010). Survey of barriers to access to social services in Georgia: Why not all poor fam-
ilies get social benefits and services, UNICEF; USAID. Available at http://issuu.com/unicefgeorgia/
docs/bass_final-eng.
Walker, J. (2014). Social work practice education in Russia: Exploring curriculum change. Unpublished PhD, Uni-
versity of Lincoln.
World Bank (2014). Gross domestic product. Available at http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/
GDP.pdf.
World Bank Group (2015). Doing business. Available at www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/
georgia
106
10
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
The case of India
Vimla Nadkarni, Geeta Balakrishnan and Ronald Yesudhas
Introduction
This chapter presents an overview of the status of social work education for social develop-
ment in India. It highlights the responsibility of social work educational institutions to embrace
and strengthen the social development perspective within their social work programmes. All
development takes place within a social and economic context. In newly emerging economies
such as India, marginalized communities are not seen as a priority for development as the focus
is more on economic than social and human development. Social development aims to link
between social and economic aspects of development and contribute towards realizing human
potential and achieving total well-being. Though organized social service existed in India for a
long time, professionalization of social work in India began in 1936.The report of the Second
Review Committee of social work education in India stressed the need for a curriculum with
a developmental approach, rather than an individualistic and clinical orientation (University
Grants Commission, 1980).
The new global definition of social work approved by International Association of Schools
of Social Work (IASSW) and International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) in July 2014
endorses social change, social cohesion, empowerment and liberation of people as the core
objectives of the profession. However, in subcontinental contexts, where the profession is strug-
gling to acquire an identity, the challenge is to work on reducing social and economic inequal-
ities. The development of National Network of Schools of Social Work (NNSSW) in 2012
and launch of the Indian Association for Social Work Education (IASWE) has given a new
lease of life to the social development agenda and quality enhancement of social work edu-
cation in India. The authors of this chapter emphasize that institutions imparting social work
education and training frontline workers should contribute to structural change and ensure
that social development programmes reach the poorest of the poor. People-centred structures
and processes and a participatory approach in decision-making is the need of the hour. Social
work institutions in India need to intensify research on social development, initiate field action
projects and work on advocacy to achieve equality, justice and human rights through social
development and social change.
This chapter begins with the evolution of the concept of social development within the
discipline and profession of social work in India. This is followed by sections on the legacy
107
Vimla Nadkarni et al.
of social work and social policy in India, with a discussion on the history of professionaliza-
tion and indigenization of social work; discourse on the social development perspective in
social work education and its adoption by social work schools in the country; understanding
the current social realities; role of field action and field education as well as research in the
development of the perspective. The authors reiterate the importance of the developmen-
tal approach and strengthening the voluntary sector including public–private partnerships.
They conclude with highlighting some of the systemic and societal challenges that social
work educators continue to face to make social work education more relevant for social
development.
Social development: the concept

Social development, as a concept, was conceived in the Global South after the Second World War.
Colonial masters and nationalist leaders then were most engrossed about economic modern-
ization and raising standards of living (Midgley, 2014: 4). Over time the concept has evolved
and integrated the contributions of social workers, embracing the dimensions of planned and
deliberate community engagement, people’s participation in their own welfare and devel-
opment, as well as social change, social transformation and well-being (Paiva, 1977; Huegler,
Lyons, & Pawar, 2012; Pathak, 2013; Midgley, 2014). Stein (1976: 2) and Dominelli (1997:
29) added the dimension of fulfillment of people’s potential as an essential aspect of social
development.
Though proposed two decades ago, Midgley’s analysis of distorted and misguided devel-
opment (1995) would probably hold true even in this current era of globalization. Distorted
development refers to regional imbalances created due to the development process, and mis-
guided development to a more serious issue where the goals of development are not consistent
with the real needs of the people. Emphasizing the required process of change fostered through
deliberate human action, Midgley (1995: 38) suggested people-centred structures and processes
and a participatory approach to decision-making.
Pawar and Cox (2010) summarized and classified the different definitions of social develop-
ment under three categories, namely:
• Social development as systematic planning and the link between social and economic
aspects of development;
• Social development as bringing about structural change; and
• Social development as realizing human potential, meeting needs and achieving a satisfac-
tory quality of life.
Pawar and Cox (2010) combined the idealistic with the practical objectives of social devel-
opment, aiming at structural change. They focused on both social and economic aspects, using
planned intervention to realize human potential and achieve well-being.
In order to adopt the social development perspective or approach, social workers would need
to recognize the importance of the following components: that it is inclusive and universalistic
in its scope, has an interdisciplinary focus, is processual, is progressive in nature, is intervention-
ist, entails a combination of strategies and promotes social welfare and economic development
(Midgley, 1995).
Before going on to explore the social development perspective and its application in India,
we will briefly examine the social policy context in the country.
108
Education for social development: India
The social policy context for social work

India has a legacy of charity stated in almost all the practised religions. Much before the devel-
opment of formalized social work training, Mahatma Gandhi motivated freedom fighters to
work towards village development, sanitation and hygiene, removal of untouchability, improve-
ment of women’s status, service of leprosy patients, removal of alcoholism, development of khadi
(handspun cloth) and local self-government (Gore, 1988).
The Directive Principles of State Policy enunciated in 1950 in the Indian Constitution
provided an outline for attaining goals of democracy, equality and economic and social develop-
ment. India adopted active state planning as its development strategy, and its economic thinking
was predominantly socialistic in nature.The central objective of planning in India was to initiate
a process of development that would raise the standard of living and open up new opportunities
for a richer and more varied life, while minimizing the influence of caste, class and privilege
system. Five-year plans were developed by the Planning Commission appointed by the Govern-
ment of India (GOI) with the aim to replace unplanned relief and charity with organized and
sustained activity (http://planningcommission.gov.in/index_oldpc.php).
The second and third five-year plans encouraged people’s participation in planning and
implementing projects as well as involvement of voluntary agencies at the district and block
levels, respectively.
Over the years these plans also recognized inclusion of vulnerable and marginalized groups
in the process of development.The Ministry of Social Welfare, the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, and the Ministry of Women and Child Development were set up to manage the
social development challenges of the country.
The indigenization of professional social work

Organized social service has existed in India for a long time in the form of creation of shelters
and kitchens, institutions for orphans, destitutes, beggars and the elderly. However, profession-
alization of social work in India began in 1936 with the establishment of the Sir Dorabji Tata
Graduate School of Social Work (later renamed as Tata Institute of Social Sciences, TISS) by Sir
Clifford Manshardt, an American missionary. The growth of social work colleges was gradual,
as the second institution, Delhi School of Social Work, was set up in 1946, followed by another
under the Maharaja Sayajirao University in Baroda (now Varodara) in Gujerat in 1950.
Sir Manshardt acknowledged the importance and advantage of the social action model of
social work rather than curative social work and initiated the first graduate school of social
work after a decade of fieldwork experience in newly industrialized Bombay (now Mumbai).
Though the course at TISS in 1936 began as a generic programme, specializations emerged
after independence in 1947 as a consequence of continuous exchange of Indian and American
faculty under the auspices of the Technical Co-operation Mission of the US Government
and the Council of Social Work Education Exchange Programme between 1957 and 1962
(Mandal, 1989).
Between 1950 and 1960, most schools of social work in India had faculty who completed
their doctoral studies in the USA.This was a major factor in the growth of postgraduate degrees
in social work with specializations in clinical and non-clinical social work. The most popular
specializations were medical and psychiatric social work, labour welfare, and family and child
welfare, followed by urban and rural community development (Nadkarni, 2014).
Several studies have revealed the persistence of American influence over the development of
the curriculum and issues relating to adapting Western social work values to the Indian culture
109
(Khinduka, 1971; Nagpaul, 1993; Mandal, 1989; Pawar, 1999; Srivastava, 1999). Indian social
work educators such as Khinduka analyzed the lack of relevance of American social work for
direct application to “third world countries” including India. He stressed that the Western model
was too inextricably linked with the cultural, political and economic origins of a developed
society to be superimposed in a developing or underdeveloped context (Khinduka, 1971: 4).
Brigham (1982) and Mandal (1989) advocated that social work education should free itself
from professional imperialism through the process of indigenization, and respond to social
development needs of the country. Banerjee (1964,1973) paved the way for the indigenizing of
Indian social work through her writings and initiating field action projects with a focus on chil-
dren in the public hospitals, and family welfare in the communities where low-income people
resided. Two decades later, Ejaz’s study of student and practitioner perceptions of social work
education in India stressed the contribution of practical and experiential pedagogies that helped
inform social workers despite the theoretical base being dominated by Western references (Ejaz,
1991: 301).
As mentioned earlier, social development as a concept from a social work perspective includes
planned and deliberate community engagement, people’s participation in their own welfare and
development, social change, social transformation and well-being, and these dimensions are cap-
tured with field-based research and process evaluations. Incorporating these methods of praxis
in the syllabus has given an impetus to the process of indigenization in India. Most social work
training institutions are conducting field action projects with a view to experimenting with
social development concepts and innovations in the field (Alphonse, 1997).
The debate on the social development perspective

in social work education
The combination of three broad components – classroom courses, research and fieldwork – in
most social work education programmes in India prepares students to work in the government
sector (national programmes of social welfare and development), non-government/non-profit
organizations, other civil society agencies, the corporate social responsibility wing of for-profit
organizations, as well as international support agencies.
Khinduka (1971: 11) advocated the social developmental approach in social work in third
world countries, with focus on institutional reconstruction rather than individual rehabilitation.
According to Gore (1988), professional social work addressed the consequences of poverty
rather than poverty itself. With some exceptions, social work and social work education did not
identify with social development problems, such as poverty, unemployment, land reforms, com-
plex issues related to scheduled castes and tribes, and rural social work (Cox, 1998).
The landmark Second Review of Social Work Education Committee Report (1980) pro-
posed increased involvement of social workers in national development. The report stressed the
need for social work to move away from the curative model to organizing people for change. As
the idea of social development grew in India, it was recognized that social work should focus on
the majority of the population, consisting of the rural poor, the scheduled castes and tribes who
should benefit from the national development programmes. The Committee thus advocated
for a shift in the aims of the profession to social change for the removal of poverty rather than
adjustment to the societal process (University Grants Commission, 1980: 14).
In 1981, in the national seminar organized by Association of Schools of Social Work in India
(ASSWI) in Chennai (erstwhile Madras), prominent social work educators pledged that social
work should move beyond social welfare and remedial work in an urban context and adopt a
social development approach addressing rural challenges (Nair, 1981: 316).
110
To achieve a national mandate on transforming Indian social work education for greater rel-
evance to the social realities,TISS established the first curriculum development centre on behalf
of the University Grants Commission (UGC) in 1986 and brought out a curriculum review
report in 1989. The recommendation of the UGC Review Committee (1980) on Indian social
work education to reorient the curriculum towards a social development approach was a cata-
lyst for changing the individualistic and clinical orientation of social work theory and practice.
Hence, schools of social work began to give more emphasis to developing a structural under-
standing of the problems and enhancing the skills of using the integrated methods or an inte-
grated social work practice framework which uses systems theory to analyze social problems and
seek solutions. This shift also called for suitable field agencies where students could be trained
to develop this perspective. Since most existing agencies could not provide this perspective, field
action projects were initiated to experiment with social development concepts and innovations
in the field (Alphonse, 1997). This will be further articulated in a later section in this chapter.
In 1993, at the Twenty Years Celebration Conference of the Asian and Pacific Association of
Social Work Education, Gore observed that social workers were “ready to take on the mantle of
the social activist whose goal was no longer to work with the poor to change themselves but to
work on their behalf to change society itself ” (Gore, 1996: xxxiv).
‘Towards People Centred Development’, the national conference organized by TISS in 1997,
gave new momentum to reorienting social work programmes to be in tune with the goals of
social development (Bodhi & Tirupura, 2013). This was visible in the changes made in the cur-
ricula at TISS following the national conference. The UGC Model Curriculum 2001 that must
be followed by the social work education programmes in India also reflects many of the changes.
The new global definition of social work approved by International Association of Schools
of Social Work (IASSW) and International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) in July 2014
endorses social change, social cohesion, empowerment and liberation of people as the core
objectives of the profession, which are also reflected in the social development definitions
described earlier. In fact no other known profession in the world proclaims these aims as central
to their practice.These core objectives of social work can be fulfilled by adopting a social devel-
opment approach instead of a remedial approach.
The social development approach may seem to be in contravention with the status quo
or professionalism. It is indeed in tune with a ‘systems change’ approach (Desai & Narayan,
1998). Hence not all social work educators may be inclined and keen on a social development
approach to social work (Pawar & Cox, 2010). According to Pathak (2013: 48), the adherents of
professionalism opposed the social development model. They believed that this radical shift to a
social development and social change perspective would compromise the professional identity
of social work which had been built over several decades and was well established.
However, the social development approach has now been further endorsed in the Global
Agenda for Social Work and Social Development (popularly called The Agenda) (www.iassw-
aiets.org) by the major social work bodies in the world. The Agenda was a joint response of the
three world organizations in social work and social development – namely, IASSW, IFSW, and
International Council of Social Welfare (ICSW) – to strengthen the profile of social work in
the area of social work and social development and enable social workers to make a stronger
contribution to policy development.
The themes of the Agenda (IFSW/IASSW/ICSW, 2012) are summarized in Table 10.1.
The challenge for the Agenda is translating the vision into reality. This is true in the case of
South Asia. As Nikku (2012) states, in a subcontinental context where social work is still strug-
gling to get an identity, working on reducing social and economic inequalities is an immense
challenge.
111
Table 10.1 Themes of the agenda
Social and economic inequalities Dignity and worth of the person Environmental sustainability Importance of human relationships
• Growing inequalities and their • Human rights issues in social/ • Managing and preventing Family and relationship issues and
implications economic/cultural/political disasters of natural and challenges across the lifespan for global
• The worsening marginalization of contexts human origin transformation. Addressing needs of:
populations and of the working • Respect for diversity and different • Involving local communities
• Children and families
poor belief systems, indigenous and first in developing responses
• People with disabilities
• Increased vulnerability of poor people’s voices • Implications for sustainable
• People needing health and mental
people in countries without an • Political instabilities, violence, social development
health services
adequate social protection floor dominations and erosion of • Protecting the physical
• People who are ageing
• Community disintegration peace-building processes environment
• People with drug and substance abuse
• Modalities of response to • Proactive engagement with
issues
terrorism and global conflicts social, human and ecological
• People suffering from violence within
• Migration, refugees, trafficking, development
domestic and intimate relationships
immigrants, immigration issues
• Role for social work and social
development
Social work in the context of current social realities

A large proportion of India’s people continue to live in chronic poverty, due to lack of assets,
access to land, water, forests, housing, credit, literacy, and capital (The Chronic Poverty Report,
2011). The caste system in India persists and creates social, political, cultural and economic ine-
qualities through exclusion and discrimination of Dalits (Thorat & Mamgain, 2010).
The rights of the Scheduled Tribes who constitute 8.2 per cent of the total population in
India are often compromised by the state and non-state actors. Unregulated growth of mineral-
based industries and infrastructure development projects in the tribal regions are displacing
them, depriving them of livelihood and pushing them into a marginalized state of living (Mehar,
2009).
Pressures from the World Bank and IMF to reduce subsidies to the social sector in general
and in agriculture specifically to create a competitive market of services has undermined the
agrarian sector in India. Moffatt, George, Alphonse, Kanitkar, Anand and Chamberline (2011)
argue that various multinational corporations have tried to control the farmer’s customary use
of seeds and put tremendous pressure on the farmers to shift to intensive crops. This, along with
rising costs and uncontrolled and unreliable market prices (Moffatt et al., 2011), has resulted in
poverty and stress. Though agrarian distress is not a new phenomenon in India, farmers com-
mitting suicide in such large numbers in different states is alarming and requires due attention
(Alphonse, George & Moffatt, 2008).
Lopsided development has resulted in an increase in the flow of migrants from villages to
cities, and from one state to another, for jobs and a better life. Most of them end up as contract
workers receiving low wages, including women who are pushed into unorganized work and live
in shanties or slum colonies or on the pavements.
Problems of drug abuse, alcoholism, large numbers of street and working children, gender
inequality, increasing lifestyle diseases, sexuality issues and rights of marginalized groups such
as sex workers, persons living with HIV, and migrant labourers demand multiple and diverse
services and actions from social workers.
In such a context, the role of an informed, dedicated social worker with multi-skills set is
crucial. There is greater need for social workers with skills related to influencing social devel-
opment policy and programmes through use of research, advocacy, organizational restructuring,
and networking with other professionals.
During the past ten years, several renowned institutions offering social work programmes
have reworked their curriculum, reflecting their commitment towards social development and
human rights practice to create a cadre of committed social development practitioners and
activists to respond to contemporary concerns of marginalized communities (www.tiss.edu).
In 2005, TISS took the lead in restructuring the curriculum and pedagogy in social work. The
Department of Social Work in the Jamia Millia Islamia (Delhi) began to train students in two
broad areas, Social Development and Social Welfare. Institutions such as the Department of
Social Work in Madras Christian College and Loyola College (Chennai) developed speciali-
zations in human rights and work with marginalized groups. College of Social Work (Mum-
bai), Delhi School of Social Work (Delhi), Rajagiri College of Social Work (Kerala), Christ
University (Bangalore), Indore School of Social Work (Indore) and Faculty of Social Work in
MS University of Baroda also have infused social development perspectives in their curriculum.
Many other institutions offering social work are slowly preparing themselves to restructure their
curriculum along the social development lines.
In 2004, representatives of schools of social work in India met to develop minimum stand-
ards for social work education on behalf of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council
113
(NAAC) and formulated the future goals for social work education in the country. They for-
mulated the goals as follows:
• Promoting the values of human dignity, human rights, democratic participation of people
and peaceful and collaborative social relationships.
• Challenging the unequal relationships and marginalization of people due to sex, age, eth-
nicity, caste and creed.
• Democratizing the socio-economic and political systems by empowering people and build-
ing their capacity to bargain for basic rights and essential resources.
• Training students in culturally sensitive practice in relation to problem-solving skills,
research, advocacy, disaster management, conflict resolution, policy formulation and organ-
izational management (NAAC, 2005: 7–11).
Several departments and colleges of social work followed the document and thus the per-
spectives laid out in the document.
Field action projects

The field action project is a key strategy to enable social work institutions to fulfill their social
responsibility and address social realities through social interventions. Extension activities were
started by TISS following its inception in 1936 and later evolved into what are now known as
‘field action projects’. These projects serve several objectives: demonstrating new interventions;
providing field experience and training to social work students and faculty; and developing an
indigenous knowledge base and literature for teaching and practice (Dave, Raghavan & Solanki,
2012).
Several field action projects developed by the schools of social work in India have taken the
social development stance. Some major ones have influenced national programmes and policy.
There have been several initiatives from schools of social work in Maharashtra that have made a
mark nationally and internationally and informed the social development perspective in social
work education, including Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action (YUVA) and Towards Advo-
cacy Networking and Developmental Action (TANDA). To further illustrate, the Childline India
Foundation (www.childlineindia.org.in/1098/) for the first time brought in a citizen-driven and
rights-based perspective in the practice of social work with children.YUVA (www.yuvaindia.org)
introduced a people’s planning model in creating a city-based movement against oppression of the
poor. The Resource Centre for Interventions on Violence against Women (RCI-VAW) (www.
tiss.edu/TopMenuBar/field-action/projects/rci-vaw-the-resource-centre-for-interventions-
on-violence-against-women) nurtures effective interventions with different stakeholders
through training and research to enable deeper understanding of the issue and interventions to
stop violence against women. Thus the field action projects have firmly established the social
development model over the remedial approach.
Faculty have faced several challenges in initiating and sustaining field action projects, thus
affecting knowledge development for social work education. The major factors are heavy fac-
ulty workloads, lack of recognition of time spent on field education and field action for faculty
evaluations and promotions, dearth of funding, poor documentation of practice and inadequate
research skills. As Mahtani (2015) points out, social workers, whether educators or practitioners,
in India are caught in the “activity trap” and would prefer ‘doing’ rather than ‘researching’. The
imperative to strengthen social work research skills on social development in social work faculty
is explored further in the next section.
114
Social work research on social development

Building evidence to analyze the output, outcomes and impact of social work interventions is
the social responsibility of every social worker and social development worker involved in facil-
itating social change (Mahtani, 2015). To achieve this it is integral that at each stage of develop-
ment, the social worker should be armed with research skills. For a long time no differentiation
was made between social research and social work research.
In 1937, for the first time, Helen R. Jeter clearly stated in the Social Work Year Book that
‘Social Research’ and ‘Social Work Research’ could no longer be interchangeable terms (Her-
lekar, 1964: 118) and there was a difference between them. Herlekar noted that the first ever
definition of social work research provided by Dr. A.B. Bose (1962: 66, cited in Herlekar, 1964:
118) covered both basic research and social work research. She suggested, very rightly, that social
work research needed to focus more on developing social work theory which was relevant to
the Indian context: “to test the theories and methods of social work as related to our own con-
ditions, cultural pattern, and social structure, and more important, in the context of our present
needs” (Herlekar, 1964: 118). She further provided a brief analysis of research studies conducted
mainly on social welfare and social problems and not necessarily by social work institutions.The
major factor that seemed to have prominence at that time and which discouraged social work
faculty from being involved in social work research was the lack of priority given to research
and the lack of adequately trained researchers.
Today, the environment for undertaking social work research in the social development field
is much more vibrant.The number of social work researchers is multiplying every year with the
rapid increase of social work degree programmes all over the country. Research skills training
and publications are being given primacy in the evaluations of faculty for promotions in schools
of social work. The Government of India and the Indian Council for Social Science Research
provide adequate funding for social research, including social work research. In the twelfth Five-
Year Plan (2012–2017), the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) commissioned
studies spanning a wide range of social development issues, namely growth, poverty and inequal-
ity; the agrarian crisis; globalization of finance and its implications; and corporate governance,
ethics and corporate social responsibility (www.icssr.org/RESEARCH%20PROJECTS%20
SPONSORED.htm). It recognized social work as one of the disciplines for undertaking spon-
sored research and encouraged interdisciplinary studies. Although the Fourth Review Com-
mittee of the ICSSR analyzed the status of ‘social science’ research, social work research was
probably grouped under the broad discipline of sociology (www.icssr.org/finalreport.pdf).
Mahtani (2015) very succinctly describes the “activity trap” in which NGOs have fallen,
where the focus is more on ‘doing’ and not on ‘strategy’. Similarly, over the years, social work
faculty with their heavy workloads as discussed earlier have focused more on ‘field action’, field-
work supervision and teaching, and very little on research. So they too, in a way, have fallen into
this trap of ‘doing’. However, in the changing context of higher education, faculty are being
evaluated for future promotions more on the number of conferences they attended, papers pre-
sented, number of research projects and associated publications rather than the quality of their
research skills and capacity to teach and guide graduate and doctoral students for research.
There is no systematic study of the social work research contribution to understanding social
work development issues. There has been increasing involvement of social work educators in
development policy research, especially on behalf of the Indian government. However, there
is no comprehensive documentation of the impact of research on development policy. Social
work researchers become part of a multidisciplinary team in this process of research, and the
concept of developmental research is being mooted as ‘cross-disciplinary’ in keeping with the
115
reality of development practice (Habermann, 2015). Social work research with a separate iden-
tity from social research in India remains a contentious issue. In this context thus joining hands
with development researchers from other disciplines to influence development programmes and
policy in the country seems to be the way forward.
Fragile government-NGO interface

Most social workers find employment within the NGO sector. While several government
agencies have learnt to collaborate with NGOs and involve social work practitioners and
experts in new policies and programme development, the trust between them has always been
fragile and dependent on the macro environment created by Central Government. A vexing
issue, for example, has been that of the levying of income tax on any kind of sale of products
made by NGOs. This requirement has placed many NGOs working with low funding, and
attempting to increase sustainability and income generation for poor people, in a difficult
financial position.
In the recent past, the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) has become a power
tool to control NGOs. The NGOs have depended on government for financial support and a
conducive environment for their work. In 2003–4, there were 14,700 organizations registered
under the Ministry of Home Affairs and receiving foreign funds amounting to about Rs. 49 bil-
lion (Biswas, 2006). The increasing foreign funding has been raising all-round concern about
mushrooming NGOs that may not accept accountability as a norm. The government and civil
society both have to respect the right to work in a free, democratic space and being accountable
and transparent in its functioning. A vibrant voluntary sector and the Private-Public Partnerships
are important for a country like India (Biswas, 2006).
Conclusion
Social development enables the people to take ownership of their lives. It supports an active and
democratic civil society and to a certain extent de-professionalizes social work. Indian social
reality calls for a social change perspective in social work, rather than the curative-remedial
approach.
Since the 1980s, several efforts have been made by social work educators in the country to
effectively change curricular directions and develop demonstrable field action projects with
a thrust on social development. Major challenges to these efforts include the proliferation of
schools of social work that suffer from lack of infrastructure, heavy workloads, inadequate prepa-
ration of faculty, low research and field action output and lack of financial support by the Indian
government, thus setting in motion the privatization of social work colleges.
However, there is hope at the end of the tunnel. The development of the National Network
of Schools of Social Work (NNSSW) in 2012 and launch of the Indian Association for Social
Work Education (IASWE) has given a new lease of life to the social development agenda and
quality enhancement of social work education in India. Advocacy is a must for a Central Coun-
cil for Professional Social Work that will monitor and regulate the quality of social work edu-
cation and practice and give appropriate direction for developing curricula to achieve equality,
justice and human rights through social development and social change.
Furthermore, Nikku, quoting Palattiyil and Sidhva (2012), highlights the need to add depth
and vigour to training social workers, as well as staying ahead of newer applied subjects such as
development studies and human rights, by ensuring high standards of pedagogy and practice
(Nikku, 2012).
116
On the one hand, challenges such as natural disasters, terrorism and communities in con-
flict demand more from every social worker in the field. Social workers may find themselves
cornered due to fast-changing social development problems, and at times marginalized in the
communities they are working. They may need to deal with their own fears and stressors.
On the other hand, there is growing demand for a united voice for social work at the national
level and a common international agenda which can be supportive to social work education in
India. India’s social work tryst with social development has enabled people to take ownership of
their lives. In order to strengthen this, there is a need to research the extent to which social work
faculty are conscious of their teaching of the social development perspective and the impact on
the students, field education and research.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Roopashri Sinha, social development consultant, for her valuable comments
and suggestions to enhance the quality of this article.
References
Alphonse, M. (1997). Social work education in strengthening NGOs. Perspectives in Social Work, 12(2),
26–30.
Alphonse, M., George, P., & Moffatt, K. (2008). Redefining social work standards in the context of globali-
sation: Lessons from India. International Social Work, 51(2), 145–158.
Biswas Nilanjana. (2006). On funding and NGO sector. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(42), 4406–4410.
Bodhi, S. R., & Tirupura, B. (2013). International social work: An Indian experience. Indian Journal of Dalit
and Tribal Social Work, 3(1), 1–24.
Brigham, T. M. (1982). Social work education patterns in five developing countries: Relevance of U.S.
microsystems model. Journal of Education for Social Work, 18(2), 68–75.
Cox, D. (1998). Towards people-centred development: The social development agenda and social work
education. Indian Journal of Social Work, 59(1), 513–530.
Dave, A., Raghavan,V., & Solanki, D. (2012). Centrality for field education in social work education: A case
for socio-legal work. Social Change, 42(4), 451–466.
Desai, M., & Narayan, L. (1998). Challenges for social work profession towards people-centred develop-
ment. Indian Journal of Social Work, 59(1), 531–558.
Dominelli, L. (1997). Social work and social development: A partnership in social change. Journal of Social
Development in Africa, 12(1), 29–38.
Ejaz, F. K. (1991). Social work education in India: Perceptions of social workers in Bombay. International
Gore, M.S. (1988). Levels of social work provisions in relation to needs in a developing society. Indian
Gore, M.S. (1996). APASWE CONFERENCE Inaugural Address, pp.xxi–xxiv, Asian Pacific Association
for Social Work Education, Twenty Years Celebration Conference November 17–20, 1993, Mumbai.
Social Work Profession Reflection and Future Directions. Mumbai: Tata Institute of Social Sciences.
Habermann, B. (2015). Changing the world of development research? An insight into theory and practice.
Development in Practice, 20(7) (September 2010), 771–783. Available at www.jstor.org/stable/20787348
accessed 12-09-2015.
Herlekar, A. (1964, July). Research in social work. The Indian Journal of Social Work, XXV(2), 117–123.
Herlekar, A., & Bose, A. B. (1962). Social work research. In S. K. Khinduka (Ed.), Social work in India (p. 66).
Jaipur : Sarvodaya Sahitya Samaj.
Huegler, N., Lyons, K., & Pawar, M. (2012). Setting the scene. In K. Lyons,T. Hokenstad, M. Pawar, N. Hue-
gler, & N. Hall (Eds.), The Sage handbook of international social work (pp. 1–35). London: Sage Publications.
IFSW, IASSW, & ICSW (2012). Global agenda for social work and social development:Towards an engage-
ment agenda- mobilisation of social workers, social work educators & policy practitioners and develop-
ers for global social change. Available at http://cdn.ifsw.org/assets/ifsw_84013–7.pdf.
Mehta et. al. (2011). India Chronic Poverty Report, Indian Institute of Public Administration.
117
Khinduka, S. K. (1971). Social work and the third world. Social Service Review, 45(1), 62–73.
Mahtani, R. (2015). Knowledge for social development . . . creating spaces for dialogue, Discussion Paper
No. 2 (25 March 2015), Mumbai: Knowledge Resource Centre. Available at file:///C:/Users/Vimla/
Downloads/KSD%20DP%202%20%20Building%20Evidence%20for%20Social%20Change.pdf
[Accessed 13 September 2015].
Mandal, K. S. (1989). American influence on social work education of India and its impact. International
Social Work, 34(4), 303–310.
Mehar, R. (2009). Globalization, displacement and the livelihood issues of tribal and agriculture dependent
poor people: The case of mineral-based industries in India. Journal of Developing Societies, 25, 457–480.
Midgley, J. (1995). Social development:The development perspective in social welfare. London: Sage Publications.
Midgley, J. (2014). Social development: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Available at www.sagepub.in/
upm-data/57961_Midgley_social_Development.pdf.
Moffatt, K., George, P., Alphonse, M., Kanitkar, A., Anand,V., & Chamberlain, J. (2011). Community prac-
tice at a crossroads: The impact of global on the local in India. Community Development Journal, 46(1),
104–121.
Nadkarni, Vimla V. (2014). Contextualising social work education: Lessons from the Indian experience.
In Z. Meenai (Ed.), Repositioning professional social work education and practice (pp. 1–16). New Delhi:
Bloomsbury.
tions. International Social Work, 36(3), 207–220.
Nair, T. K. (1981). Four decades of social work practice and social work education in India: Report of the
seminar. In T. Krishnan Nair (Ed.), Social work education and social work practice in India (pp. 315–329).
Madras: Association of Schools of Social Work in India.
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). (2005). Manual for self-study of social work institu-
tions (pp. 7–11). Bangalore: NAAC.
Nikku, B. R. (2012). Global agenda on social work and social development:Voices from South Asian social
work. In N. Hall (Ed.), Social work around the world V: Building the global agenda for social work and social
development (pp. 27–40). Switzerland: IFSW.
Paiva, J. (1977). A conception of social development. Social Service Review, 51(2), 332–333.
Palattiyil, G., & Sidhva, D. (2012). Social work in India (editorial). Practice: Social Work in Action, 24(2), 75–78.
Pathak, S. (2013). Social policy, social welfare and social development. Bangalore: Niruta Publication.
Pawar, M. (1999). Professional social work in India: Some issues and strategies. Indian Journal of Social Work,
60, 566–586.
Pawar, M. S., & Cox, D. (2010). Social development: Critical themes and perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Srivastava, S.P. (1999). Addressing the future of professional social work in India. Indian Journal of Social Work,
60(1), 119–139.
Stein, H. (1976). Social work’s development change perspective:Their roots in practice. Social Service Review,
50(1), 1–10.
Thorat, S., & Mamgain, R. (2010). Caste and social exclusion: Issues related to concept, indicators and measurement.
New Delhi: IIDS.
UGC. (1980). Review of social work education in India: Retrospect and prospect. New Delhi: University Grant
Commission.
Reports
Banerjee, G.R. (1964). Development of indigenous teaching material for case work. Mumbai:Tata Institute
of Social Sciences.
Banerjee, G. R. (1973). Papers on social work: An Indian perspective. Available at www.amazon.com/
Gauri-Rani-Banerjee/e/B00IZWI2RS. [Accessed 30 June 2015].
118
11
DEVELOPING SOCIAL WORK
EDUCATION IN AFRICA
Challenges and prospects
Introduction
In Africa, social work education has had a chequered history essentially because of its colonial
heritage. At its inception in the 1930s, social work education was guided by Eurocentric values
and cultural norms, and the situation has not changed much today. Gray, Kreitzer, and Muped-
ziswa (2014: 102) cite Nagpaul (1993: 214) as stating that social work came to Africa grounded
in values and ideologies stemming from capitalism, social Darwinism, the Protestant ethic and
individualism. Hence, the profession has failed to live up to expectations, and many of its cli-
entele continue to be short-changed due to ineffective interventions. This paper explores the
development of social work education in Africa beginning with a historical account, and then
gives an overview of the current state of affairs, including a broad brush account of the call for
adoption of a social development orientation. It concludes by considering prospects for the
future.
Brief history of social work education in Africa

In Africa, most of the early local social workers trained abroad, especially in the Western world.
Social work education was launched on the continent, with the first local schools of social work
being opened in South Africa in the 1930s (Gray, 1999; Sewpaul & Lombard 2004), followed
by Egypt (1936), Algeria (1942), Ghana (1945), Uganda (1954), Tanzania (1958), Burkina Faso
and Tunisia (1960) and Zimbabwe (1964) (Mwansa, 2011). Zambia, Nigeria, Mauritania and
Sudan, among others, established institutions that offered social work training of some sort in
the 1960s and 1970s. Among the late starters was Botswana (1980s). By 1973, some 25 schools of
social work were known to be operational across Africa (Association of Social Work Education
in Africa – ASWEA, 1973). Over the years, the number of social work education institutions in
Africa has increased dramatically, with Uganda alone now boasting 21 such institutions, South
Africa 17 and Zimbabwe 3. Mwansa (2011) estimates there are 300 schools or departments of
social work in Africa today.
In the early 1970s, the schools launched the Association of Social Work Education in Africa
(ASWEA), whose brief was to help the new institutions chart the way forward. However, due
to financial constraints, ASWEA ceased to exist in 1989, having enjoyed only limited success.
119
Two sub-regional associations later emerged. The East and Southern Association of Schools of
Social Work (ESASS) was formed around 1994, but became moribund by the end of the 1990s
(Mwansa, 2011). The Association of Schools of Social Work in Africa (ASSWA), was formed
in 2005 but only enjoyed lukewarm recognition from stakeholders. By 2011, only 25 of the
over 300 schools were members of ASSWA, meaning lack of a continent-wide platform for
wider engagement, and also weakening of the ‘African voice’ at the International Association of
Schools of Social Work (IASSW) (Mwansa, 2011).
Critics have posited that the launching of social work education in Africa was not simply as
an act of ‘Western philanthropy’, but rather, there was a hidden agenda. Mwansa (2011: 5) noted
that although social work education in Africa was exported from Europe ‘often under the rubric
of commitment to the civilisation and improvement of the wellbeing of native Africans by the
colonizing powers’, in reality, the motive was to ‘bring more territories under their sphere of
influence for economic exploitation’. Osei-Hwedie and Rankopo (2012: 725) concurred, add-
ing that social work was adopted with a view to ‘take control of as many territories as possible
for the economic advancement of the colonial powers’.
Midgley (1981) explained that missionaries were, in the majority of cases, in the forefront in
introducing social work to Africa. They introduced modern welfare services such as hospitals,
clinics, training institutions and schools (Mwansa, 2011). Osei-Hwedie and Rankopo (2012:
725) add, ‘As part of the colonising process, missionaries played a critical role in spreading social
work to the developing countries.’ Naturally, this influenced its orientation.
As numbers of schools have increased, the programmes have increased their offerings, rang-
ing from paraprofessional (Certificate) through Diploma, Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees. A few
of the institutions now offer doctoral qualifications, and these include several in South Africa as
well as at the University of Botswana. Many of the programmes, however, have remained mired
in a Western mind-set. Gray et al. (2014) observed that the UN pushed colonial administra-
tors to import social work education and practice into Africa, and Western professionals were
therefore commissioned to conduct needs assessments. Social work education programmes
were thus established by consultants, mostly from the West. Some of them worked with local
practitioners trained in the West, hence with a Western bias (Midgley, 1981). This apparently
resulted in the adoption of curricula that reflected Western influence, and thus lacked relevance
to Africa.
African researchers have, over the years, expressed concern over the inappropriateness of
Western-orientated approaches and features of the curricula in use (Ragab, 1982; Muzaale,
1987; Mupedziswa, 2005). There was an overemphasis on the teaching of case work, group
work and community organization; with psychoanalytic casework peddled as the major tool
of intervention (Midgley, 1981). Students could not sufficiently relate theory and practice, as
they had acquired principles, values and ethics not rooted in local settings (Mupedziswa, 2001;
Mwansa, 2010).
Concern was also expressed over the literature in use in many of the social work education
institutions. A consultant team established in 1964 for the Study of Schools of Social Work in
Africa (Economic Commission for Africa [ECA], 1973) expressed regret that social work edu-
cators in Africa utilised Western textbooks that were difficult to use as a foundation for profes-
sional training and practice. Nagpaul (1972) argued that the Western textbooks used in many
developing countries had been written with a Western audience in mind, and were generally
inappropriate.
The fieldwork component also came under strong criticism. In many instances, students had
field placements in a diverse range of settings including government departments, local author-
ities, semi-autonomous entities run by government known as ‘parastatals’, hospitals, psychiatric
120
Social work education in Africa
and rehabilitation units, private industry, mines and non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
(Mupedziswa & Sinkamba, 2014). There was concern that there was an overemphasis on urban
placements at the expense of rural placements (Njau, 1986: 93). While it was true that choice of
field placements tended to be influenced by a number of factors, including costs and logistics
such as accommodation (Safari, 1986; Mupedziswa, 2001), it was equally a fact that rural areas
were hardly being targeted for field placement, triggering debate over the relevance and appro-
priateness of many field placements.
The debate over relevance

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, scholars began to query the orientation of social work educa-
tion on offer in Africa, arguing that the profession was producing cadres with limited impact on
the major social issues at stake. ASWEA (1982: 11) ‘launched’ the debate in earnest by strongly
arguing that
African social work must proceed from remedial social work – foreign by nature and
approach – to a more dynamic and more widespread preventive and rehabilitative
action which identifies itself with African culture in particular and with the socioeco-
nomic policies of Africa in general.
Several scholars (e.g. Hall, 1990; Osei-Hwedie, 1993; Mwansa, 2010) joined the debate and
strongly argued that social work in Africa needed to shed its traditional (remedial) outlook in
order to realise relevance. Commentators (e.g. Muzaale, 1987; Osei-Hwedie, 1992) explained
that in remedial social work the emphasis had been on a relief type of welfare assistance, and this
could only scratch the surface of problems, given the complex nature of the challenges faced
on the continent. Its promotion was thus adjudged to be akin to ‘majoring in minors’ (a quote
where the original source is not available).
Hall (1990: 149) argued that the remedial approach tended to offer temporary relief rather
than long-term solutions to social distress. In a similar vein, Osei-Hwedie (1993) opined that
promoting the remedial approach resulted in a lack of fit between African (traditional) social
norms and Western processes of social welfare, resulting in the profession’s dismal showing in
terms of impact on its clientele. Midgley (1983: 154) concurred, and further argued that the
approach focused on treating the emotional and personal maladjustments of individuals, using
American ‘psychodynamic’ theories of social casework, which emphasised issues adjudged to
be peripheral in Africa, like the ‘crises of urban destitution and maladjustment and . . . requests
for urgent material assistance, securing (of) residential places and dealing with judicial child
committal, probation and maintenance cases’. Promoting such an approach was thus felt to be
tantamount to advancing what Midgley (1981: xiv) termed ‘professional imperialism’.
The broad consensus view among most African scholars therefore was that, given the mag-
nitude and nature of the challenges faced on the African continent, promoting the remedial
approach was akin to prescribing an aspirin where major surgery was required. Africa faced
major challenges including mass poverty, unemployment, underemployment, hunger, inadequate
shelter, homelessness, illiteracy, disease and ignorance (Midgley, 1981: 54; Hardiman & Midgley,
1982: 54; Walton & El Nasr, 1988: 139), and the remedial approach was unable to sufficiently
address such macro issues. What was needed, they argued, was to introduce students to curricula
that would facilitate a thrust towards these major challenges. The critics stressed that they were,
however, not advocating total elimination of the remedial approach; rather that the remedial
approach should not take precedence in social work intervention.
121
Different authors used different concepts in the call for social work to be relevant to Africa;
these included indigenisation, authentisation, radicalisation, reconceptualisation, conscentisation
and recontextualisation. Shawkey (1972: 3) explained that indigenisation referred to the process of
adapting imported ideas to fit local needs, while Midgley (1983: 170) explained that indigenisa-
tion focused on appropriateness, which meant professional social work must be appropriate to
the needs of different countries and, as Hall (1990) put it, without necessarily trying to reinvent
the wheel.
As for authentisation, Ragab (1982: 21) defined this concept as ‘The identification of genuine
and authentic roots in the local system, which would be used for guiding its (i.e. the communi-
ty’s) future development in a mature, relevant and original fashion’. Authentisation, it was further
explained, is concerned with the building of a ‘domestic model of social work’ (Walton & El
Nasr, 1988: 136) in light of the social, political and economic characteristics of each particular
country.
The concept of reconceptualisation, on the other hand, ‘makes room for adaptation and modi-
fications of old ideas, knowledge and process of practice as well as the emergence of new ones,
all in the effort towards appropriateness of social work professional education and practice’
(Osei-Hwedie, 1993: 2).
Radicalisation refers to a marked departure from the usual or the traditional, effecting extreme
changes in existing views, behaviours, conditions or institutions. For Ankrah (1987: 9), ‘To rad-
icalise roles is to prescribe behaviours that directly address the conditions of Africa, not those
pervading elsewhere.’
Conscientisation relates to consciousness-raising or awakening which results in individuals
changing their mind-set in order to appreciate their place in society.When individuals are aware
of the causes of their oppression, they will go through a process of reflection and then may
proceed to take action to deal with the structural causes of disadvantage (Larson & Allen, 2006).
Finally, recontextualisation calls for vigilance on the part of the social work profession in Africa
to ensure practice is determined by theoretical considerations based on having put each problem
in its proper context in terms of social, economic, cultural and political considerations (Molina,
1992; Mupedziswa, 2005).
A close analysis reveals that all the key concepts considered above ought to be viewed as
multifarious strategies towards a single goal – that of striving for relevance through promotion
of the social development perspective which we now go on to discuss.
The social development approach in perspective

The social development perspective in social work education and practice emerged in the wake
of calls by African scholars for social work in Africa to move away from the remedial, residual
approach with its thrust in social control, and instead focus on strategies that target social change
(Mupedziswa & Sinkamba, 2014). Hall (1990: 149) explained, ‘A social development orientation
in social work means that social work as a profession can begin to address issues of structural
inequality and social disadvantage.’ The approach is preventive and proactive, and emphasizes
long-term change. Sanders (1982) added that social development is a process of planned insti-
tutional change to bring about a better fit between human needs and social policies and pro-
grammes. The knowledge base of social development includes a mastery of the ingredients of
social, economic and political structures; it connotes a radical change of mission, knowledge
base and practice skills in social work; and it is preventive and proactive rather than remedial and
reactive, aiming at long-term change for the benefit of the majority of a country’s population
(Hollister, 1982).
122
In this approach, the people’s capacity to control, utilise and increase their resources is empha-
sized (de Graaf, 1986), and empowerment and capacity building are considered important cogs
(Mupedziswa, 1988, 2001).The approach is holistic in nature and encourages maximum partici-
pation of ordinary people, in collaboration with various agencies, in the process of development
(Gray, 1996; Midgley, 1995, 1996; Patel, 2005, 2007). Muzaale (1987) added that its core skills
include policy analysis, planning, community organisation, programme evaluation and social
advocacy. Elliott (2012: 103) concurred and added that ‘Social development offers a progressive
model of social work practice with goals of social justice, and empowerment of the oppressed,
the marginalized, or excluded population.’ Its broad mission is to contribute to the emergence
and maintenance of a society in which organisations and institutions are more sensitive and
responsive to human needs (Paiva, 1982).
A key issue of debate in promoting the social development approach in Africa, however, has
been the question of what a social development curriculum should look like. Hampson and
Willmore (1986: 7) observed, ‘The question now facing social work education is how social
workers can be trained as social development workers . . . who can recognise the problems of
mass poverty and underdevelopment, and contribute to the solutions of these problems.’ Afri-
can scholars have come up with suggestions regarding what a curriculum based on the social
development approach should look like. In the next section, we consider different elements of
the proposed curriculum.
Design of a social development curriculum

According to African scholars, perhaps the first step in efforts in designing a curriculum
predicated on the social development orientation is to engage in a major curriculum
review. Dlamini (1995: 28) noted, ‘If social work education [in Africa] is to be relevant and
address the needs of the people being served, the crucial issue of the curriculum needs
to be examined and implemented.’ Such a review would aim to bring in elements of a
developmental orientation to a curriculum. In terms of content, Rothman and Vigilante
(1974: 77) suggest that broader environmental issues such as social, political and practice
factors must have an impact on how social development curricula are structured. Accord-
ing to Rwomire and Raditlhokwa (1996: 16), the objectives of a sensitive and responsive
curriculum would include ‘formulation of specific instructional objectives, development of
marketable skills, inculcation of appropriate values, attitudes and skills, and development
of suitable teaching materials including textbooks’. New course themes would need to be
introduced, including social justice and equality (Tummala, 1995: 55); unemployment, ecology,
forced migration (Mupedziswa, 1992: 22); and participation, ‘humanocracy’, non-exploitative
rationality, de-tribalisation and distributive justice (Estes, 1992: 11). Dlamini (1995: 30) states
that such a curriculum would help liberate social work students from the hegemony of ‘micro-
approaches’.
A social development curriculum (Sanders, 1982: 11; Muzaale, 1987: 84) would also be
expected to include at least some of the key concepts and themes associated with the social
development perspective, namely, indigenisation (Midgley, 1981: 170; Osei-Hwedie, 1996:
215), authentisation (Ragab, 1982: 21; Walton & El Nasr, 1988: 135), reconceptualisation
(Molina, 1992: 58), recontextualisation (Osei-Hwedie, 1996: 215), radicalisation (Ankrah,
1987: 9; Mwansa, 1992: 6; Rwomire & Raditlhokwa, 1996: 14) and conscientisation (Alfero,
1973: 33, cited in Walton & El Nasr, 1988; Resnick 1976: 21; Larson & Allen, 2006). Related
concepts to introduce students to would include empowerment and capacity building. Tum-
mala (1995: 55) added risk and vulnerability, social change, social justice, equality, sexism,
123
oppression and marginalisation, while others (e.g. Farris, 1987: 43; Ekins, 1992: 3; Estes, 1992:
11; Anderson et al., 1994: 84; Dlamini, 1995: 28) have alluded to the concepts of justice and
equity.
Walton and El Nasr (1988: 142) suggested that social work educators in Africa needed to
focus their attention on areas of theory relevant to advising on problems of critical concern,
including underdevelopment. It is common course, that the continent of Africa is underdevel-
oped, with a large segment of its population wallowing in the quagmire of poverty, and hence,
students ought to learn to appreciate this. Osei-Hwedie (1993: 23) concurred and added that
social work education on the continent ought to be consistent with and responsive to the envi-
ronmental, cultural and ideological diversity of the people, including issues of discrimination
(Walton & El Nasr, 1988: 140), and migration from rural to urban areas.
Fieldwork for social development

A curriculum couched in the social development approach would not be complete without
recasting the practical fieldwork component. Scholars have argued that fieldwork placements
based on the remedial orientation tend to be too narrowly focused, and inappropriate. Wal
ton and El Nasr (1988: 141) quote Ragab (1982) as calling for appropriate field training which
addresses pressing social problems in the given society. Other commentators (e.g. Ankrah,
1987: 67; Muzaale, 1987: 86; Njau, 1986: 93; Hall, 1990: 19) have called on social work edu-
cation institutions in Africa to build a pool of relevant placements which provide meaningful
learning experiences consistent with developmental social work. In particular, there have been
calls to embrace innovative field placements, some of which were suggested by Kendall, the
doyenne of the social work profession, including what she termed the ‘floating’ placement,
tried out in the Philippines, and the ‘workshop’ placement, tried out in Latin America (Ken-
dall, 1974: 77). Both strategies involved groups of students with one or two staff members
being assigned to ‘non-structured’, open field placements. The locale might be a squatter slum,
a centre for agrarian reform, a cooperative, a particular neighbourhood, a social movement,
an industrial complex, a village, or so forth. Such placements were rooted in life as it exists in
the community, and would address ‘macro’ issues, with their main emphasis being the promo-
tion of social change at the locality level. The placements are development oriented in nature,
and the advantage is that they do not require the services of an on-site field supervisor. The
learning experience on the part of the student is ‘self-directed’, providing room for originality
and innovation. A staff member from the education institution would serve as supervisor and
would thus occasionally visit the students to determine progress and give direction as necessary.
Another option is what Bogo and Herington (1986: 82) termed the ‘village camping’ type of
field placement, which has been tried out in India, Egypt and Sri Lanka and involved selecting,
on the basis of some criteria (e.g. degree of poverty), one or more villages in which groups of
social work students can camp for the duration of their placement. Activities there could range
from family therapy to individual, group or community research. Students undertaking such a
placement could also get involved in community improvement activities such as adult education
programmes, including literacy training.
Similarly, Ankrah (1987) reported on an innovative idea which promoted a social develop-
ment type of fieldwork, tried out at Makerere University in Uganda with considerable success.
The approach involved students working with communities as part of their practical social work
education. Ankrah (1987: 67) states, ‘Whether in the traditional agency . . . the clear formula-
tion of expectations and objectives seemed to pave the way for familiarity, or participating in,
more development-aimed programmes than experienced hitherto.’ She emphasised that such
124
placements had to be very clearly thought through, with objectives and outcomes clearly spelt
out, a point that Mupedziswa (1995) has passionately alluded to.
Dlamini (1995: 28) emphasised the importance of focusing on initiatives that addressed the
needs of the people being served. For Osei-Hwedie (1996: 218), such a progressive strategy
would facilitate greater legitimacy and societal acceptability and efficiency. This would help
empower students with skills that will enable them to play a significant role in improving con-
ditions of marginalised people (Mupedziswa, 2005).
Such placements would prepare graduates to meaningfully contribute towards macro-level
intervention. Gray, Mazibuko, and O’Brien (1996: 11) observed that
the challenge for social work educators [in Africa] is to produce graduates who are
able to participate actively in reconstruction and development, and who are able to
enter into this process with a clear knowledge and understanding of the importance of
developmental social work to this process.
Gray et al. added that unfortunately graduates of many social work institutions in Africa had
tended to continue to take up appointments in the traditional remedial arena and, once in the
field, they found it difficult to give something back to developing the African theory base of the
profession. Osei-Hwedie (1993: 22) highlighted that experience and data from field practition-
ers should form the knowledge base out of which theory and related elements of social science
knowledge for further and improved practice must emanate – hence, the importance of relevant
placements to help us grow knowledge and research for practice.
Approaches to teaching and assessment

In terms of approaches to teaching and assessment, African scholars have argued that a social
development curriculum should be expected to promote progressive lecture delivery styles and
innovative methods of delivery of materials in class (e.g. seminar presentations, small group dis-
cussions, role play, etc.). Rwomire and Raditlhokwa (1996: 17) emphasised the need to ‘formu-
late innovative instructional strategies’ which are consistent with efforts to provide, for students
at African institutions, room to engage in dialogue and to articulate their views openly without
fear of victimisation. The argument is that the emphasis ought to be on participation, dialogue,
discovery and exploration on the part of the students. Osei-Hwedie (1996: 216) added that all
activities in the training arena as well as ‘resources, processes, procedures and techniques’ must
capture the socially constructed reality of (African) society, i.e. the social experience, shared
images, the social stock of knowledge and institutional framework. Anderson et al. (1994: 84)
stressed the need to promote ‘self-directed learning, exploration and analysis’. Such strategies
would be in tandem with the social developmental approach.
Assessment in the proposed social development curriculum should include student projects/
assignments that reflect the key areas of concern in African communities (Nyaribo & Mugambi,
1980).
Drawing on indigenous resources

The social development curriculum would also need to be driven by indigenous resources, in
particular locally generated teaching materials. Jones (1987: 33) complained that too many social
work textbooks in the Third World were translations or near-translations of Western social work
125
theory. Walton and El Nasr (1988: 137) added that most schools of social work in developing
countries tended to be dependent on Western literature, and students studied the same text-
books, read the same journals and were taught the same theories and methods as those in the
West – a regrettable trend. In the same vein, Rwomire and Radithokwa (1996: 13) expressed
dismay that ‘virtually all the available social work textbooks had been written by scholars who
lived and were educated in Western Europe and North America.’ What was needed in efforts
to realise a social development thrust was, according to Asamoah and Beverly (1988: 183), the
generation of indigenous teaching materials. Dlamini (1995: 28) argued that while social work
literature from Western countries is vital, indigenous material was critical to sensitise students to
local problems and needs. Ragab (1982: 11) too called for a serious reorientation of social work
education in Africa towards respecting, carefully gathering and utilising any shreds of locally
generated practice experiences. Osei-Hwedie (1993: 21) implored social work educators on the
continent to begin to reassemble what is known about their own environment and take that
which will drive their practice effectively. Hall (1990: 19) underscored the need for student dis-
sertations and projects to be of such a quality and orientation as to provide material that would
be both relevant and useful in the local situation. Thus the consensus has been that a social
development orientation could only be realised if deliberate efforts were made to generate and
use indigenous teaching materials.
Generation of such materials would of course mostly be possible through promotion of
indigenous research initiatives. Commentators (e.g. Ragab, 1982: 12; Asamoah & Beverly, 1988:
183) emphasised the importance of giving priority to local research if social work in Africa is
to develop a perspective pertinent to the solution of its problems. Rwomire and Raditlhokwa
(1996: 17) as well as Gray et al. (1995: 10) stressed the need to generate ‘indigenous’ research
material. Ragab (1982: 12) argued that a rigorous programme of systematic research designed to
fill in the gaps in knowledge will have to be placed top of the agenda. Indigenous research efforts
would focus on societal values, social institutional arrangements and major social problems
affecting significant sections of the population. Deliberate efforts would need to be made to
ensure that staff and students alike made judicious use of locally produced materials. Barriers to
generation and use of indigenous research and teaching materials may include lack of resources
(Mupedziswa, 1997, 1998) and a mind-set characterised by a tendency to think that ‘that which
comes from the West is best’, resulting in the shunning of locally generated resources.
According to the scholars, attempts to introduce a social development curriculum would be
expedited where staffing has an ‘indigenous configuration’. Midgley (1981: 84) lamented that
many social work educators in Africa had studied abroad and hence held a Western worldview.
Echoing this concern, Tummala (1995: 54) observed that ‘the educators [in African schools of
social work] were either from North America or Europe and their practice and training were
shaped by Western models.’ Rwomire and Raditlhokwa (1996: 13) added that social workers
teaching in African universities who were trained in Europe and North America had internal-
ised Western values and norms of social work education and practice with an inappropriate
Eurocentric bias.
Asamoah and Beverly (1988: 189) explained that social workers trained in the context of
a specific culture reflected value orientations shaped by that culture. The two authors pose a
pertinent question: ‘Is it practical to assume that social workers trained in one culture can offer
any meaningful assistance in addressing problems in another?’ The feeling was that expatriate
staff as well as locals trained abroad might not possess the same passion or commitment towards
the theme of relevance (Mupedziswa, 2001: 294). The suggestion, therefore, has been that staff
profiles must of necessity reflect a sufficiently high level of ‘indigenisation’ (i.e. localisation),
meaning the majority of the instructors should be indigenous persons who were trained locally.
126
Thus, as a rule of thumb, staff with ‘Western’ profiles should not constitute the majority of
instructors at the institutions.
Supporting social development through regional and national networks

It is the contention of African scholars that an institution promoting a social development cur-
riculum would need to ensure that linkages, particularly (though not exclusively) at regional
level, are vigorously promoted. These would include formal institutional linkages, staff/stu-
dent exchanges and the sharing of information through workshops, seminars and conferences
(Mupedziswa, 2001, 2005). Asamoah and Beverly (1988: 186) suggest that opportunities could
include exchange of literature or teaching materials and faculty and student exchanges. Walton
and El Nasr (1988: 142) believe this goal (of promoting linkages) could be realised through
organising workshops and conferences on developing authentic social work education and prac-
tice in Africa. Ragab (1982: 14) stressed that professional publications, conferences and seminars
constituted an indispensable avenue for the exchange of experiences necessary for local practice
theory building. Gray et al. (1995: 10) emphasised the need for ‘networking and learning from
one another’ at regional level, as such networks offered opportunities for the development of
indigenous materials and approaches to social development education.
Progress on social development and ways forward

While some institutions in sub-Saharan Africa have begun to promote the social development
approach (Hochfeld et al., 2009), challenges have remained and progress has been slow. Kreitzer
et al. (2009: 147) have lamented thus, ‘Western social work programmes are still importing
Western curricula to non-Western countries, and likewise non-Western countries are reluctant
to create their own curricula. . . .’ Mwansa (2011: 11) added, ‘In many countries in Africa, the
pedagogy of social work continues, to some degree, to rely on knowledge from outside the
continent.’ Thus, many social work education institutions in Africa have not heeded the call to
embrace the social development perspective, while those that were implementing the approach
have made only very limited progress.
A study of 25 social work education institutions in southern and east Africa (Hochfeld et al.,
2009) found a number of factors contributing to the limited progress. It emerged that many
social work professionals operated within the confines of existing political environments which
were sometimes oppressive or volatile, and this made it difficult for them to emphasise key prin-
ciples of social development such as empowerment of the marginalised. Another factor related
to a lack of consensus regarding the way forward. For instance, it emerged that a misconcep-
tion prevailed among some scholars that social development ought to be seen as a stand-alone
discipline (like development studies) which cannot be applied to social work, and hence it was
only logical for social workers to stick to the remedial approach because (in the view of these
scholars) it represented ‘authentic’ social work.
There was also a lack of clarity over what social development really entailed, and how to
begin effectively to prepare cadres to promote this approach (i.e. lack of expertise). Some insti-
tutions reported a lack of resources for promoting the developmental perspective, for instance,
indigenous teaching resource materials. Finally, there was, in some cases, limited appreciation
of the need to promote the social development approach on the part of some social work
educators, with a number of them ‘confessing’ that they had never really even thought about
promoting this perspective. Indeed, several educators seemed oblivious of the potential benefits
of promoting the social development perspective (Mupedziswa & Sinkamba, 2014).
127
Conclusion
Social work education in Africa has had a chequered history. Promotion of the social devel-
opment perspective is imperative, and it ought to begin in the classroom (Mupedziswa, 2008).
Yet very few educators seem to possess the requisite expertise or appetite to carry the process
forward. The need to promote a social development approach has been floated for many years,
and yet to date few educators have been enthusiastic about embracing the proposed perspective.
There is no doubt that social work education in Africa needs total transformation if it is to
realise relevance to African needs. And as Mwansa (2011: 11) observed, ‘The transformation of
social work [in Africa] requires a reorientation of curricula and teaching methods that facilitate
and support holistic interventions reflecting local needs and values while abiding by accepted
global standards.’ Stated otherwise, there is a need to vigorously promote the social development
approach. Since not much has happened to date, it is incumbent upon social work education
institutions, as well as state and non-state actors, to deliberately create a conducive environment
to accommodate the requisite changes proposed by the various commentators. Clearly, there is
no shortcut nor way of escaping this imperative. The consequences of failure to accede to this
clarion call would be too ghastly to contemplate – the profession will continue to major in
minors, meaning its clientele will continue to be short-changed.
References
Alfero, L. A. (1973). Conscientisation. In New themes in social work education (pp. 31–42). New York, NY:
International Association of Schools of Social Work.
Anderson, S. C., Wilson, M. K., Mwansa, L-K., & Osei-Hwedie, K. (1994). Empowerment and social work
education and practice in Africa. Journal of Social Development in Africa, 9(2), 71–86.
Ankrah, M. (1987). Radicalising roles for Africa’s development: Some evolving practice issues. Journal of
Social Development in Africa, 2(2), 17–29.
Asamoah, Y. W., & Beverly, C. (1988). Collaboration between western and African schools of social work:
Problems and possibilities. International Social Work, 31(3), 177–195.
ASWEA (Association of Social Work Education in Africa). (1973). Case studies of social development in Africa:
Vol 1. Addis Ababa: ASWEA.
ASWEA (Association of Social Work Education in Africa). (1982). Survey of curricula of social development
training institutions in Africa. Addis Ababa: ASWEA.
Bogo, M., & Herington, W. (1986). Field instruction based on a social development practice model: The
example of Sri Lanka. International Social Work, 29,73‑82.
De Graaf, M. (1986). Catching fish or liberating man: Social development in Zimbabwe. Journal of Social
Development in Africa, 1(1), 7‑26.
Dlamini, P. M. (1995). Inequality and under-development: Issues for a social development curriculum.
Journal of Social Development in Africa, 10(2), 23–33.
ECA (Economic Commission for Africa) (1973). Preliminary survey for the establishment of a regional training
research centre for social development in Africa. Addis Ababa: Economic Commission for Africa (Mimeo).
Ekins, P. (1992). A new world order. London: Routledge.
Elliott, D. (2012). Social development and social work. In L. Healy, & R. Link, (Eds.), International social work:
Human rights, development, and the global profession (pp. 102–108). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Estes, R. (1992). Internationalising social work. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania.
Farris, B. (1987). Introducing social development context into the social work curriculum. Social Develop-
ment Issues, 10(3), 39–47.
Gray, M. (1996). Towards an understanding of developmental social work. Social Work Practice, 1(96), 9–12.
Gray, M. (1999). The history of social work in Southern Africa. Unpublished paper, Durban University of
Natal.
Gray, M., Kreitzer, L., & Mupedziswa, R. (2014).The enduring relevance of indigenisation in African social
work: A critical reflection on ASWEA’s legacy. Ethics and Social Welfare Journal (UK), 8(2), 110–116.
Gray, M. M., Mazibuko, F. & O’Brien, F. (1996). Social work education for social development. Journal of
128
Hall, N. (1990). Social work training in Africa: A fieldwork manual. Harare: The Journal, School of Social Work.
Hampson, J., & Willmore, B. (1986). Social development and rural fieldwork. Edited workshop proceedings
social development, rural poverty and fieldwork intervention held in Harare, Zimbabwe, June 10–14.
Harare: The Journal.
Hardiman, M., & Midgley, J. (1982). The social dimensions of development. London: John Wiley.
Hochfeld, T., Mupedziswa, R., Chitereka, C., & Selipsky, L. (2009). Developmental social work education
in Southern and East Africa. Research report. Centre for Social Development in Africa. University of
Johannesburg.
Hollister, D. (1982). The knowledge and skills bases of social development. In D. Sanders (Ed.), The develop-
mental perspective in social work (pp. 16–23). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, School of Social Work.
Jones, J. (1987). Educating for uncertainty. Journal of Social Development in Africa, 2(2), 27–33.
Kendall, K. (1974). Cross‑national review of social work education: Insights from the new world guide to
social work education. In Education for Social Change (pp. 13–21). New York, NY: IASSW.
Kreitzer, L., Abukari, Z., Antonio, P., Mensha, J., & Kwaku, A. (2009). Social work in Ghana: A participatory
action research project looking at culturally appropriate training and practice. Social Work Education,
28(2), 145–164.
Larson, G., & Allen, H. (2006). Conscientization – the experience of Canadian social work students in
Mexico. International Social Work, 49(4), 507–518.
Midgley, J. (1981). Professional imperialism, social work in the Third World. London: Heinemann.
Midgley, J. (1983). Professional imperialism: Social work in the Third World. London: Hainemann.
Midgley, J. (1995). Social development: The developmental perspective in social welfare. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Midgley, J. (1996). The developmental perspective in social welfare: Transcending residual and institutional
models. Social Work Practice, 1(96), 2–8.
Molina, L. (Ed.) (1992). Poverty and transformation: Advances and new themes in social work education
and practice in Latin America. In C. Guzzetta, & F. Mittwoch, (Eds.), Social development and social rights
(pp. 66–71).Vienna: International Association of Schools of Social Work.
Mupedziswa, R. (1988). Popular participation as a strategy for empowerment and capacity building among
underprivileged groups: The case of Zimbabwe. In C. Guzzetta & F. Mittwoch (Eds.), Social development
and social rights (pp. 12–19).Vienna: International Association of Schools of Social Work.
Mupedziswa, R. (1992). Africa at the crossroads: Major challenges for social work education and practice
towards the year 2000. Journal of Social Development in Africa, 7(2), 19–38.
Mupedziswa, R. (1995). The importance of setting objectives in practical fieldwork training. Social Work/
Maatskaplike, 31(3), 280–286.
Mupedziswa, R. (1997). Training social workers in an environment of economic reforms: The ‘mother of
all challenges?’ Social Work/MaatskaplikeWerk, 33(2), 233–243.
Mupedziswa, R. (1998). Crisis and challenge: Social work practice in an environment of economic reform
in Zimbabwe. Social Development Issues, 20(2), 39–52.
Mupedziswa, R. (2001). The quest for relevance: Towards a conceptual model of development social work
education and training in Africa. International Social Work, 44(3), 285–300.
Mupedziswa, R. (2005). Challenges and prospects of social services in Africa. In J. C. Akeibunor, & E. E.
Anugwom (Eds.), The social sciences and socio-economic transformation in Africa (pp. 271–317). Nsukka: Great
AP Express Publishing.
Mupedziswa, R. (2008). Twenty-two years of training social work practitioners in Africa: Reflections on
strategies and techniques. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 28(3/4), 343–355.
Mupedziswa, R., & Sinkamba, R. (2014). Social work education and training in East and Southern Africa:
Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In C. Noble, & B. Littlechild (Eds.), Global social work (pp. 141–153).
Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Muzaale, P. (1987). Social development, rural poverty and implications for fieldwork practice. Journal of
Mwansa, L-K. (1992). Radical social work practice: The case of Africa. Paper presented at the Department of
social work, national field supervisors seminar, University of Botswana, Gaborone.
Mwansa, L-K. (2010). Challenges facing social work in Africa. International Social Work, 53(1), 129–136.
Mwansa, L-K. (2011). Social work education in Africa: Whence and whither? Social Work Education, 30(1),
4–16.
Nagpaul, H. (1972). The diffusion of America social work education to India: Problems and Issues. Interna-
tional Social Work, 15, 13–17.
129
tions. International Social Work, 36(3), 207–220.
Njau, W. P. (1986). Social development training with special reference to rural fieldwork. In J. Hampson, &
B. Willmore (Eds.), Social development and rural fieldwork (pp. 13–20). Harare: School of Social Work.
Nyaribo, J. S., & Mugambi, A. (1980). Social development: Preventive and developmental trends. In Social
work and social action. Hong Kong: The 6th International Symposium for the International Federation
of Social Workers, 13–16 July.
Osei-Hwedie, K. (1992).The challenge of social work in Africa: Starting the indigenisation process. (mineo).
University of Botswana.
Osei-Hwedie, K. (1993). Putting the ‘social’ back into ‘work’: The case for the indigenisation of social work practice
and education in Africa. Special report. Cape Town: Institute of Indigenous Theory and Practice.
Osei-Hwedie, K. (1996). The indigenization of social work practice and education in Africa: The dilemma
of theory and method. Social Work/Maatsskaplike Work, 32(3) 215–225.
Osei-Hwedie, K., & Rankopo, M. (2012). Social work in ‘developing’ countries. In M. Gray, J. Midgley, &
S. A. Webb (Eds.), The sage handbook of social work (pp. 723–739). London: Sage.
Paiva, J. (1982). Dynamics of social development and social work. In D. Sanders (Eds.), The developmental
perspective in social work (pp. 3–9). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, School of Social Work.
Patel, L. (2005) Social development and curriculum renewal in an African context. Social Worker/Researcher-
Practitioner, 17(3), 363–377.
Patel, L. (2007). Social development and curriculum renewal in an African context. The Social Worker Prac-
titioner-Researcher, 17(3), 363–377.
Ragab, I. A. (1982). Authentization of social work in developing countries. Tanta: Integrated Social Services
Project.
Resnick, R. P. (1976). Conscientization: An indigenous approach to international social work. International
Social Work, 19(1), 21–29.
Rothman, B., & Vigilante, J. L. (1974). Curriculum planning in social work education. Journal of Social Work
Education, 10(2), 77–79.
Rwomire, A., & Raditlhokwa, L. (1996). Social work in Africa: Issues and challenges. Journal of Social Devel-
opment in Africa, 11(2), 5–19.
Safari, J. (1986).The role of fieldwork in the training of social workers. In J. Hampson, & B Willmore (Eds.),
Social development and rural fieldwork (pp. 27–33). Harare: School of Social Work.
Sanders, D. (Ed.) (1982). The developmental perspective in social work. University of Hawaai: School of Social
Work.
Sewpaul, V., & Lombard, A. (2004). Social work education, training and standards in Africa. Social Work
Education:The International Journal, 23(5), 537–554.
Shawkey, A. M. (1972). Social work education in Africa. International Social Work, 15(3), 38–46.
Tummala, K. (1995). Relevance of home economics knowledge base for social work practice in Botswana.
Journal of Social Development in Africa, 10(1), 53–64.
Walton, R., & El Nasr, M. (1988). Indigenisation and authentisation in terms of social work in Egypt. Inter-
national Social Work, 31 (2), 28–47.
130
SECTION 3
The scholarship of
learning and teaching
12
DEVELOPING LEARNING AND
TEACHING ABOUT DIVERSITY
AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
The United States (US) population is becoming increasingly complex and diverse.The US Cen-
sus Bureau projects that in 2050 the proportions of all racial and ethnic minority groups (Asian,
Hispanic, African American, American Indian) will increase, while the proportion of Non-His-
panic White people decreases due to fertility, immigration and age-distribution patterns (US
Census Bureau, 2010). These trends challenge social work programs to prepare students for a
more diverse world and encourage them to understand, embrace, and navigate increasing cultural
complexity. This desire to prepare social workers to practice in a complex and diverse envi-
ronment has been one motivation for social work education policies and practices to focus on
developing and teaching methods for this important work (Thompson, Hardee, & Lane, 2011;
Deepak, Rountree, & Scott, 2015).
Although our chapter is focused on the social work context in the US, this growing cul-
tural diversity and conflict is a global phenomenon. The globalization of capital, environmental
threats, political conflicts, economic contractions, and religious conflicts have contributed to
large population shifts across borders (Parrott, 2009). Recent events involving significant migra-
tion from the Middle East, northern Africa, and southern Europe into the European Union (EU)
and other more stable and economically viable regions is only one example of the ways in which
many societies are becoming more culturally diverse.
In this chapter we focus on the ways in which social work education in the US has worked
to address these concerns. We begin by discussing the development of the cultural competence
framework, the ways in which it has impacted social work education, the methods that have
been developed for teaching this approach, and its limitations. We then turn to an emerging
approach to cultural diversity in practice – cultural humility – and how it has been developed
and is affecting education for social work. Our closing section then focuses on new challenges
and frameworks for teaching about diversity and social justice.
Education for cultural competence in social work

The demographic landscape in the US is in transition. Immigration and fertility patterns within
the US over the past 30 years have led to an increasingly multiracial, multicultural, and multi-
ethnic society. At the same time, conditions of economic inequality and economic stratifica-
tion by gender and race have not abated. Demographic projections suggest that current trends
133
regarding populations of color will continue, with predictions that by 2050 the US will be 72%
European American, 15% African American, 8% Asian American, and 5% all other races. These
projections suggest that 25% of this total population will categorize themselves as “Hispanic”.
(Shrestha, 2006). Many of these changes in the US population have been met with conflict and
movements to eliminate affirmative action and further restrict immigration (Gutiérrez et al.,
2012). Although social workers are often at the forefront of dealing with issues of racism, ethno-
centrism, and inequity, methods for practice and preparing students for practice in this context
have not been well developed.
In the late twentieth century, the social work profession began to pay more attention to
addressing issues of oppression, diversity, and social justice. This focus arose in relation to civil
rights struggles in the larger society and within our field (Iglehart & Becerra, 2011). It is impos-
sible to be a social worker today without confronting and addressing issues of diversity and social
justice (Kohli, Huber, & Faul, 2010). The following are just some of the critical issues facing
communities of color today that must be addressed by social workers on all levels of practice
(Gutiérrez et al., 2012).
Health care. Although research in gerontology has identified a racial cross-over effect that
suggests that people of color who survive into old age are often healthier than others, the life
expectancy of people of color still lags behind the general population. Black men’s life expec-
tancy continues to decline and is considered now to be a major public health issue, while mater-
nal and infant mortality figures in communities of color have continued to rise. Homicide is the
leading cause of death for men of color in young and mid-adulthood.
Children and youth. The community and familial supports available even 20 years ago to youth
of color are no longer available to a similar extent. The networks available previously through
religious, spiritual, ethnic, or community groups are much less strong, and adults in poor families
of color do not have the resources or time to participate in them at the levels they did before
1980. In addition, children of color are more likely than others to attend poorly funded and
overburdened public school systems (Zippay, 2002). These factors have a direct effect on youth
of color and diminish their ability to develop their own human capital and to become financially
self-sufficient (Soderman, 2001; Frazier-Kouassi, 2002; Dodson, Manuel, & Bravo, 2002).
Income and employment. With the implementation of the Personal Responsibility and Welfare
Reconciliation Act in 1996, women of color are disproportionately pushed into marginal and
low-paying employment with inadequate supports (The Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor-
tunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 [P.L. 104–193]). These conditions lead to situations in which
women with low incomes are forced to work without adequate childcare, medical assistance, or
other benefits.The degree to which our social services systems or private employers are required
to provide these supports has not been clarified. This quandary is an example of how we must
pay attention to how policy is implemented, given the economic, historical, and social situations
of the populations affected by these policy changes.
Globalization and transnationalism. Increased globalization requires us to think about the
impact of policy decisions on people both inside and outside the country. Populations at all
income levels have transnational ties. For example, within immigrant communities, some
families spend their year traveling between the US and their home countries in search of
economic security, while others send much of their income to members of their extended
families in their home countries. Neighborhood and community changes that affect families
of color in the US can have an impact on extended family members in other countries as
well. The globalization of media and access to satellite TV and the Internet in communities
with even the lowest income has meant that communities of color in the US can access
ethnic media from around the world. Sources of information may not always be local, and
134
Learning and teaching about diversity
people of color may learn much more directly about local and global economic and social
problems.
These challenging conditions should lead us to consider what our professional role is with
respect to multiculturalism and to what degree we should focus on social control or on social
justice. For example, in our quest to develop culturally relevant programs, we could focus on
creating culturally relevant prisons rather than confronting the community, family, and societal
conditions that lead to the incarceration of many youth of color who have grown up in poverty
(Abrams & Molo, 2009).
These societal trends and social conditions challenge social workers to integrate an under-
standing of the importance of culture and personal identity with practice approaches and meth-
ods that deal directly with issues of social justice and inequality. These methods would work
toward the development of disfranchised groups while creating mechanisms for greater inter-
group interaction and change toward greater inclusion in the society generally (Kitayama &
Cohen, 2007; Breton, 2011; Wendt & Gone, 2011). Although these practice approaches may be
built upon a pluralistic foundation, they must go beyond pluralism to recognize and work to
eliminate social injustices and oppression based on group membership. It should address ways in
which we can respect diversity and reduce inequality while working toward a common good
(Gutiérrez et al., 2012).
This perspective is in direct contrast to social work approaches that have been ethnocentric
or culturally insensitive. As an instrument of social control, social work historically has viewed,
either explicitly or implicitly, the norms, values, and needs of European American culture to
be the most desirable. It has placed little or no value on the unique experiences of people
of color and may approach their cultures as the basis of many of the problems faced by these
groups (Kitiyama & Cohen, 2007; Gutiérrez et al., 2012). Consequently, social workers have
been involved in such activities as the removal of Native American children from their families,
placing them in boarding schools or with White foster families; the “repatriation” of people of
Mexican descent during the depression; “Americanization” efforts that led to the loss of lan-
guage and culture of European immigrants; the sterilization of women of color; and the lack of
attention to specific groups such as Asian Americans (Gutiérrez & Lewis, 1992).
This ethnocentric focus has led many communities of color to their own agencies or institu-
tions parallel or in opposition to those in the European American community (Iglehart & Bec-
erra, 2011).Within all communities of color, there is a rich tradition and heritage of community
organizing and organizational development aimed at addressing the lack of responsive human
services programs and the need to mobilize for social justice (Rivera & Erlich, 1998). These
organizing activities have built upon the strengths and resources that exist in all communities
of color (Delgado, 1999). These projects often use cultural symbols, the arts, and spiritual beliefs
and practices in their organizing work. For example, programs developed in Puerto Rican
communities may enlist spiritualists and mediums to reach and involve community members
(Delgado & Humm-Delgado, 1982). The methods developed and used by these indigenous
organizations can provide insights into ways in which all social workers can work effectively
with communities of color (Delgado, 1999; Iglehart & Becerra, 2011).
The culturally competent approach was developed in the late twentieth century as a way
incorporate cultural awareness into practice (Kohli, Huber, & Faul, 2010; Lee, 2010). How-
ever, serious interest in culturally relevant practice was advanced much earlier; in the days of
community-based care, in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time, service underutilization became a
major concern to community-based practice, and in fact, one of the early reports on minority
health underutilization essentially forwarded the 6 A’s (availability, accessibility, acceptability,
accountability, affordability, and adaptability) to account for the disproportionate lack of service
135
utilization, most evident among racial and ethnic minorities (President’s Commission on Mental
Health, 1978; Stefl & Prosperi, 1985).
Our rapidly changing landscape in the context of cultural and linguistic diversity makes the
urgency of establishing culturally inclusive professional caring clear (Sue et al., 2009; Ortega &
Faller, 2011). This is particularly important as this effort coincides with the push for a profes-
sional culture of caring. The call for cultural competence can be viewed as synonymous with
cultural responsiveness. Professional guidelines and best practices in psychology, social work,
nursing, public health, medicine, and so on, have incorporated “culture” as an important compo-
nent of quality of care, and federal and state mandates have been promoted to recognize culture
as relevant in service delivery (Kitayama & Cohen, 2007; Sue et al., 2009; Chopp, Ortega, &
Vandervort, 2014). A focus on culture appears regularly in most professional school curricula
and is evident in professional school accreditation standards, such as those of the Council on
Social Work Education (Kohli, Huber, & Faul, 2010).
Patient-centered, client-centered, consumer-centered or oriented, and similar approaches
raise attention to the importance of viewing the people with whom professionals serve as
important participants in human service delivery. A focus on culture has drawn attention away
from pathologizing or deficit-focused orientations toward more inclusive perspectives that often
merge the body, mind, and spirit in cultural understandings of pain and suffering, joy and hope
(Park, 2005; Sue et al., 2009).
Approaches to cultural competence have met some resistance, in part because of the assump-
tions upon which training and education emerge. Initially, cultural practice took a basic stance
depending on assumptions of cultural adaptation. Cultural assimilation models upheld pre-
existing assumptions of responsive care and professionalism. The thought was that if one is
warm, genuine, and kind, and the person seems amenable to services, then these conditions
are sufficient for being culturally responsive. The underutilization problem previously discussed
suggested that such an approach was neither sufficient nor responsive.
Culturally accommodative or culturally integrative models were a movement toward translational
services both figuratively and literally. Greater client input was afforded and linguistic accom-
modations were made in service delivery. A third approach could be considered more focused
on indigenous cultural preservation, which integrates beliefs, customs, and language into service
generation and delivery. For example, different models of Alcoholics Anonymous are exemplary
of these different approaches even today. Some are traditional English-language based. Other
models are accommodative of language and belief differences so that materials are language
compatible, and practices are modified to accommodate cultural variations. And there are some
chapters that take very seriously indigenous explanations and healing practices, including the
use of indigenous healers in ways that transform mainstream models into indigenous, culturally
consistent practices.
In a more recent study of cultural competence approaches that were identified in the lit-
erature, at least three different orientations emerged: a multicultural approach, a cultural sensi-
tivity and awareness approach, and a cross-cultural approach (Sue et al., 2009). A multicultural
approach assumed a more categorical focus, emphasizing the importance of cultural knowledge
about identified (often racial or ethnic) groups. This model also draws on assumptions of shared
practices, beliefs, and so forth and assumptions about “embodied knowledge” that risks pro-
moting stereotypes. This approach seemed to be most dominant in early cultural competency
training and education.
A cultural sensitivity and awareness approach tends to emphasize the importance of self-
reflection and self-critique as a way to empathize with service recipients. Important critiques in
this approach have to do with whether or not it changes perceptions of the provider or recipient
136
and his or her behaviors, and whether or not it incorporated not just cultural differences but
the experience of cultural differences. This approach also finds it particularly challenging to be
inclusive of the multiple and intersecting identities beyond any singular identity.
A cross-cultural approach is particularly focused on service delivery skills, especially in
engagement and interacting with culturally different clients. A major focus is on building a
therapeutic alliance and working relationship. The critique of this approach has to do with the
attention given to power differentials in the relationship and the tendency to privilege profes-
sional expertise over cultural wisdom.
Most of the current cultural competence approaches call on cultural immersion, linguistic
compatibility (e.g. appropriate use of interpreters), use of cultural community aids, and tradi-
tional healers. Cultural immersion is encouraged especially to connect with recent immigrant
and refugee communities in light of the current anti-immigration sentiment. Such immersion
promotes grounded learning from service recipients, improves engagement, and allows the pro-
vider to see the recipient in multiple roles and identity contexts. Professional research interests
about immigrant populations are clearly in line with a desire for more global understanding
(Frey, 2014).
Limitations to a culturally competent approach

Culture and expertise. If one looks up definitions of expert and expertise, word associations
include references to possessing, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from
training or experience; being knowledgeable, proficient, savvy, and know-how are synonymous
with expert and expertise. Measures of expertise in professional life – all of which are deemed
flawed on their own right – include degree credentialing based on educational attainment, test
scores on licensing exams, time in service, annual performance measures, and client outcomes.
Rarely is one’s professional expertise directly evaluated by professional peers; at least not on a
regular basis. And it is highly unusual to actively seek direct feedback on one’s professional prac-
tice knowledge or skills. In fact, it has been argued that practice expertise often derives from a
maturation process about which a professional receives little ongoing, systematic, explicit and
valid feedback, especially about what aspects of their expertise are noteworthy and which aspects
would benefit from further development.
In caring professions one is typically considered competent as long as the services provided
are at the most helpful, but at the very least, not harmful. It is not always clear what bench-
marks are used to ascertain one’s level of competence; suffice to say that it poses a number of
challenges. The previously discussed disciplinary culture and professional orientation illustrates
the framing of one’s professional epistemic privilege. Professional foundation schema provides
representations and interpretations that embody the knowledge base from which impressions
are drawn. One sees what one sees, possibly compatible with the cultural lens of the people with
whom one serves, but it is reasonably doubtful one can lay claim to being culturally competent
about diverse others, especially about personal experiences.
Expertise also asserts power. Power from knowledge, for example, is acquired through
repeated, active engagement leading to mastery and expertise. Professional knowledge offers
security because it is assumed to have undergone the kind of scrutiny that is secure in its devel-
opment and application, and relevant to generalized others. A reliance on disciplinary cultural
knowledge and its underlying evidence base is believed to cleanse one from one’s fallibility. As
Henry Kissinger once said, “Power is the great aphrodisiac.”
In viewing one’s expectations of being an expert and demonstrating expertise, serious con-
sideration is given to assumptions of universal knowledge in the absence of considering one’s
137
uniqueness. Referring to the previously mentioned absence of continuous checks and balances
from which to assess one’s expertise, viewing oneself as an expert likely supports an accompany-
ing assertion of power from a professional perspective. Professional power, so it seems, may form
legends in our own minds! But why would a professional present her or himself differently?
An extensive social psychological literature underscores the pervasiveness of “self-enhancement
biases” that recognize the self as remarkably resourceful at accentuating the positive and deflect-
ing the negative. This perspective challenges one’s ability to accept one’s self and one’s accom-
panying imperfections that might otherwise allow for knowledge from the cultural other, the
one with which we are engaged and for which our services must be deemed most relevant, to
equally inform us.
Culture and “evidence”: In terms of viewing knowledge based upon “evidence”, it is difficult
to embrace but no less true that research and its pursuit based on curiosity is founded on an
attitude of doubt. Its notions of analytic indeterminacy or the idea that evidence alone must not
dictate the choice of a scientific theory encourages us to always be in search of new knowledge
to address and inform our limited understanding of phenomenon. Even within the context
of clear “evidence”, we must embrace the individual as the authority on her or his own lived
experience. Individuals are, in this sense, experts of their cultural selves, and the clear call for
a stance of cultural humility rests in accepting that others are far more knowledgeable about
themselves than we are.
Questioning expertise is not meant to disparage our professional allegiances. To the contrary,
our knowledge base, skills sets, and practice methods serve as important guidance, with impor-
tant ethical implications and ethical consequences if we deviate from practice expectations. In
fact, another source of concern is the cultural conflict that emerges when professional and cul-
tural wisdom become incompatible. Corporal punishment, role expectations based on gender,
social expectations related to who can interact with who (or even touch or look at who), mat-
ters of privacy, trust issues, and relationship expectations that often border on dual relationship
concerns illustrate challenges to our professional perspectives and preferences.
In the final analysis, cultural differences are a perennial challenge so that what is offered in
the guise of caring must view cultural complexity as the ordinary rather than the exception.
Cultural caring, in this sense, aims to account for cultural compatibility, and it must not be seen
as constrained by culture but rather have in its sights a search for mechanisms and processes that
transparently and successfully negotiate cultural boundaries. Likewise, mechanisms and processes
that obscure or maintain barriers to cultural inclusion and responsiveness must be disrupted.
Various definitions of cultural competence have points of convergence and divergence: they
all agree that knowledge, skills, and problem solving germane to the cultural background of
the help-seeker are fundamental; the differing definitions vary with respect to their empha-
sis on global characteristics, knowledge, skills, awareness, problem-solving abilities, aspirations,
processes, and so on. Cultural competence – more specifically, cross-cultural skills – should
be essential to the development of relevant intervention skills (López, 1997), suggesting that
cultural factors and service delivery types and methods are cultural phenomenon (Bernal and
Scharrón-del-Río, 2001; Sue et al., 2009).
As the cultural competence perspective has been developed and adopted in social work and
related fields, its limitations have been identified and explored. A significant critique has been
the ways in which categorical assumptions and stereotyping about ethnic and racial minority
service recipients can encourage essentiallizing views. The focus on culture and ethnicity may
lead social workers to overlook and fail to recognize other significant identities related to gen-
der, sexual orientation, and social class. The intersections of these significant identities and their
impact on human functioning and social capital can also be overlooked. For some, the focus on
138
learning about different groups may be so complex that social work students and practitioners
may resist developing this knowledge.The challenges and limitations of the cultural competence
approach have created an impetus to explore other models for working across cultural difference
(Abrams & Molo, 2009; Parrott, 2009).
Embracing cultural humility

The cultural humility perspective has been developed as an alternative approach to diversity
in practice (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998; Ortega & Faller, 2011). In advancing a cultural
humility perspective it is argued that the most serious barrier to culturally appropriate care is
not necessarily a lack of knowledge of the details of any given cultural orientation, but the pro-
vider’s failure to develop self-awareness and a respectful attitude toward culturally diverse points
of view (Ortega & Faller, 2011). This approach has been developed most fully within the health
and social services sectors.
A cultural humility perspective draws upon three dimensions essential to our connectedness
with others and with ourselves. First, cultural humility promotes self-awareness to the extent
that we must appreciate who we are from a cultural perspective and critically assess how this
shapes the lens through which we view the world. The concept of “epistemic privilege” draws
attention to our unique experiences and ways such privilege affects and is affected by our
internal processing of experiences. We are different, unique, and claim privileged ownership of
the lens through which we view the world based on both positive and negative experiences.
Through this self-awareness, we appreciate the fact that others can claim equal importance to
their knowledge of self, relative to their own cultural experiences.
Cultural humility in the broadest sense requires more realistic views about one’s talents, skills,
or capacities. Culturally humble practitioners do not simply acknowledge their limitations or
resist overestimating their qualities but find value in the knowledge and experiences shaped by
the realities of others outside of their self.
Cultural humility cautions us against viewing culture as fixed and narrowly perceived.
Engaging in a process of self-awareness and self-reflection is suggested to awaken the worker to
the power imbalance in the helping relationship that may influence one’s perspective on cultural
relevance. Critical self-awareness guards the worker from complicity, complacency, premature
assessment, and psychological and physical retreat from perspectives that privilege the worker’s
perspective while ignoring the lived experiences of the help-seeker.
A second cultural humility dimension focuses on differentiation and openness. Workers are
encouraged to consider an individual’s multiple identities and the way in which their social
experiences impact their cultural worldview. In human services, it is an essential helping virtue
to the extent that it requires a worker to learn from the help-seeker so that helping is relevant
in its assumptions and application.
The third dimension of cultural humility motivates us to consider the fact that in our efforts
to know ourselves personally and professionally, as well as others in the helping context, we
must embrace the reality that the world is far more complex and dynamic then perhaps we
can imagine. Cultural humility as transcendence cultivates a disposition that encourages us to
envision the multiple possibilities of difference that exists beyond one’s self in every meaningful
helping encounter. We lend our expertise on the basis of what we know, draw on the expertise
of the help-seekers with whom we work, and even then must recognize that the vastness of
experience likely exceeds all that is to be known.
In sum, demonstrating cultural humility frees workers from having to possess expert knowl-
edge about an array of cultures. This perspective has the benefit of placing the worker in a
139
learning mode as opposed to maintaining power, control, and authority in the working rela-
tionship, especially over cultural experiences about which the client is far more knowledgeable.
Workers become liberated from the constraints of cultural stereotypes and boundaried knowl-
edge about specific cultures, and are encouraged to learn from the people they serve. A cultural
humility perspective challenges social workers to learn, identify, and build on assets and adaptive
strengths of help-seekers and perhaps engage in efforts to change the kind of social forces that
so often act to disempower them as members of society.
Cultural humility is fundamentally geared toward acknowledging rather than resisting or
ignoring differences in power, privilege, and oppression. It also relates to our ability to seek
an appreciation of and hold regard for others that may generate mutual attentiveness, active
listening, and greater possibilities for reciprocal enrichment, particularly when cultural humility
is identified as ethically attuned and active responsiveness to our boundedness as cultural and
temporal beings.
Engagement in culturally responsive practice inclusive of cultural humility offers helping
that furthers the goals of serving the communities of help-seekers by recognizing their unique
contributions to the helping process. Contemporary cultural competence practices alone may
be complicit in their own forms of repression, especially when the voices of the culturally
diverse help-seekers are silenced or else weighed against the backdrop of disciplinary cultural
knowledge. In this sense, conceptions of social justice and inclusion are incomplete without the
cultivation of an ethical sensibility like cultural humility.
Educational approaches to teaching about diversity and social justice

A scholarly literature on teaching related to diversity and social justice in social work has devel-
oped over the past thirty years; however, this work has been more conceptual than empirical.
Most of the empirical research has been very small in scale, focused on a single course or
approach, and does not tie immediate learning outcomes to long-term changes. This research,
qualitative and quantitative studies, does demonstrate the effectiveness of methods, but much
more research needs to be done, including replications with larger samples of students.
Quantitative studies on teaching methods have supported the use of a number of different
techniques. Some of the methods tested have included cultural competence workshops (Wilson,
Sanner, & McAllister, 2010), community immersion (Quinn-Lee & Olson-McBride, 2012),
online avatars (Lee, 2014), diversity content infusion (Saleh, Anngela-Cole, & Boateng, 2011),
and organizational context (Bowie, Hall, & Johnson, 2011). A variety of measures have been
used to assess impact, including standardized scales (Quinn-Lee & Olson-McBride, 2012; Wil-
son, Sanner, & McAllister, 2010), items developed for the specific study (Bowie, Hall, & John-
son, 2011; Saleh, Anngela-Cole, & Boateng, 2011; Lee, 2014), and course evaluations (Perry &
Tate-Manning, 2006). Although most of these studies lacked comparison groups, control groups,
or assessed long-term change, they suggest that educational methods can achieve outcomes con-
sistent with cultural competence, responsiveness, or humility.
Results from qualitative research are also promising. Studies focused on a single in-class
activity or assignment have found that cultural genograms (Warde, 2012), games (Lichtenwal-
ter & Bakerm, 2010), wearing a pink triangle pin (Pugh, 2014), and reflective papers (Bender,
Neg, & Fowler, 2010) can impact students’ understanding of social identities, oppression, and
the significance of culture. Other promising practices include project-based learning (Nissen &
Curry-Stevens, 2012), international study (Sheridan, Bennett, & Blome, 2013), cross-cultural
field experiences (Kratzke & Bertolo, 2013), and specialized course modules (Chand, Clare, &
Dolton, 2002; Levy, Leedy, & Miller, 2013). Typical qualitative methods in these studies include
140
focus groups, analysis of student papers, participant observation, and course feedback forms.
These more interpretive studies provide insights as to how and why certain methods may be
effective and some of the challenges to effective teaching.
Future directions for social work education and research

Our discussion in this chapter has identified the priority for developing social work educational
methods that prepare students for work in our culturally diverse and socially unjust society.
However, our review has indicated that our current theory and scholarship contain significant
gaps and areas for future growth. Although we are moving from reductionist multicultural ori-
entations or cultural competency viewpoints, the cultural humility framework does not ade-
quately address conditions of structural social inequality, the role of the practitioner, structure of
the social service workplace, or what intervention methods may be most appropriate with cer-
tain service users, the issues being addressed, and the situations they may present. Practice models
based on anti-oppressive practice – which are more common in the Commonwealth nations
such as Australia, the UK, and Canada – hold promise for addressing conditions of inequality.
The emerging development of social work practice rooted in critical race theory also holds
potential for more adequately addressing racism, although a practice model for this perspective
has not been clearly defined.
Although research has identified teaching practices that can contribute to students’ cultural
competence or humility, more research is needed. As these studies are developed, we need more
knowledge of methods that can effectively impact both students’ attitudes and behaviors in
the field. Evidence-based educational methods, such as Standardized Client Simulations (Logie
et al., 2013), can be developed to incorporate more cultural issues and then tested for effective-
ness. The need for evidence-based teaching methods for working within and across different
cultures and ethnicities is a priority, especially in light of our ethical commitments regarding
cultural competence, diversity, respect, and discrimination (NASW Code of Ethics; www.social-
workers.org/pubs/code/code.asp). The individuals, families, and communities we serve deserve
social workers who are capable to address complex situations with respect, acceptance, and care.
References
Abrams, L., & Molo, J. (2009). Critical race theory and the cultural competence dilemma in social work
education. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(2), 245–261.
Bender, K., Neg, N., & Fowler, D. (2010). Exploring the relationship between self-awareness and student
commitment and understanding of culturally responsive social work practice. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural
Diversity in Social Work, 19(1), 34–53.
Bernal, Guillermo, & Scharrón-del-Río, María R. (2001). Are empirically supported treatments valid for
ethnic minorities? Toward an alternative approach for treatment research. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 7(4), 328–342.
Bowie, S., Hall, J., & Johnson, O. (2011). Integrating diversity into graduate social work education:
A 30-year retrospective view by MSW-level African American social workers. Journal of Black Studies,
42(7), 1080–1105.
Breton, M. (2011). Citizenship consciousness, nonbounded solidarity, and social justice. Social Work and
Groups, 34(1), 35–50.
Chand, A., Clare, J., & Dolton, R. (2002). Teaching anti-oppressive practice on a diploma in social work
course: Lecturers’ experiences, students’ responses and ways forward. Social Work Education, 21(1), 7–22.
Chopp, D., Ortega, R., & Vandervort, F. (2014). Arguing on the side of culture. Litigation Journal, Fall, 10–13.
Deepak, A. C., Rountree, M. A., & Scott, J. (2015). Delivering diversity and social justice in social work
education: The power of context. Journal of Progressive Human Service, 26(2), 107–125.
Delgado, M. (1999). Community social work practice in an urban context: The potential of a capacity-enhancement
perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
141
Delgado, M., & Humm-Delgado, D. (1982). Natural support systems: Source of strength in Hispanic com-
munities. Social Work, 37, 83–88.
Dodson, L., Manuel,T., & Bravo, E. (2002). Keeping jobs and raising families in low-income America: It just doesn’t
work. Cambridge, MA: The Radcliffe Public Policy Institute.
Frazier-Kouassi, S. (2002). Race and gender at the crossroads: African American females in school. African
American Research Perspectives, 8(1), 151–162.
Frey, D. (2014). Diversity explosion: How new racial demographics are remaking America. New York, NY: Brook-
ings Institution Press.
Gutiérrez, L., Dessel, A., Lewis, E., & Spencer, M. S. (2012). Principles, skills, and practice strategies for
promoting multicultural communication and collaboration. In M. Weill (Ed.), Handbook of community
practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 445–459). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Ltd.
Gutiérrez, L., & Lewis, E. (1992). A feminist perspective on organizing with women of color. In J. Erlich, &
F. Rivera (Eds.), Community organizing in a diverse society (pp. 113–132), Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Iglehart, A., & Becerra, R. (2011). Social services and the ethnic community (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL:Waveland.
Kitayama, S., & Cohen, D. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook of cultural psychology. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Kohli, H., Huber, R., & Faul, A. (2010). Historical and theoretical development of culturally competent
social work practice, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30(3), 252–271.
Kratzke, C., & Bertolo, M. (2013). Enhancing students’ cultural competence using cross-cultural experien-
tial learning. Journal of Cultural Diversity, Fall 20(3), 107–111.
Lee, E. (2010). More than a mission statement Implementing diversity and social justice initiatives within a
school of social work. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 4(4), 261–271.
Lee, E. (2014). Use of avatars and a virtual community to increase cultural competence. Journal of Technology
in Human Services, 32(1–2), 93–107.
Levy, D., Leedy, G., & Miller, G. (2013). Preparing students for research and for work with the transgender
population: Exploring the results of an innovative course pairing. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services,
25(3), 306–325.
Lichtenwalter, S., & Bakerm P. (2010). Teaching about oppression through Jenga: A game-based learning
example for social work educators. Journal of Social Work Education, 46(2), 305–312.
Logie, C., Bogo, M., Regehr, C., & Regehr, G. (2013). A critical appraisal of the use of standardized client
simulations in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 49, 66–80.
López, S.R. (1997). Cultural competence in psychotherapy: A guide for clinicians and their supervisors. In
C.E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook for psychotherapy supervision (pp. 570–588). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
NASW Code of Ethics. Available at www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp.
Nissen, L., & Curry-Stevens, A. (2012). Evolving on purpose: Results of a qualitative study to explore how
public youth system reform advocates apply anti-oppressive practice frameworks in a collaborative
training and action process. Action Research, 10, 406–431.
Ortega, R. M., and Faller, K. C. (2011).Training child welfare workers from a cultural humility perspective.
Child Welfare, 90(5), 27–49.
Park, Y. (2005). Culture as deficit: A critical discourse analysis of the concept of culture in contemporary
social work discourse. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 32(3), 11–33.
Parrott, L. (2009). Constructive marginality: Conflicts and dilemmas in cultural competence and anti-
oppressive practice. Social Work Education, 28(6), 617–630.
Perry, C., & Tate-Manning, L. (2006). Unraveling cultural constructions in social work education: Journey-
ing toward cultural competence. Social Work Education:The International Journal, 25(7), 735–748.
President’s Commission on Mental Health (1978). Report to the president.Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office.
Pugh, G. (2014). Revisiting the pink triangle exercise: An exploration of experiential learning in graduate
social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 34(1), 17–28.
Quinn-Lee, L., & Olson- McBride, L. (2012). The effect of domestic immersion experiences on levels of
cultural competence. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 17, 119.
Rivera, F., & Erlich, J. (1998). Community organizing in a diverse society (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Saleh, M. F., Anngela-Cole, L., & Boateng, A. (2011). Effectiveness of diversity infusion modules on students’
attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Journal of Ethnic And Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 20(3), 240–257.
Sheridan, M., Bennett, S., & Blome,W. (2013). Cultural humility and shared learning as hallmarks for inter-
national teaching: The SWEP experience. Social Work Education, 32(6), 818.
Shrestha, L. (2006). The changing demographic profile of the United States. CRS Report for Congress.
Available at http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/68820.pdf [Accessed 1 October 2015].
142
Soderman, A. K. (2001). Statewide testing: Problem or solution for failing schools? Michigan Family Review,
6(1), 55–66.
Stefl, M. E., & Prosperi, D. C. (1985). Barriers to mental health service utilization. Community Mental Health
Journal, 7(3), 167.
Sue, S., Zane, N., Nagayama Hall, G. C., & Berger, L. (2009). The case for cultural competency in psycho-
therapeutic interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 525–548.
Tervalon, M., & Murray-Garcia, J. (1998) Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A critical distinc-
tion in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of Health Care for the
Poor and Underserved, 9(2), 117–125.
Thompson, C., Hardee, S., & Lane, J. C. (2011). Engaging student diversity through a social justice learning
community. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(2), 106–119.
US Census Bureau (2010). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010 census. Washington, DC. Available
at www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf [Accessed 1 October 2015].
Warde,V. (2012).The cultural genogram: Enhancing the cultural competency of social work students. Social
Work Education, 31(5), 570–586.
Wendt, D. C., & Gone, J. P. (2011). Rethinking cultural competence; Insights from indigenous community
treatment settings. Transcultural Psychiatry, 49(2), 206–222.
Wilson, A., Sanner, S., & McAllister, L. (2010). A longitudinal study of cultural competence among health
science faculty. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 17(2), 68–72.
Zippay, A. (2002). Dynamics of income packaging: A 10-year longitudinal study. Social Work, 47(3), 291–300.
143
13
RESEARCH TEACHING AND
LEARNING IN QUALIFYING
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the UK Economic and Research Council, who funded the original research
review on which this chapter is founded; to Professor Joan Orme as lead author of the original
Audit Report to the ESRC (Orme et al., 2008); and to Katrina Hannan for her assistance in
updating the review.
Introduction
Among the core Global Standards for Social Work Education agreed by IASSW and IFSW is:
Knowledge of social work research and skills in the use of research methods, includ-
ing ethical use of relevant research paradigms, and critical appreciation of the use of
research and different sources of knowledge about social work practice.
(IASSW/IFSW, 2004)
Professional and regulatory bodies in diverse country contexts have likewise affirmed the need
for social work education to develop and consolidate the connection between research and
practice, albeit they have stressed this to different degrees. The Council on Social Work Educa-
tion in the USA, for example, has placed long-standing specific emphasis on research criteria
in its Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards, whereas in England research criteria are
more hidden in the College of Social Work’s Professional Capabilities Framework (Taylor &
Bogo, 2014).
Just as there is great diversity across the world, nationally and regionally, in how social work
and social work education are operationalised, so too there is diversity in the ways that the
connection between research and practice is envisaged and promoted through qualifying and
post-qualifying social work education. In any one context, the teaching of research in social
work also shifts over time, as professional and policy landscapes change. These variations impact
not just on the priority afforded to research teaching and its configuration within the curricu-
lum, but also its purpose – whether for example research teaching and learning is intended to
inform evidence-based social work practice, or to grow either critical consumers of research or
144
Research teaching and learning
practitioner researchers – and how this purpose is translated into education practice. As yet, we
know little about this diversity, nor the lessons that might be learned from it within and across
country contexts.
This chapter begins to fill the gap. It is based on a review of the published international
literature that describes, evaluates or debates the teaching and learning of research in qualifying
social work education. The chapter begins with an outline of the review methodology, provides
an overview of the research field, and then examines in turn what the literature tells us in rela-
tion to the following questions: Why teach research? What is taught in the name of “research”?
When, how and, where is research taught? Who teaches it? and What are the key issues and
challenges encountered? The chapter concludes with a summary of the findings along with
observations about the key messages to be drawn.
Space does not allow us to situate each approach described or evaluated in its distinctive
professional, cultural, and educational context; so we must be wary of drawing generalised
messages from findings that may not be readily transferable. Additionally, our review syn-
thesises the evidence available in the literature, but does not stretch to evaluating the quality
of that evidence. Therefore, we cannot say with confidence that certain approaches to the
teaching and learning of research in qualifying social work education “work” better than
others in achieving their objectives. Instead, our aim is to map the field internationally, and
to identify and learn from common and distinctive approaches, opportunities, and challenges
faced when seeking to forge the link between research and practice through qualifying social
work education.
Methodology
This international literature review is based on an original review, conducted in 2007, as one
element of an audit of research teaching in qualifying social work education in the UK (Orme
et al., 2008) conducted for the Economic and Social Research Council. The original review
has since been updated, and it is the findings from the full, updated review that are reported
here. The same methodology was used through both review stages, to explore the same core
questions. While the original included literature published between 1987 and 2008 (to allow a
20-year span before and after the introduction of a new UK social work degree in 2003), the
updated review extends the publication window to 2015.
Searches of the literature base were not exhaustive but they were extensive, seeking to
capture relevant research in UK, North American, Australian, European, and other interna-
tional outlets published in English. While the original review searched two bibliographic
databases, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) and Social Care Online, for
reasons of changed access, the review update used Academic Search Complete, Social Care
Online, and Social Sciences Full Text. Both review stages also included hand-searches of key
international and national journals. Search strings and screening strategies were designed to
capture research publications in the English language which gave substantial attention to the
teaching and learning of research for qualifying social workers. A total of 93 publications
meeting these criteria were identified and included in the review as a whole. Among them
are descriptions or evaluations of specific programmes or initiatives, reports from surveys of
education providers and/or students, and discussion pieces about research teaching in qual-
ifying social work education. All papers were coded using a common schema designed to
capture key themes to answer the core review questions outlined in the Introduction to this
chapter.
145
Overview of the research field

Over half (54) of the papers included in the review discuss examples of specific teaching pro-
grammes and courses; commonly authors were directly involved in these as educators. Thirty-
three of these make claims to evaluating the teaching of research methods in some way and
most, though not all, present supporting empirical evidence. Eighteen further papers are based
on surveys either of teaching provision or of student or faculty attitudes. The remaining 21
are discussion papers, highlighting a wide range of principles, dilemmas, and debates about the
teaching of research either at qualifying level only or across all levels of social work training.
It is noteworthy that the significant majority of papers (63) are from the USA, probably
reflecting the consistently higher profile given to research criteria in social work accreditation
there; in contrast, there are just 11 from the UK and the remaining 19 variously from Europe,
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and India. While it is clear that many of the pedagogic issues
and debates highlighted are common across contexts, some distinctions are also apparent.Where
possible, we draw attention to these, with the caveat that general comparisons or extrapolations
are difficult given the imbalance in country representation.
Why teach research?

There is a wide spectrum of purposes cited for teaching research to social workers. MacIntyre
and Paul (2013: 691), reporting on the UK-based survey and interview study which accom-
panied our original literature review (Orme et al., 2008), highlight the following three reasons
why research is taught: “(1) to develop an awareness of research and its role in promoting effec-
tive practice; (2) learning how to make critical use of research studies; and (3) gaining knowledge
and understanding of research strategies, methods, and skills”. These distinctions capture well
the range of purposes for research teaching found within the wider literature. Those authors
focusing on generating consumers of research, for example, propose teaching that expressly pro-
motes research use in social work practice (e.g. Pierce, 1998; McCrystal & Wilson, 2009; Harder,
2010), and encourage critical appraisal of the “rigor” of research and its applicability to practice
(e.g. Gibbs & Stirling, 2010; Patterson, 2010; Steinberg & Vinjamuri, 2014). Elliott, Choi, and
Friedline (2013) in the USA, for instance, propose the inclusion of online statistics laborato-
ries alongside traditional in-class coursework to enhance students’ understanding, confidence,
and competence in statistical analysis, to inform their reading and critique of scholarly articles.
Similarly, Morgenshtern et al. (2011: 560) in Canada quote one student whose participation in
a mandatory data analysis class had helped her to become an effective consumer of research:
“I recently gave evidence in a court hearing, in which I was able to cite the research which
supported my clinical assessment and intervention choices for a certain family.”
In contrast, those authors aiming to develop producers of research propose teaching that equips
students to evaluate their own practice (e.g. Shannon, Kim, & Robinson, 2012; Wong & Vakh-
aria, 2012; Einbinder, 2014) and to participate in research-related activities (e.g. Macke & Tapp,
2012; Mapp, 2013). Buchanan and Matthews (2013), for example, propose qualifying students
learn single-subject research design in order to evaluate their future practice. Postlethwait (2012:
253) quotes one student, whose experience undertaking a service learning research project ena-
bled the student to “have gained confidence in areas that many people may be intimidated by,
i.e. technical writing, statistics, measures, and research. These skills that I have learned this year
will strengthen my confidence and my ability as a social worker”.
Of course, consuming and producing research need not be, and often are not, viewed as
mutually exclusive aspirations. Rather, research consumers will benefit from understanding how
146
the research they consume is produced; likewise producers from understanding how to consume
research. Though some authors, and some of the programmes they describe, concentrate much
more on one aspiration than the other, many do acknowledge the need for both (e.g. Yan-
keelov, Sar, & Antle, 2010; Macke & Tapp, 2012; Steinberg & Vinjamuri, 2014; Gibbs & Sterling,
2013). Furthermore, among several authors discussion is predicated on a continuum of increas-
ingly ambitious aims for research teaching, corresponding to a notional continuum of training
and professional development at qualifying and post-qualifying levels. The trajectory envisaged
varies, but broadly it begins with developing research awareness and acquiring basic research
knowledge, progressing to becoming an educated consumer of research, onwards to develop-
ing more advanced research literacy and research skills, and further to becoming a competent
researcher-practitioner and/or proficient in research as a practice methodology (Hardcastle &
Bisman, 2003; Orme & Powell, 2008).
What is taught?
Complementing the different aims of research teaching espoused are differences in what is
taught – or what is advocated should be taught – to achieve these aims.
In terms of developing awareness of research and its role in promoting effective practice, examples
underscoring the relationship between research and practice focus either on integrating practice-
relevant material, professional ethics, and values into the teaching of research, or vice versa, on
developing research skills to inform students’ learning in or about their practice. Illustrating
the former is the teaching of participatory research to highlight oppression and empowerment
of the disenfranchised (e.g. Larson & Brown, 1997; Mapp, 2013), or exploring child welfare
datasets to evaluate childcare practices (Whipple, 2001). Examples of the latter include students
taking an evidence-based practice approach to scrutinising interventions in practice placement,
or evaluating their own practice (e.g. Howard, McMillen, & Pollio, 2003;Yankeelov, Sar, & Antle,
2010; Gerten, 2015), or, quite commonly in the USA, students engaging in service learning pro-
jects with agencies or action research in their communities to understand needs and resources
(e.g. Anderson, 2002; Lundahl, 2008; Postlethwait, 2012). Such initiatives may focus on quan
titative research methods and statistics (e.g. Fast, 2000; Petracchi & Patchner, 2001; Elliott, et al.,
2013) as likely as qualitative (e.g. Julia & Kondrat, 2000; Holley et al., 2007; Carawan et al., 2011),
or quite commonly a mixture of the two (e.g. Saret al., 2003; Finn & Dillon, 2007; Svoboda
et al., 2013; Einbinder, 2014). This said, it is noteworthy that attention to the quantitative is
stronger in the USA, for example, than the UK (Drisko, 2008; McCoyd et al., 2009).
Surprisingly perhaps, learning how to make critical use of research studies appears more often cited
as an aim than as a topic explicitly covered in a module or taught exercise. Still, there are a few
instances where critical appraisal of a particular research publication forms the basis for a piece
of assessed work, notably Sar et al. (2003) and Shannon et al. (2012).
Where the aim of teaching research is to gain knowledge and understanding of research strategies,
the literature presents a range of specific modules, again focusing on qualitative or quantitative
methods, or on a mixture of the two. For each, there is evidence of formal, classroom-based
learning to acquire relevant knowledge and develop skills, and also considerable opportunities
for experiential learning, either through structured exercises or, more often, through students
conducting empirical research projects.
Among the qualitative methods taught are ethnographic research (Sells, Smith, & Newfield,
1997), in-depth interviews (Tajnsek, 2005), detailed single case studies (Berger, 2002), qualita-
tive analysis techniques such as narrative analysis (Uehara et al., 1997; Langer, Lietz, & Furman,
2007), and exploration of the relationships between evidence, interpretation, theory, researcher,
147
and researched (O’Conner & O’Neill, 2004; Mapp, 2013). As yet, however, there is little sign of
more innovative approaches, such as use of visual or digital methods.
Quantitative methods taught include classroom-based study of sampling, variable definition,
measurement, analysis and bivariate statistics (e.g. Kolleck, 1993; Fast, 2000; Elliott et al., 2013), as
well as experiential projects including collection and/or analysis of quantitative data associated
with practice problems (e.g. Cnaan, 1987; Wells, 2006; Harder, 2010). As for mixed methods, a
similar variety of classroom and experiential project-based teaching and learning is evident. Sev-
eral papers describe, for example, introductory courses on qualitative and quantitative approaches
(e.g. Riessman, 1993; Sar et al., 2003; Buchanan & Mathews, 2013), where students are encour-
aged to apply mixed method approaches to a practice problem. Several other papers describe
students – individually, in groups, or as “apprentices” – designing, developing, undertaking, and
analysing mixed methods fieldwork projects to explore community or practice issues directly
relevant to social work (e.g. Postlethwait, 2012; Shannon et al., 2012; Gerten, 2015).
Interestingly, only a minority of papers discuss teaching and learning of literature or document-
based research approaches. Some recent exceptions are Gerten (2015), focusing on developing
and applying an evidence-based literature review,Yankeelov et al. (2010) and Wong and Vakharia
(2012) on literature reviewing to inform evaluation of an “evidence-based” intervention, and
Lundahl (2008), Harder (2010), Postlethwait (2012), and Shannon et al. (2012) each describing
students’ incorporating comprehensive literature reviews in their final research projects.
Relatively little attention, too, appears to be paid to the teaching and learning of research
ethics, or to politics and power as the focus of research content or process. Given the vulnerabil-
ities and marginalised status of many social work service users who are likely to be research par-
ticipants, and given the likely sensitivity of the topics to be explored, this is concerning. Instead,
research ethics tend to be subsumed as one among many “steps” to be covered in the research
process (e.g. Postlethwait, 2012; Elliott et al., 2013). Among the few exceptions, Carawan et al.
(2011) discuss how to acknowledge and understand the “research effect” on the research process
and participants, and McNicholl (1999), Julia and Kondrat (2000), and Holley et al. (2007) focus
on participatory research that empowers participants within the research agenda. Meanwhile,
making the connection between research, ethics, and the political or social structure, O’Conner
and O’Neill (2004) describe teaching and learning about feminist research, power, and social
justice; Mapp (2013) emphasises the application of research to social justice and oppression, and
Whipple (2001) highlights research with minority and disempowered ethnic groups.
When, where, and how is research taught?

The literature demonstrates a range of approaches to the “vertical” and the “horizontal” inte-
gration of research teaching in social work programmes. Vertical integration denotes where and
when research methods teaching is positioned within programme structures and progression,
while horizontal integration denotes how far a research methods focus is integrated with other
curriculum areas, especially practice.
With regard to vertical integration, many papers describing specific research methods modules
do not expressly indicate where these sit within overall programme curricula. Some, for example,
are simply described as introductory or foundation courses, others final year and more advanced.
Ryan and Sheehan (2000) in Australia and Lorenz (2003) in Europe all suggest research methods
teaching is commonly left too late in curricula – icing on the cake, rather than bread and butter.
The opposite may be true in the USA, where discrete foundational research methods modules
tend to be located within the first year of both undergraduate and, as Drisko’s (2008) content
analysis of MSW programme syllabi shows, graduate-level qualifying programmes.
148
Five discussion papers expressly explore the question of sequencing. All propose incremental
models for research teaching, with introductory and foundation modules succeeded by more
specialised and/or advanced work, in some cases including application of knowledge and skills in
practice-based research projects.This echoes the continuum of purposes of research training out-
lined above. Fraser and Lewis (1993) envisage a progression from undergraduate (introductory/
basic) to master’s (advanced/specialised); Orme and Powell (2008) consider the progression from
qualifying to post-qualifying levels, whereas Desai (1987), Hardcastle and Bisman (2003), and
McCoyd et al. (2009) discuss progression stages within, not just between, programmes at each
level.
Fifteen further papers do not draw attention to the issue of sequencing but nonetheless
demonstrate vertical integration of research methods teaching that appears to mirror the pro-
gression pathways discussed above. Commonly, these involve either movement from introduc-
tory to more advanced-level (say statistics or evaluation) research methods teaching (e.g. Adam,
Zosky, & Unrau, 2004; Svoboda et al., 2013) and/or movement from classroom-based instruc-
tion to application of research methods in a classroom or practice-based project (e.g. Ello, 2006;
Lundahl, 2008; Steinberg & Vinjamuri, 2014).
Turning to horizontal integration, 14 papers describe taught research methods modules but
give no particular indication of their integration with teaching and learning either about, or
in, social work practice. Half of these (e.g. Fast, 2000; Buchanan & Mathew, 2013; Elliott et al.,
2013) involve the use of web or e-technologies for teaching delivery and support, and most
of these involve the teaching of quantitative methods, such as survey techniques, statistics, or
experimental design.
In contrast, a significant proportion of papers (36) describe specific examples of integrative
approaches to teaching research and social work practice. These demonstrate the preoccupation
with consolidating the relationship between research practice and social work practice, making
research teaching and learning relevant and real, and motivating students towards it. A fur-
ther nine discussion papers argue for integration of this sort, on the same grounds. Freymond
et al. (2014: 264), for example, explore the factors contributing to MSW students’ interest in
research activities.They found “when students were able to participate in research activities, they
reported increased confidence in their research skills,” quoting one student, “If you can relate it
to what you are doing outside, I think it really does contribute to your interest as well because
you can see a very practical connection” (p. 263).
Among the papers describing and/or discussing this issue, a range of different models is pre-
sented for horizontal integration of research teaching and learning about social work practice.
Several advocate for infusion throughout the curriculum. Freymond et al. (2014), for example, argue
for the integration of research with the field placement, the infusion of educators’ own research
through the curriculum, and research-related learning opportunities outside the classroom, such
as journal clubs and research discussion fora. However, just two examples appear to demonstrate
this in practice. First, Spicuzza (2007) describes an undergraduate programme involving dedi-
cated introductory research methods coursework, complemented by all other modules utilising
and critically appraising research evidence, along with teaching and learning of research and
critical thinking skills embedded throughout both academic curriculum and field placements.
Second,Yankeelov et al. (2010) describe the integration of evidence-based practice both in dis-
crete “advanced research methods courses” and throughout the curriculum.
Ten papers describe specifically the integration of research practice with practice placement, where,
typically, students undertake research projects in their own practice placement/field practicum,
often supported by prior or concurrent classroom teaching or discussion. This can comprise, for
example, research-based assessment of service user needs (e.g. Wodarski, Feit, & Green, 1995;
149
Berger, 2002), evaluation of their own or others’ practice (e.g. Hopkins & Brooks, 1987; Gerten,
2015), or taking an evidence-based practice approach to researching particular problems pre-
sented in their placement (Howard et al., 2003; Steinberg & Vinjamuri, 2014).
Research enquiry in or about other community/practice setting is an approach described by 14
papers.This involves collaborations between the university/students and agencies or community
groups, in what are usually described as “service learning” initiatives (as distinct from prac-
tice placements) (e.g. Appleby & Botsford, 2006; Lundahl, 2008; Postlethwait, 2012). Students
explore specific agendas commonly agreed with community and agency partners, such as hous-
ing needs assessment (Knee, 2002), services for the homeless (Lundahl, 2008), or the prevalence
of domestic and community violence (Waintstock, 1994; McNicholl, 1999). This may involve
participatory or action research (e.g. McNicholl, 1999; Reese, 2004), and students may become
involved in all or just some aspects of the research, including publication (Lundahl, 2008). Again,
this is commonly supported by prior or concurrent classroom teaching/discussion.
Eight studies suggest the integration of practice-relevant material and social work values/goals into
research methods teaching. Examples include teaching participatory research to highlight oppres-
sion and empower those who are disenfranchised (Pastorello & Schooler, 1988), addressing
ethnicity and anti-racist approaches to research design (Larson & Brown, 1997), exploring child
welfare datasets (Whipple, 2001), and examining and using research that fits with social work
values and ethics (Gibbs & Stirling, 2010).
Finally, three papers describe teaching initiatives aimed to develop students’ research skills to sup-
port their work on other course modules. Folaron and Stanley (1998) focus on developing of students’
e-learning skills, including online bibliographic searching, to explore research practice topics.
Holley et al. (2007) describe students developing qualitative interviewing skills to explore both
ethnicity and the supportive significance of humans’ relationships with animals, and McNicholl
(1999) discusses students’ use of their learning about participatory research to consider commu-
nity development and group work.
Turning to the methods of research teaching used or discussed, the literature indicates a sig-
nificant amount of non-experiential teaching and learning. This may be delivered didactically
through lectures, and also through seminars and other activities through which students can
engage with and exchange ideas about research (e.g. Finn & Dillon, 2007; Gibbs & Stirling,
2010, 2013; Macke & Tapp, 2012). Among the more imaginative, Whiteman and Nielsen (1990)
describe the use of drama to teach survey research methods, and Carawan et al. (2011) describe
students making cookies, drawing cartoons, and writing haiku in order to explore qualitative
research methods.
Importantly, however, all but one paper (Fast, 2000) describing non-experiential approaches
of this sort present them not in isolation but as precursors for, or adjuncts to, experiential learn-
ing through the process of doing research. Across the literature, there is broadly very strong
support for, and emphasis upon, students’ experiential research learning, with the pedagogic case
usually made in terms of demystifying and making research “real”. Among the impressive range
of models for experiential learning presented, 27 papers describe programmes where students
undertake research projects of their own, mainly as single researchers (e.g. Appleby & Botsford, 2006;
Wong & Vakharia, 2012; Steinberg & Vinjamuri, 2014), but occasionally in groups (Lundahl,
2008; Postlethwait, 2012; Svoboda et al., 2013).These include the practice-based projects already
discussed, and occasionally also classroom or private study-based projects such as analysing exist-
ing datasets (e.g. Bolen, 2006; Harder, 2010).
Five papers (Cnaan, 1987; Quinn, Jacobsen, & Labarber, 1992; Whipple, 2001; Ehlert, 2005;
Lundahl, 2008) describe, and a sixth (Cameron & Este, 2008) advocates for, students working as
apprentices on faculty research projects, sometimes in partnership with agencies. Students may
150
be involved, singly or in groups, in all or part of the activities and stages of the research project
concerned.
Finally, a few papers highlight students’ experiential learning through a variety of exercises
which did not amount to “projects,” but include, for example, critical appraisal of a series of
research papers (Pastorello & Schooler, 1988; Sar et al., 2003), small observational research exer-
cises, or content analysis of short texts (e.g. Finn & Dillon, 2007; Carawan et al., 2011; Einbinder,
2014).
It is important to note that among the strongest messages emerging from the 33 studies
claiming to have evaluated research methods teaching and learning in some way, students espe-
cially appear to value such experiential learning. This review does not stretch to appraising
the robustness of these findings. But nonetheless, the claims are strongly made that hands-on
experience of researching practice-based or practice-relevant issues “brings research alive” and
underscores its practice relevance (e.g. Anderson, 2002; Ello, 2006; Svoboda et al., 2013). Sar
et al. (2003) and Elliott et al. (2013) claim too that experiential methods reduce student anxiety
and resistance to research, boosting their willingness to recognise the value and utility of inte-
grating research with practice.
While there is strong support for experiential learning, several authors (e.g. Garrett, 1998;
Cameron & Este, 2008; Einbinder, 2014) echo the argument substantiated by Secret, Rompf,
and Ford (2003) in a survey of student attitudes towards research learning, that a mixture of
methods and strategies is needed to cater for diverse student learning styles, prior knowledge,
and motivations.
Among the additional or alternative methods addressed, some have already been mentioned.
Twelve papers, for example, focus on the use of e-technologies, including websites, email, and
electronic discussion groups to enhance research teaching and learning (e.g. Hisle-Gorman &
Zuravin, 2006; Stark & Cohen, 2007; Elliott et al., 2013). In addition, Patchner et al. (1998)
and Petracchi and Patchner (2001) look at course delivery via video conferencing either to
supplement, or for distant students to replace, classroom teaching. Interestingly, though ten of
the technology-assisted projects described had been the subject of some evaluation, there is
mixed evidence about their effectiveness. The use of online learning has been found to reduce
students’ anxiety and reluctance towards statistics (Elliott et al., 2013; Einbinder, 2014) and to
enhance student learning and experience (Folaron & Stanley, 1998; Fast, 2000). Yet Buchanan
and Mathews (2013) found no statistically significant differences in students’ knowledge or
attitudes towards research, whether instruction was delivered face-to-face or remotely using
e-technology.
Turning to assessment, the literature highlights the need to assess students’ research learning
in terms of their research methods knowledge and skills. Some, for example, focus specifically
on assessing the design, conduct, and analysis of research projects (e.g. Cnaan, 1987; McCrystal &
Wilson, 2009;Wong & Vakharia, 2012). Others propose assessing a spectrum of research methods
knowledge and skills, including for example both critical analysis and empirical research (e.g.
Sar et al., 2003; Gibbs & Stirling, 2010; Gerten, 2015). Seven papers (e.g. Ello, 2006; Spicuzza,
2007; Wong & Vakharia, 2012) highlight the potential for increasing students’ research motiva-
tion, confidence, and esteem through requiring them to make individual or group posters or
presentations of their work.
Who teaches research?

Surprisingly, little of the literature touches upon who provides research methods teaching. In
the USA this is most likely to be social work academics, who conventionally have social science
151
research training. However in other (including UK) contexts this has been problematic, since
social work academics have traditionally come from professional practice but without social sci-
ence research training, including in training of the sort that is now being described or debated
here.Where the subject arises at all, it is in discussion of the challenges of providing either formal
input or supervision (especially in practice settings) due to the variable levels of competence,
confidence, and motivation of staff involved (e.g. Lyons, 2000; Labonte-Roset, 2005; Rubin,
Robinson, & Valutis, 2010).
Key challenges in teaching research

Throughout the literature, authors make reference to a significant range of challenges affecting
the teaching and learning of research in qualifying social work education. These fall into two
main categories, broadly the practical and the more deep-seated cultural.
At the practical level, a primary concern is time and resource constraints, both in terms of fitting
research teaching into the curriculum and for students to undertake research. Experiential learn-
ing in placement or community contexts, for example, is resource intensive for staff, particu-
larly with regard to developing relationships with community agencies, identifying appropriate
research projects (e.g. Harder, 2010; Postlethwait, 2012; Shannon et al., 2012), and supervising
projects (Rubin et al., 2010) while also delivering necessary lecture material (Lundahl, 2008).
Complicating this are the challenges of deficits in staff expertise, in general terms as discussed
above, and specifically for example in supervising research projects and team-based teaching
approaches (Carawan et al., 2011) or creating and delivering online modules (Elliott et al., 2013).
Additionally, it can be logistically demanding to incorporate research teaching alongside other
student, instructor, and practitioner commitments (Adam et al., 2004; Wells, 2006; Shannon
et al., 2012). Interestingly, though there is a preponderance of support for, and description of,
experiential learning, relatively few studies highlight that research ethics can present barriers to
students undertaking empirical research in practice or community settings. This reflects a rather
troubling neglect of research ethics in the literature as a whole. However, a few, such as Lundahl
(2008), explained how the requirement to gain ethical approval before the research could begin
took up valuable time in actually conducting the research.
Beyond the practical level, the most fundamental challenges for research teaching and
learning appear to be cultural, both on the part of students and the social work profession
more widely. Much of the literature expresses concern with, and the need to overcome, student
“research reluctance” in terms of anxiety, fear, and/or lack of confidence or motivation, all exacer-
bated by lack of knowledge and skills. Several studies identify that enabling students to recognise
the connection between research and practice is critical to reducing their research anxiety and
increasing their likelihood to use and participate in research-related activities in their future
social work practice. Bolin et al. (2012: 238), for example, found that while just “42% of students
agreed or strongly agreed social work research should be a major part of social work education,”
those who identified research as important and useful were also less anxious and more interested
in research. Postlethwait (2012) found students completing a service learning research project
reported greater confidence in conducting research and increased awareness of its relevance to
practice.
More profoundly still, the literature makes reference to a deep-rooted climate of research resist-
ance or ambivalence within the social work community, which can influence students’ ability to
see the relevance of research to practice. This concern is expressed in the European, Canadian,
and UK literature (e.g. Labonte-Roset, 2005; Cameron & Este, 2008; Orme & Powell, 2008) but
also, in some cases, within the USA (e.g. Green et al., 2001; Howard et al., 2003; Wells, 2006),
152
notwithstanding the greater prominence there of research within social work accreditation cri-
teria. Authors complain of a lack of integration in the profession between research and practice,
with practitioners making little use of research, being poorly research informed or skilled, and
not convinced of the relevance of research to practice (e.g. Kiik, 2005; Appleby & Botsford,
2006; Gerten, 2015).This can be exacerbated by particular reservations in the professional com-
munity about evidence-based practice orthodoxy, and the tendency to equate research with
managerialist approaches to practice (Howard et al., 2003; Spicuzza, 2007).
Conclusion
Reflecting on the findings of this review, it is worth returning to the aspiration of IASSW
and IFSW (2004) cited at the outset, that among the core Global Standards for Social Work
Education should be research knowledge and skills along with critical appreciation and ethical
use of research about social work practice. Much of the literature on the teaching and learning
of research in qualifying social work education acknowledges that social work may have some
distance to travel before this aspiration becomes a reality. What is reassuring, nonetheless, is that
there is now a reasonable body of research literature describing, evaluating, and debating the
purposes of social work research education, what should be taught, when, how, and where, and
how best to address some of the practical and cultural challenges faced.
There are some gaps – not least that the majority of the literature comes from the USA, so
the profile presented may be skewed and the potential for generalisation or comparison between
contexts limited. There also appears to be a concerning absence of attention to research ethics,
along with relatively limited engagement with innovative research methods.
Nonetheless, there is an impressive array of approaches to research teaching and learning
now in evidence. An obvious next step will be some more critical evaluation and review of
the effectiveness of these approaches in achieving their objectives. In the meantime, the strong
suggestion is that the connection between research and social work practice may best be under-
scored through integrative approaches to research teaching and learning. These weave together
research with other elements of the curriculum, classroom with practice settings, and formal
with experiential learning, to nurture critical consumers and confident, competent practitioners
of social work research.
References
Adam, N., Zosky, D., & Unrau, Y. (2004). Improving the research climate in social work curricula: Clar-
ifying learning expectations cross BSW and MSW research courses. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,
24(3/4), 1–17.
Anderson, S. (2002). Engaging students in community-based research: A model for teaching social work
research. Journal of Community Practice, 10(2), 71–87.
Appleby E., & Botsford, A. (2006). Research, macro practice and aging in the social work education cur-
riculum. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 48(1/2), 257–279.
Berger, R. (2002). Teaching research in practice courses. Social Work Education, 21(3), 347–358.
Bolen, R. (2006). Utilizing web-based databases to introduce social work content in research statistics
courses. Social Work Education, 25(1), 17–27.
Bolin, B. L., Lee, K. H., GlenMaye, L. F., & Yoon, D. P. (2012). Impact of research orientation on attitudes
toward research of social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(2), 223–243.
Buchanan, R. L., & Mathews, D. A. (2013). A comparison of student knowledge and attitude toward
research: Are main campus students different from those in a hybrid environment? Journal of Teaching in
Cameron, P., & Este, D. (2008). Engaging students in social work research education. Social Work Education,
27(4), 306–390.
153
Carawan, L. W., Knight, S., Wittman, P., Pokorny, M., & Velde, B. P. (2011). On becoming a qualitative
researcher: A view through the lens of transformative learning. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31,
387–399.
Cnaan, R. (1987). Teaching research to social work students: An action approach. Issues in Social Work Edu-
cation, 7(1), 20–28.
Desai, M. (1987). Research project requirements relevant for MSW students. Indian Journal of Social Work,
48, 33–38.
Drisko, J. W. (2008). How is qualitative research taught at the masters level? Journal of Social Work Education,
44(1), 85–101.
Ehlert, G. (2005). Research orientated “project studies” at an East German university of applied sciences.
European Journal of Social Work, 8(3), 279–284.
Einbinder, S. D. (2014). Reducing research anxiety among MSW students. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,
34, 2–16.
Elliott,W., Choi, E., & Friedline,T. (2013). Online statistics labs in MSW research methods courses: Reduc-
ing reluctance toward statistics. Journal of Social Work Education, 48, 81–95.
Ello, L. (2006). Spotlight on research at center stage: Using poster sessions to showcase student research.
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 26(3/4), 155–165.
Fast J. (2000). Melts in your mind, not in your hand: Using manipulatives to teach social work research.
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 20(1/2), pp. 159–169.
Finn, J., & Dillon, C. (2007). Using personal ads and online self-help groups to teach content analysis in a
research methods course. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 27(1/2), 155–164.
Folaron, G., & Stanley, M. (1998). Integrating library research skills in the BSW curriculum via email. Jour-
nal of Teaching in Social Work, 17(1/2), 3–14.
Fraser, M., & Lewis, R. (1993). Research education in MSW programs: Four competing perspectives. Jour-
nal of Social Work Education, 29(1), 46–62.
Freymond, N., Morgenshtern, M., Duffie, M., Hong, L., Bugeja-Freitas, S., & Eulenberg, J. (2014). Mapping
MSW research training. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 34, 248–268.
Garrett, K. (1998). Cooperative learning in social work research courses: Helping students help one another.
Journal of Social Work Education, 34(2), 237–246.
Gerten, A. (2015). Teaching note – Teaching research methods: Expanding practice evaluation designs for
social work practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 51, 169–176.
Gibbs, A., & Stirling, B. (2010). Reflections on designing and teaching a social work research course for
distance and on-campus students. Social Work Education, 29(4), 441–449.
Gibbs, A., & Stirling, B. (2013).‘It’s about people and their environment’: Student social workers’ definitions
of social work research. Social Work Education, 32(3), 317–330.
Green, R., Bretzin, A., Leininger, C. & Stauffer, R. (2001). Research learning attributes of graduate students
in social work, psychology, and business. Journal of Social Work Education, 37(2), 333–341.
Hardcastle, D., & Bisman, C. (2003). Innovations in teaching social work research. Social Work Education,
22(1), 31–43.
Harder, J. (2010). Overcoming MSW students’ reluctance to engage in research. Journal of Teaching in Social
Work, 30, 195–209.
Hisle-Gorman, E., & Zuravin, S. (2006). Teaching social work research: A comparison of web-based and
in-class lecture methods. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 24(4), 77–92.
Holley, L., Risley-Curtis, C., Stott,T., Jackson, D., & Nelson, R. (2007). ‘It’s not scary’: Empowering women
students to become researchers. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 22(1), 99–115.
Hopkins, T., & Brooks, E. (1987). Teaching evaluative research in developing countries: The practice before
the theory. International Social Work, 30(4), 327–342.
Howard, M., McMillen, C., & Pollio, D. (2003). Teaching evidence-based practice: Toward a new paradigm
for social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 13(2), 234–259.
International Association of Schools of Social Work and International Federation of Social Workers
(2004). Global standards for education and training of social workers. Available at www.iassw-aiets.org/
global-standards-for-social-work-education-and-training [Accessed 15 July 2015].
Julia, M., & Kondrat, M. (2000). Participatory action research and MSW curricula: Are social work research
courses meeting the challenge? Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 20(3/4), 101–124.
Kiik, R. (2005). The Estonian experience – how to inspire social work students to undertake research?
European Journal of Social Work, 8(3), 329–334.
154
Knee, R. (2002). Can service learning enhance student understanding of social work research? Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 22(1–2), 213–225.
Kolleck, B. (1993). The joy of learning and teaching statistics and new technologies. New Technology in the
Human Services, 7(1), 22–24.
Labonte-Roset, C. (2005). The European higher education area and research-orientated social work edu-
cation. European Journal of Social Work, 8(3), 285–296.
Langer, C. L., Lietz, C. A., & Furman, R. (2007). A model for teaching qualitative research methods to
undergraduate social work students. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 12(2), 70–82.
Larson, G., & Brown, L. (1997). Teaching research to aboriginal students. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,
15(1/2), 205–215.
Lorenz,W. (2003). European experiences in teaching social work research. Social Work Education, 22(1), 7–18.
Lundahl, B. W. (2008). Teaching research methodology through active learning. Journal of Teaching in Social
Work, 28(1/2), 273–288.
Lyons, K. (2000).The place of research in social work education. British Journal of Social Work, 30(4), 433–447.
MacIntyre, G., & Paul, S. (2013). Teaching research in social work: Capacity and challenge. British Journal of
Macke, C., & Tapp, K. (2012).Teaching research to MSW students: Effectiveness of the team-based learning
pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32, 148–160.
Mapp, S. C. (2013). Teaching note – Integrating a social justice assignment into a research methods course.
McCoyd, J. L. M., Johnson,Y. M., Munch, S., & LaSala, M. (2009). Quantocentric culture: Ramifications for
social work education. Social Work Education, 28(8), 811–827.
McCrystal, P., & Wilson, G. (2009). Research training and professional social work education: Developing
research-minded practice. Social Work Education:The International Journal, 28(8), 856–872.
McNicholl, P. (1999). Issues in teaching participatory action research. Journal of Social Work Education, 35(1),
51–62.
Morgenshtern, M., Freymond, N., Agyapong, S., & Greeson, C. (2011). Graduate social work students’ atti-
tudes toward research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31, 552–568.
O’Conner, D., & O’Neill, B. (2004). Toward social justice: Teaching qualitative research. Journal of Teaching
in Social Work, 24(3/4), 19–33.
Orme, J., & Powell, J. (2008). Building research capacity in social work: Process and issues. British Journal of
Social Work, 28(5), 988–1008.
Orme, J., Sharland, E. R., Manthorpe, J., Fook, J., & Powell, J. (2008). An audit of baseline resources for social
work research. [pdf] Swindon: ESRC. Available at www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Social_work_audit_report_
tcm8-13305.pdf [Accessed 27 June 2015].
Pastorello, T., & Schooler, K. (1988). The integration of ethnic minority content and research design issues
in social work curricula. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 2(1), 49–61.
Patchner, M., Petracchi, H., & Wise, S. (1998). Outcomes of ITV and face-to-face instruction in a social
work research methods course. Computers in Human Services, 15(2/3), 23–37.
Patterson, G. T. (2010). A composite review of social work research textbooks. Journal of Teaching in Social
Work, 30, 237–246.
Petracchi, H., & Patchner, M. (2001). A comparison of live instruction and interactive televised teaching:
A 2-year assessment of teaching an MSW research methods course. Research on Social Work Practice, 11(1),
108–117.
Pierce, R. (1998). Promoting student and practitioner demand for social work research findings. Issues in
Postlethwait, A. (2012). Service learning in an undergraduate social work research course. Journal of Teaching
in Social Work, 32, 243–256.
Quinn, P., Jacobsen, M., & Labarber, L. (1992). Utilization of group projects in teaching social work research
methods: Benefits to students and faculty. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 6(1), 63–76.
Reese, D. (2004). Risk of domestic violence after natural disaster: Teaching research and statistics through
the use of a participatory action research model. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 24(3/4), 79–94.
Riessman, C. (1993).Teaching research: Beyond the storybook image of positivist science. Journal of Teaching
in Social Work, 8(1/2), 281–303.
Rubin, D., Robinson, B., & Valutis, S. (2010). Social work education and student research projects: A survey
of program directors. Journal of Social Work Education, 46(1), 39–55.
155
Ryan, M., and Sheehan, R. (2000). Research education in Australian BSW programs. Advances in Social Work
and Welfare Education, 3(1), 135–150.
Sar, B.,Yankeelov, P.,Wulff, D., & Singer,T. (2003). Equal time and equal voice: A model foundation research
course. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 23(3/4), 43–57.
Secret, M., Rompf, E., & Ford, J. (2003). Undergraduate research courses: A closer look reveals complex
social work student attitudes. Journal of Social Work Education, 39(3), 411–422.
Sells, S. P., Smith, T. E., & Newfield, N. (1997). Teaching ethnographic research methods in social work:
A model course. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(1), 167–184.
Shannon, P., Kim,W., & Robinson, A. (2012). Implementing a service learning model for teaching research
methods and program evaluation. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32, 339–342.
Spicuzza, F. (2007). An undergraduate social work program’s research initiative: Evolution to a culture of
inquirers. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 4(1/2), 11–25.
Stark, R., & Cohen, B. (2007). Promoting positive student attitudes toward social work research: Using
course web sites. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 27(1/2), 181–198.
Steinberg, D. M., & Vinjamuri, M. K. (2014). Activating adult-learning principles through small groups in
preparing social work students to achieve CSWE research competencies. Journal of Teaching in Social
Work, 34(4), 363–383.
Svoboda, D.V., Williams, C. D., Jones, A. L., & Powell, K. H. (2013). Teaching social work research through
practicum: What the students learned. Journal of Social Work Education, 49, 661–673.
Tajnsek, P. (2005). Research oriented community social work education: Lessons from Ljubljana. European
Taylor, I., & Bogo, M. (2014). Perfect opportunity, perfect storm: Raising the standards of social work edu-
cation in England. British Journal of Social Work, 44(6), 1402–1418.
Uehara, E., Farris, M., Graham, T., Morelli, P., Phillips, R., Smith, L., & Bates, R. (1997). A collabora-
tive-comparative approach to learning qualitative data analysis. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 14(1/2),
45–67.
Wainstock, S. (1994). Swimming against the current: Teaching research methodology to reluctant social
work students. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 9(1/2), 3–16.
Wells, M. (2006). Making statistics “real” for social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2),
397–404.
Whipple, E. (2001). Keeping pace with current practice: A case study approach to infusing managed care
principles into a MSW research methods course. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 21(3/4), 53–74.
Whiteman,V., & Nielsen, M. (1990). Drama in teaching survey research methods: An experimental evalua-
tion. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 4(2), 67–81.
Wodarski, J., Feit, M., & Green, R. (1995). Graduate social work education: A review of two decades of
empirical research and considerations for the future. Social Service Review, 69(1), 108–130.
Wong, S. E., & Vakharia, S. P. (2012).Teaching research and practice evaluation skills to graduate social work
students. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(6), 714–718.
Yankeelov, P. A., Sar, B. K., & Antle, B. F., (2010). From “producing” to “consuming” research: Incorporating
evidence-based practice into advance research courses in a Master of Social Work program. Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 30, 367–384.
156
14
TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR
ETHICAL PRACTICE IN SOCIAL
WORK EDUCATION
Eleni Papouli
Introduction
Ethical practice plays a vital role in the professional socialization process and development of
students and is identified as a key component of professionalism in social work (Landau, 1999;
Barretti, 2004; Bisman, 2004, 2014; IFSW, 2004; Papouli, 2014b). Given the strong commitment
of social work to ethical practice, students need to gain a deep understanding and knowledge of
the inseparable connection between ethical practice and social work as a value-driven profes-
sion, as well as learn to identify and explain what constitutes ethical practice in contemporary
social work. An examination of the relevant literature indicates that much of the current debate
over ethical practice in social work revolves around two questions: a) what ethical practice is
and why it is so important for social work, and b) why and how ethical practice can be taught
and learned. Both of these important questions will help drive our discussion in the following
sections.
Ethical practice in social work: definition and meaning

Ethical practice is generally seen as the cornerstone of professionalism and especially necessary
to the social work profession in its focus on the well-being of individuals, communities, organ-
izations and societies. Despite its fundamental importance, there is no universally accepted defi-
nition of what is meant by ‘ethical practice’ in social work today.This may be due to the fact that
ethical practice by nature is a complex and challenging concept, and as such, it is quite difficult
to determine for sure what this means.
Throughout the years, though, scholars from different disciplines of social sciences have
attempted to define the concept of ethical practice or at least describe its content. Despite their
different points of view, all seem to agree that ethical practice refers to a general pattern of
moral conduct within a domain or sphere of life (personal or professional). In line with this, for
example, people in their personal lives adopt codes of conduct that are usually consistent with
principles of personal and social ethics and norms. Respectively, people in their professional lives
adopt ethically responsible behaviours that are consistent with practice standards, regulations and
principles used to guide the ethical professional practice, such as the codes of ethics for social
workers as will be described below.
157
Eleni Papouli
Codes of ethics
Codes of ethics are essential for ensuring ethical practice in social work. Usually, codes of ethics
include ethical and legal requirements and reflect both local and global considerations related
to ethical professional practice. Typically, the purpose of a code of ethics is to guide professional
behaviour, protect clients from abusive practices and delineate standards for ethical practice, as
well as safeguard the public reputation of the profession (Bowles et al., 2006; Banks, 2012; Dol-
goff, Harrington & Loewenberg, 2012; Reamer & Nimmagadda, 2015). Banks (2012) reports
that the nature of a code may be either aspirational or regulatory, but can also be rhetorical
and/or educational. Most of the time, codes of ethics are grounded on utilitarianism and deon-
tological ethics and include universal ethical principles (Banks, 2012; Dolgoff, Harrington &
Loewenberg, 2012). Despite the unquestionable need for ethical codes, the literature indicates
that, although being aware of the ethics code is an important first step for ethical practice, it is
probably not enough to become an ethically competent social worker (Corey, Corey & Haynes,
2015). In this view, students do not need only to learn how to apply the codes of ethics, but also
need to learn how to make decisions about which codes to follow in difficult situations.
Ethical decision making

As has been shown, ethical practice is grounded in the codes of ethics, which serve as guides to
professional behaviour in the workplace and in society. To demonstrate ethical practice, how-
ever, the social worker needs to act as a moral agent. According to Taylor (2008: 163), “a moral
agent is a person who acts for him or herself or in the place of another by the authority of that
person, and does so by conforming to a standard of right behavior.” Dolgoff, Harrington and
Loewenberg (2012: 110) point out that “social workers have an ethical obligation to act as moral
agents” and therefore, they should have the ability to judge between right and wrong and to
choose on the basis of their professional ethics. Ethical decision making is an important process
in professional practice, but difficult and complex, because it has to take into account the various
ethical issues arising from the conflicting values and interests of those involved in the process
(e.g. client, social worker and agency). Forming judgments for such decision making is an ability
that can be developed through professional experience, yet can and should be first taught and
learned in social work classes.
Personal moral qualities (the virtuous, caring social worker)

We have explored the concept of ethical practice as a result of behaviours and actions which
should be driven by codes of professional ethics. This view entails right actions undertaken by
social workers as moral agents. Additionally, doing what is right does not necessarily mean acting
as a good moral agent in terms of personal qualities and traits. As Clark (2006: 88) rightly notes,
“good professional practice is not sufficiently described either by technical competence or by
grand ethical principle; it also subsists essentially in the moral character of the practitioner.” In
fact, social work as an ethical and value-driven profession cannot be separated from virtue ethics
because good ethical practice depends not only on duty-minded or even ethically skilful social
workers, but they must also be the carriers of good character traits (e.g. respectfulness, trustwor-
thiness, compassion, courage, justice) (Adams, 2009; Banks & Gallagher, 2009).
Apart from the above, good ethical practice is closely linked with transpersonal good caring
relationships; throughout its history, social work as a caring profession has been involved with
vulnerable and marginalized individuals, groups and communities to enhance their well-being
158
Teaching and learning for ethical practice
(Banks, 2004; Clark, 2006). In particular, the development of caring relationships between social
workers and clients in certain environments, such as residential care, is core in achieving social
work goals.
Given the above, virtue ethics and care ethics are seen as vital components of ethical practice;
social work is not a profession that relies only on acquired ethics knowledge and skills or pre-
scribed rules and obligations, but it also needs virtues ethics and care ethics to be functional. It
is in this spirit, indeed, that all too often codes of ethics acknowledge the importance of good
character in social workers to ensure ethical practice.
Organizational and multidisciplinary context

In our exploration it is important to recognize and highlight connections between ethical prac-
tice and organizational context. This is because studies have shown that ethical practice is influ-
enced not only by the personal ethics and professional ethics, but also by the organizational
ethics (Lonne, McDonald & Fox, 2004; McAuliffe & Sudbery, 2005; Papadaki & Papadaki, 2008).
The ethical climate in any given organizational setting, along with its willingness to encourage
and support ethical practices, will effect the capacity of social workers to practice ethically. This
view is indeed reinforced by the IFSW (May 2012) latest policy statement that social workers
need a working environment respectful of and committed to ethical practice, following stand-
ards and providing good quality services in order to practice effectively and ethically.
In recent years, social workers – in Western countries in particular – have to address the
increasing demands of the organizations (public, private and voluntary sector organizations) for
which they work, in the context of managerialism approaches and evidence-based practices
applied in the working environment. Banks (2004, 2007), who has written extensively on ethics
and accountability, is highly sceptical about the ‘new accountability’ approaches to social work
in the UK and elsewhere. Banks (2007: 12) uses the term ‘new accountability’ to describe the
recent trends towards the “development of increasingly detailed procedures for doing tasks and
the setting of predefined targets or outcomes for professional work”. Several social work schol-
ars have also raised concerns about the ethos of ‘new managerialism’ within social services, as it
gives priority to budgets and targets over moral and ethical values of the profession (Welbourne,
2011; Trevithick, 2014; Weinberg, 2014).
During recent years, radical changes in the provision of health and social care in many
European countries have resulted in an increased need for collaboration between practitioners
from different professions within the same organization or even from different organizations.
As a result, more and more social workers and students on placements today interact with other
professionals as part of a team – nurses, doctors, psychologists and others – in order to provide
appropriate care to clients (Charles, Barring & Lake, 2011; Doel, Shardlow & Johnson, 2011).
Given that each profession is based on its own ethical codes, it is important to understand that
different professional cultures including values and principles are likely to be seen as barriers to
effective ethical practice. In order to be able to overcome obstacles and promote ethical practices
through interdisciplinary collaboration, students will also need to know about the complexities
of developing ethical practices in multidisciplinary contexts.
Socio-political context
For today’s social workers, professional practice environments have become more complex and
more bureaucratic and politically dependent than ever before. Unlike in the past, social workers,
along with their clients, have to face the impacts and new challenges posed by the neoliberal1
159
Eleni Papouli
reforms to social welfare systems, such as the privatization and marketization of public social
services, as well as deal with the consequences of recent global economic crises affecting almost
every part of the world (welfare cuts, urbanization, unemployment, immigration, poverty, human
trafficking and so forth). There is a growing concern among scholars and practitioners world-
wide that such neoliberal trends in delivering social work services tend to alter the mission of
social work in ways that might seriously jeopardize the ethical nature of the profession in the
near future (Ferguson & Woodward, 2009; Goldberg, 2012; Gray & Webb, 2013; Brady, Schoene-
man and Sawyer, 2014).
These contemporary challenges highlight how various factors in organizations and societies
may affect the standards of ethical practice and point to the importance of informed social
workers, not just locally, but globally as well. Bisman (2014: 18) points out that ethical practice in
contemporary social work “requires knowledge and skills to advocate for policies that promote
social justice and alleviate oppression”. Such knowledge and skills can only be acquired through
education (in classroom and in practicum), as we review below.
Learning for ethical practice: the role of education

In the previous section, we have considered the concept of ethical practice from a multidimen-
sional point of view and explored some of the complexities in understanding ethical practice
in social work today. Moreover, these discussions have emphasized that ethical practice must be
taught and inculcated through education in both classroom and field settings. Reamer (2001)
claims that social work values and ethics must be at the centre of social work education, while
Hugman (2005: 162) states that “if ethics is not included in professional education then prac-
titioners learn that it is not important.” Given the values-driven nature of the profession, social
work educators have acknowledged early on the necessity for teaching and learning about
ethical practice.
Historically, the literature on the teaching of values and ethics in social work dates back to
the work of the American social work educator Muriel Pumphrey in 1959, followed by Reamer
and Abramson’s (1982) book on the teaching of social work ethics (Reamer, 2013). In recent
years, and particularly in the Anglo-Saxon countries, there has been increasing interest in the
study of ethical social work practice, and many books and articles of general or specific interest
have been published on this topic. Despite the plethora of publications on the subject, there is
surprisingly very little published literature and research on teaching and learning of ethical prac-
tice in social work education which will enable educators to examine and develop their current
practices. In general, the currently available literature in this topic is focused on issues related to
the development and delivery of ethics education programs in social work. At large, these issues
include questions such as:
• What should be the goals of ethics education?

• When should ethics be taught?
• What topics should be included in ethics education?
• What skills do students need to become ethically skilful social workers?
• What models and methods should be used to teach and assess ethics?
Following, we consider some of the more common issues emerging from the review of
recent literature.
160
The goals of ethics education

Today, the value of ethics education has been widely acknowledged by the international social
work community (IFSW and IASSW), and many schools around the world have included ethics
courses as mandatory in their curricula at the undergraduate and/or postgraduate level (Reamer,
2001; Congress, Black & Strom-Gottfried, 2009; Barsky, 2010; Reamer & Nimmagadda, 2015).
Ethical practice has now become such an important issue for social workers that many state
licensing boards or professional regulatory bodies worldwide also require ethics education as a
condition of licensure. As well, they recognize the need for ongoing training and continuing
education to improve knowledge and skills related to new ethical issues raised in an increasingly
digital world (Reamer, 2012). Furthermore, a number of social service agencies,2 especially in
the USA and UK, provide ethics training workshops in order to enhance the dialogue on eth-
ics and ethical behaviour among their employees (Dolgoff, Harrington & Loewenberg, 2012;
Reamer & Nimmagadda, 2015).
Drawing upon the work of a range of social work scholars, Walmsley and Birkbeck (2006:
113) identify the following core objectives related to teaching values and ethics within social
work education:
• Provide an awareness of one’s own values;

• Engender the ability to recognize value conflicts in oneself and between oneself and clients;
• Provide the ability to distinguish personal from professional values;
• Ensure a willingness to adopt the profession’s values;
• Provide the inspiration needed for a meaningful career;
• Give concrete guidelines for actual practice.
In addition to the above, research has shown that education and training in ethics has a sig-
nificant influence on the ability to make ethical decisions, use ethics resources, and the moral
actions of students (Grady et al., 2008; Congress, Black & Strom-Gottfried, 2009). Similarly,
research (Landau, 1999: 71) has found that students who are familiar with social work values
and ethics may be more likely to understand “the complexity of the situations and the dilemmas
that social workers encounter, than those who have not yet started their professional training”.
In 1991, Joseph wrote that ethics education should “promote respect for various moral per-
spectives and help students engage in the dialectic necessary to reach informed ethical choices”
(p. 98). Joseph also argued that ethics education is not, nor should it be, indoctrination; that is,
students should not be taught specific behaviours for certain situations. At present, such views
reflect the student-centred approach for developing learning, which is the new zeitgeist in
European higher education (McAleese et al., 2013). Student-centred approaches to learning
position students as partners in education, not as passive recipients of knowledge, while the
teacher is the facilitator of student learning, rather than the source of learning (Milligan &
Woodley, 2009; McAleese et al., 2013).
Reamer (2001), who is one of the most influential ethics scholars, suggests the following four
goals that educators should bear in mind when engaging in ethics instruction: a) stimulating
the moral imagination of students, b) developing analytical skills, c) eliciting a sense of moral
obligation and personal responsibility and d) developing students’ ability to respond to ethical
controversy and ambiguity. With these goals in mind, it becomes apparent that educators should
provide ethics education that will not focus only on the development of the knowledge and
skills of students but also on the cultivation of their qualities of character. This perspective can
161
Eleni Papouli
be gained through the use of the “pluralistic approach to ethical practice, one that incorporates
aspects of virtue, utilitarian and deontological approaches” (Bowles et al., 2006: 20).
When should ethics be taught – what to include in the course syllabus

Most of the current literature on ethics education indicates that ethics should be started at the
beginning of the curriculum so that students engage with the ethical dimension of the profes-
sion early in their studies (Birnbaum & Lach, 2014). Yet, some scholars take the opposite view,
suggesting that ethics is better taught towards the end of the curriculum, because at this stage of
studying, students are more mature and better prepared to understand and address ethical issues
and conflicts (Reamer, 2001). Although both sides have strong arguments to support their views,
there is a lack of international comparative research in this area. In regards to the course content,
earlier in this chapter, we discussed a wide range of topics that should be taken into account
when considering the meaning of ethical practice during the course theme. Given the complex-
ity of ethical practice and its situational nature, however, particular attention should be given to
the examination of cultural considerations and their impact on delivering ethics according to
ethical and practice standards of the profession. Reamer and Nimmagadda (2015: 12) suggest
the inclusion of indigenous knowledge into education and ethical standards, while they point
out that comprehensive ethics education programs in social work schools should provide an:
in-depth exploration of social work values; ethical dilemmas in social work; ethi-
cal decision-making frameworks and protocols; and ethics-related risk-management
issues. Many social work educators focus on relevant ethical and moral theory; codes
of ethics; and laws and regulations pertaining to ethical challenges in clinical social
work, management and administration, social action, social policy, and research and
evaluation.
The need for ethical skills

Social work educators need to teach students particular skills that help them to become ethically
responsible professionals and to act ethically and beyond selfinterest. Narváez (2006), a leading
expert on moral development, identifies four skill sets and subskills that play a decisive role in
grounding ethical behaviour and that are particularly relevant in social work ethics education:
ethical sensitivity, ethical judgment, ethical focus, and ethical action (Table 14.1).Together, these
skills represent the ethical competence needed by social workers to understand, demonstrate and
promote ethical practice within the workplace environments. Some examples of these ethical
skills for students may include awareness of others’ emotions and feelings and understanding
moral and social situations (ethical sensitivity), the ability to use codes of ethics and identify
judgment criteria (ethical judgment) as described earlier in the chapter, respecting others and
developing ethical identity and integrity as future professionals (ethical focus), and lastly, engag-
ing in ethical leadership behaviour and displaying ethical courage and resilience to stand up for
what is right or fair even in difficult situations (ethical action).
Ethical reflection as a skill

Ethical reflection emphasizes the ethical dimension of human thinking and acting by argu-
ing that people not only need to think ethically, but also to act ethically. In social work ethics
education, ethical reflection is fundamental because it helps students to learn and understand
162
Table 14.1 Integrative ethical education/ethical skills
Ethical sensitivity Ethical judgment

Understanding emotional expression Understanding ethical problems
Taking the perspectives of others Using codes and identifying judgments criteria
Connecting to others Reasoning critically
Responding to diversity Reasoning ethically
Controlling social bias Understanding consequences
Interpreting situations Reflecting on process and outcome
Communicating well Copying and resiliency
Ethical focus Ethical action
Respecting others Resolving conflicts and problems
Cultivating conscience Asserting respectfully
Helping others Taking initiative as a leader
Being a community member Planning to implement decisions
Finding meaning in life Cultivating courage
Valuing traditions and institutions Persevering
Developing ethical identity and integrity Working hard
Source: Narváez (2006).
thoroughly the causes and possible effects of their own or others’ actions, and to make the con-
nections between taught theory and practice experience.
As students learn to recognize the processes of learning, especially those related to ethical
practice, they are able to reflect critically and ethically upon their own or others’ experiences,
build upon them and transfer them to other situations. In field education, particularly, ethical
reflection on work practice is seen as a meta-cognitive process that enables students to evaluate
their thoughts, feelings and actions, as well as to look at whether or not their behaviour was
based on ethical assumptions (Green, 2002; Banks, 2003; Hugman, 2005; Banks & Nøhr, 2012).
Green (2002: 5) argues that students’ ability to reflect on their own values and beliefs can
serve as a “vehicle through which values or beliefs can be challenged or changed, and conse-
quently a change in practice may ensue”. However, Curry (2006) notes that learning of key skills
to the level of ‘automaticity’ usually requires extensive practice time. In this light, it is therefore
important for students to have adequate opportunities to engage in ethical reflection and dia-
logue in both the class and the field placement.
Learning and teaching models

Educators have debated over which are the best models to teach ethical practice in social work
education. But until now, there has been no consensus about the learning model(s) that best
helps students to become sensitive to and aware of the profession’s ethical stance. Despite this
disagreement, however, there appear to be two dominant learning models: the discrete model
and the pervasive model ( Joseph, 1991; Congress, 2000; Congress, Black & Strom-Gottfried,
2009; Sanders & Hoffman, 2010).The discrete model refers to separate values and ethics courses,
while the pervasive model integrates them throughout the curriculum.
A discrete course focuses entirely on the topic of ethics. As such, students have the oppor-
tunity to engage fully with specific issues related to ethics learning, get a clear picture of the
ethical imperatives of the profession, as well as gain a sense of familiarity with the professional
163
Eleni Papouli
demands as a whole. On the other hand, the pervasive model (also known as infused, embed-
ded or integrated model) emphasizes the centrality of social work ethics and ethical behaviour
of social workers at all courses, and, therefore, ethical considerations are infused throughout
the curriculum. A recent study conducted by Sanders and Hoffman (2010) compared three
approaches to ethics education in social work programs in the US (a discrete course in ethics, an
integrated ethics model, and a mixed-model approach) and found that students in the discrete
ethics course demonstrated a greater improvement in ethical judgment and ethical sensitivity.
However, while there is some evidence to support the discrete model as the most appropriate
to teach ethics in social work education, more research is needed to compare the impact of the
two models on student outcomes (Congress, 2000; Congress, Black & Strom-Gottfried, 2009;
Hardie, 2009; Sanders & Hoffman, 2010).
Interestingly, some scholars and researchers are attempting to go beyond the dichotomy, dis-
crete model versus pervasive model, as described earlier and suggest a mixed approach for teaching
about ethical practice (e.g. Reamer, 2001; Congress, 2002; Congress, Black & Strom-Gottfried,
2009; Hardie, 2009). Such an approach combines the two models and integrates them across
the social work curriculum. Although a mixed learning model appears to be ideal for teaching
ethics in social work, the effectiveness of this approach has not yet been empirically evaluated
and compared in a systematic way.
Learning and teaching methods

Preparing students for ethical practice is a long learning process which begins in the classroom
and continues with field placements in diverse settings. Of course, as mentioned previously,
learning for ethical practice does not end when students graduate from an educational pro-
gram, but continues throughout their social work career.Yet, it is within the classroom and field
environments that students begin to familiarize themselves with the crucial topic of ethical
practice and learn how to apply the ethical requirements of the profession. Typically, classroom
activities give students “an opportunity to test different ideas, skills, and strategies without pos-
ing risks to real clients” (Barsky, 2010: viii). The placement period in a real work environment
provides opportunities for students to experience, at first hand, activities which directly relate to
the application of the knowledge and skills concerning the values and ethics of the profession
(Papouli, 2014a, 2014b).
The reviewed literature suggests that educators should use a variety of methods to teach eth-
ics to students given the complex nature of social work practice. In general, these methods are
not different from those used by educators for teaching other social work courses and include
both traditional and modern teaching and assessment approaches such as lectures, presentations,
audio/videos (Gillet et al., 2003; Dorr, 2014; Corey, Corey and Haynes 2015), contemporary
films (Brown & Keating, 2015), the Socratic dialogue (Philippart, 2003), ethical delegates debates
(Swindell & Watson, 2007), role-play scenarios (Vapalahti, Marttunen & Laurinen, 2013), case
studies and commentaries (Banks & Nyboe, 2003; Rothman, 2005; Reamer, 2009; Banks &
Nøhr, 2012; Bisman, 2014), student logs, learning and reflective journals (Banks, 2003; Swin-
dell & Watson, 2006) and critical incident stories (Papouli, 2014a).
Among the above mentioned methods, case studies and commentaries – either real or fic-
tional – seem to be preferred for teaching and learning about ethical social work practice. Case
studies are generally used to illustrate ethical conflicts and dilemmas and how these can be
addressed and solved in order to build students’ problem-solving skills (Congress, 2010). The
ESEP (European Social Ethics Project) has published a book3 entitled Teaching Practical Ethics
164
for the Social Professions (edited by Banks & Nøhr, 2003) that gives examples and provides useful
information on how to use different types of methods and materials in the teaching of ethics
and values.
Despite the variety of methods available, research (Dodd & Jansson, 2004) has shown that
whilst ethics education teaches students how to recognize ethical issues and dilemmas in social
work practice, it does not teach them how to get involved in the conflict resolution process.
Given that students learn by becoming involved, it is therefore important to provide them
multiple and varied hands-on activities that will challenge them in all areas of ethical practice
and encourage them to actively get involved in their own learning. In the last decade, creative
and interactive learning activities together with technology-based teaching approaches tended
to gain ground because they engage and support all students in learning, involve educators and
students in the learning process and stimulate fruitful discussions and further insight. Recently,
Bozalek (2010) used a blended learning approach (face-to-face learning and e-learning) to teach
ethics in a South African context and found that this approach can also be an effective method
for learning in social work ethics education.
Table 14.2 presents an example of recommendations from the ASWB’s (Association of Social
Work Boards) Guide to Social Work Ethics Course Development on ethics teaching methods, as well
as on resource materials which address the various learning styles of students in the US and in
some Canadian provinces. According to the ASWB, special attention should be given to certain
teaching methods such as discussion, role play and/or debate, as they are seen as important parts
of the learning process in an ethics course.
So far, we have covered a variety of teaching and assessment methods to learning about
ethical practice in social work education. However, in addition to didactic teaching approaches
(traditional or modern), research (Duffy & Hayes, 2012) has shown that service users and car-
ers’ involvement in teaching core social work values can also help students to better learn.
True storytelling (by clients, carers or relatives) can therefore be a useful pedagogic tool for
facilitating the learning of ethical practice. Moreover, research (Papouli, 2014a) has shown that
students learn to act ethically through role modelling in the classroom and in the field. In her
study, Papouli (2014a) explored Greek social work students’ perceptions of the development of
their professional ethics and values during their final placement and found that field educators
play a key role as role models in promoting student ethical learning. Papouli (2014a) concludes
that field educators need to align their espoused professional values to their actual behaviour in
practice in order to provide a positive ethical role model to students. In other words, they must
practice what they preach and be seen to do so.
Table 14.2 Suggested teaching methods and resource materials
Suggested teaching methods

• Case studies • Mini-lecture • Group discussion • Role play • Debate • Presentations • Professional
audio/video • Appropriate audio/video from popular media • Pre and post-tests • Web-enhanced
instruction – may be interactive or web-based • Multimedia presentations • Assigned readings
Suggested resource materials
• Readings • Websites • Professional audio and video • Case scenarios • Appropriate readings/videos
from popular media
Source: Adapted from the ASWB’s Guide to Social Work Ethics
165
Eleni Papouli
Towards a novice-to-expert pedagogy of ethical practice

As noted earlier, students gain expertise in ethical practice that normally begins from the early
stages of entrance into their educational programs and continues throughout their placement
with social services agencies. It has also been argued that students need to develop specific ethical
skills to help them in their careers. Although ethical skills will be taught and learned by students
in the class, it is within the practice environment that they will be applied, developed and demon-
strated. Given that novice and expert students have different learning abilities and needs during
the field practice, they therefore need different support to develop their own ethical expertise.
Dreyfus and Dreyfus (2004) and Benner (2004) point out that ethical skills are better devel-
oped through a novice-to-expert pedagogy in which educators enable students to move grad-
ually towards expertise. According to these authors, students typically pass through five distinct
stages of ethical skill acquisition, as novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert
skill users (Benner, 2004; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 2004). Each stage has specific characteristics asso-
ciated with the level of ethical skill acquisition, performance and development. Although these
stages are described as separate, they are likely to overlap in practice.
Based on the novice-to-expert approach, novice students who have basic theoretical ethics
knowledge but little or no practical experience must be given the rules and explicit details to
guide their behaviour in a given ethics situation encountered during the field placement. Given
that novice students do not normally have practical experience of social work, they may rigidly
adhere to their professional values and ethical standards. Bogo (2010) states that, because novice
students on placements usually have ‘beginner’s anxiety’, they become more focused on their
performance than on their clients’ needs, and they need support and guidance from the field
instructors to complete their tasks.
Students who have more experience in managing ethical problems or dilemmas due to
longer practice should be better able to look at things from different angles, organize their work
and make decisions that are ethically based. Therefore, expert students should be able to under-
stand and explain complex situations in daily practice and make ethical decisions using relevant
theories and frameworks. Furthermore, students as expert learners should be able to actively
engage with ethics matters in the workplace during their placement, to take responsibility for
their own ethics learning and to contribute to upholding ethics in practice settings. According
to Bogo (2010), expert students usually need little guidance and direction to accomplish the
goals of their field education.
Conclusion
This chapter has explored the concept of ethical practice in social work today and how this
concept can best be taught so that students learn to become ethically skillful professionals. The
review of the relevant literature revealed different levels of complexity in the topic and identified
research gaps with respect to teaching and learning models, methods and assessment approaches.
Despite these challenges, the preparation of students for ethical professional practice must be
one of the primary aims of social work education worldwide. Today, ethics education in social
work should aim to promote the pedagogy of ethical practice, according to which educators
should facilitate their students learning to pass through on their journeys from ethical novices
to ethical experts.
In this chapter, ethical practice was explored as complex and multidimensional rather than a
unitary construct, therefore requiring a multidimensional approach to the teaching and learning
of ethical practice. Students must learn how to critically reflect on the complex ethical issues
166
faced by the profession today in order to practice in a world becoming increasingly globalized.
Moreover, students must be able to become holistic and critical learners in order to develop
responsibility for their own ethical professional behaviour. Bowles et al. (2006: xiv) aptly note
that ethical practice in social work “is not just about a disposition to act ethically in professional
contexts, but also a desire to actively challenge and change those contexts or policy environ-
ments by an ethically articulate profession.” Bearing this in mind, social work education pro-
viders have, therefore, a great duty to design and deliver ethics courses that best prepare future
professionals for the challenges and complexities of ethical practice in an increasingly intercon-
nected and multicultural world.
Notes
1 But, it is true that concerns relating to the changing ethical nature of social work have also been ex-
pressed since the 1980s, when neoliberal-postmodern reforms to welfare state policies and the philoso-
phy of ‘New Public Management’ along with the economic globalization during the mid-1990s began
to make their appearance in the Euro-Western world.
2 This is in accordance with the IFSW principle that “social workers should foster and engage in ethical
debate with their colleagues and employers and take responsibility for making ethically informed deci-
sions” (IFSW, Ethics in Social Work, Statement of Principles, 2004: 4).
3 Available free online at: www.feset.org/feset/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Teaching_practical_ethics1.pdf
References
Adams, P. (2009). Ethics with character: Virtues and the ethical social worker. Journal of Sociology & Social
Welfare, 36(3), 83–105.
Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB). Guide to Social Work Ethics Course Development. Avail-
able at www.aswb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ASWBEthicsCourseGuide.pdf [Accessed 10
November 2014].
Banks, S. (2003). The use of learning journals to encourage ethical reflection during fieldwork practice. In
S. Banks & K. Nøhr (Eds.),Teaching practical ethics for the social professions (pp. 53–67). Copenhagen:
FESET.
Banks, S. (2004). Ethics, accountability, and the social professions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Banks, S. (2007). Between equity and empathy: Social professions and the new accountability. Social Work
and Society. Available at www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/131/496 [Accessed 13 December 2012].
Banks, S. (2012). Ethics and values in social work (4th ed.). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Banks, S., & Gallagher, A. (2009). Ethics in professional life: Virtues for health and social care. Basingstoke and
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Banks, S., & Nøhr, K. (Eds.) (2003). Teaching practical ethics for the social professions. Copenhagen: FESET.
Banks, S., & Nøhr, K. (Eds.) (2012). Practising social work ethics around the world: Cases and commentaries. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Banks, S., & Nyboe, N. E. (2003). Writing and using cases. In S. Banks and K. Nøhr (Eds.), Teaching prac-
tical ethics for the social professions (pp. 19–33). Copenhagen: FESET.
Barretti, M. (2004). The professional socialization of undergraduate social work students. Journal of Bacca-
laureate Social Work, 9(2), 9–30.
Barsky, A. E. (2010). Ethics and values in social work: An integrated approach for a comprehensive curriculum. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Benner, P. (2004). Using the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition to describe and interpret skill acquisition
and clinical judgment in nursing practice and education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(3),
188–199.
Birnbaum, R., & Lach, L. (2014). Teaching about what ethical social work practice means: Responsibility
starts with schools of social work. Intervention 2014, 140, 37–43. Available at www.otstcfq.org/docs/
default-source/intervention/num%C3%A9ro-140/teaching-about_birnbaum-et-all.pdf?sfvrsn=2
[Accessed 13 January 2015].
Bisman, C. (2004). Social work values: The moral core of the profession. British Journal of Social Work, 34(1),
109–123.
167
Eleni Papouli
Bisman, C. (2014). Social work: Value-guided practice for a global society. New York, NY: Columbia University
Press.
Bogo, M. (2010). Achieving competence in social work: Through field education. Toronto, ON: University of
Toronto Press.
Bowles, W., Collingridge, M., Curry, S., & Valentine, B. (2006). Ethical practice in social work an applied
approach. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, Open University Press.
Bozalek, V. (2010). Moral dilemmas in a South African blended learning ethics course. In D. Zarvisek, B.
Rommelspacher, & S. Staub-Bernasconi (Eds.), Ethical dilemmas in social work (pp. 133–151). Ljubljana:
University of Ljubljana.
Brady, R. S., Schoeneman, A. C., & Sawyer, J. (2014). Critiquing and analyzing the effects of neoliberalism
on community organizing: Implications and recommendations for practitioners and educators. Journal
for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 6(1), 36–60.
Brown, S., & Keating, F. (2015). The film club: Reflections on the use of contemporary film to teach ethics
to social work students. Journal of Ethics and Social Welfare [online first] [Accessed 31 Mar 2015].
Charles, G., Barring, V., & Lake, S. (2011). What’s in it for us?: Making the case for interprofessional field
education experiences in social work. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31(5), 579–593.
Clark, C. (2006). Moral character in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 36(1), 75–89.
Congress, E. (2000). What social workers should know about ethics: Understanding and resolving practice
dilemmas. Advances in Social Work, 1(1), 1–25.
Congress, E. P. (2002). Social work ethics for educators: Navigating ethical change in the classroom and in
the field. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 22(1/2), 151–166.
Congress, E. (2010). Real cases project: Social work ethics. In C. S., Cohen, T. Gimein, S. Kollar, & T. Bulin
(Eds.), Real cases: Integrating child welfare practice across the social work curriculum (pp. 161–198). New York,
NY: New York City Social Work Education Consortium.
Congress, E., Black, P., & Strom-Gottfried, K. (2009). Teaching social work values and ethics: A curriculum
resource (2nd ed.). Alexandria,VA: Council on Social Work Education.
Corey, G., Corey, M. S., & Haynes, R. (2015). Ethics in action (3rd ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Curry, D. (2006). Training intervention strategies to promote application of ethics learning in practice set-
tings. CYC-Online Journal of the International Child and Youth Care Network, 84. Available at www.
cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol-0106-curry.html [Accessed 11 November 2014].
Dodd, S. J., & Jansson, B. S. (2004). Expanding the boundaries of ethics education: Preparing social workers
for ethical advocacy in hospital and other settings. Journal of Social Work Education, 40(3), 455–465.
Doel, M., Shardlow, S. M., & Johnson, P. G. (2011). Contemporary field social work: Integrating field and classroom
experience. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dolgoff, R., Harrington, D., & Loewenberg, F. M. (2012). Ethical decisions for social work practice (9th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Dorr, C. (2014). Social work live: Theory and practice in social work using videos. New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. E. (2004). The ethical implications of the five-stage skill-acquisition model. Bul-
letin of Science,Technology & Society, 24(3), 251–264.
Duffy, J., & Hayes, D. (2012). Social work students learn about social work values from service users and
carers, Ethics and Social Welfare, 6(4), 368–386.
Ferguson, I., & Woodward, R. (2009). Radical social work in practice: Making a difference. Bristol:The Policy Press.
Gillet, F., Banks, S., Nøhr, K., & Ranson, F. (2003). Using video in group discussions. In S. Banks and K.
Nøhr (Eds.), Teaching practical ethics for the social professions (pp. 41–51). Copenhagen: FESET.
Goldberg, G. S. (2012). Economic inequality and economic crisis: A challenge for social workers. Social
Work, 57(3), 211–225.
Grady, C., Soeken, K. L., Danis, M., O’Donnell, P., Taylor C., Farrar, A., and Ulrich, C. M., (2008). Does
ethics education influence moral action of practicing nurses and social workers?. American Journal of
Bioethics, 8(4), 4–11.
Gray, M., & Webb, S. (2013). Towards a ‘New Politics’ of social work. In M. Gray, & S. A. Webb (Eds.), The
new politics of social work (pp. 3–20). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Green, C. A. (2002). Reflecting on reflection: Students’ evaluation of their moving and handling Education.
Nurse Education in Practice, 2, 4–12.
Hardie, S. L. (2009). Moving beyond the surface: Ethics education in Canadian social work bachelor programs. Ph.D.
Wilfrid Laurier University. Available at http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2082&-
context=etd [Accessed 20 January 2015].
168
Hugman, R. (2005). New approaches in ethics for the caring professions. London: Palgrave.
IFSW (International Federation of Social Workers) (2004). Ethics in social work, statement of principles.
Available at www.ifsw.org/en/p38000324.html [Accessed 25 July 2007].
IFSW (International Federation of Social Workers) (May 2012). Effective and ethical working environ-
ments for social work: The responsibilities of employers of social workers. Draft Policy Statement
for Consultation (Agius, A and Jones, N.D). Available at http://ifsw.org/policies/effective-and-
ethical-working-environments-for-social-work-the- responsibilities-of-employers-of-social-work-
ers-3/ [Accessed 20 September 2012].
Joseph, M. (1991). Standing for values and ethical action: Teaching social work ethics. Journal of Teaching in
Social Work, 5(2), 95–109.
Landau, R. (1999). Professional socialization, ethical judgment and decision-making orientation in social
work. Journal of Social Service Research, 25(4), 57–75.
Lonne, B., McDonald, C., & Fox, T. (2004). Ethical practice in the contemporary human services. Journal
of Social Work, 4(3), 345–367.
McAleese, M., Bladh, A., Berger, V., Bode, C., Muehlfeit, J., Petrin, T., Schiesaro, A., Tsoukalis, L.
( June 2013) Report to the European Commission on improving the quality of teaching and learning
in Europe’s higher education institutions. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/reports/
modernisation_en.pdf [Accessed 14 November 2014].
McAuliffe, D., & Sudbery, J. (2005). Who do I tell? Support and consultation in cases of ethical conflict.
Milligan, E., & Woodley, E. (2009). Creative expressive encounters in health ethics education: Teaching
ethics as relational engagement. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 21(2), 131–139.
Narváez, D. (2006). Integrative ethical education. In M. Killen, & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral devel-
opment (pp. 703–733). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Papadaki,V., & Papadaki, E. (2008). Ethically difficult situations related to organizational conditions: Social
workers' experiences in Crete, Greece. Journal of Social Work, 8(2), 163–180.
Papouli, E. (2014a). The development of professional social work values and ethics in the workplace: A critical
incident analysis from the students' perspective. Ph.D. University of Sussex. Available at http://sro.sussex.
ac.uk/48325/1/Papouli%2C_Eleni.pdf [Accessed 11 October 2014].
Papouli, E. (2014b). Field learning in social work education: Implications for educators and instructors.
The Field Educator: A Scholarly Journal from the Simmons College School of Social Work, 4(2)/Fall 2014,
1–15. Available at http://fieldeducator.simmons.edu/article/field-learning-in-social-work-education-
implications-for-educators-and-instructors/ [Accessed 15 November 2014].
Philippart, F. (2003). Using Socratic dialogue. In S. Banks & K. Nøhr (Eds.),Teaching practical ethics for the
social professions (pp. 69–82). Copenhagen: FESET.
Reamer, F. (2001). Ethics education in social work. Alexandria,VA: Council on Social Work Education.
Reamer, F. G. (2009). The social work ethics casebook: Cases and commentary. Washington, DC: CSWE Press.
Reamer, F. (2012). The digital and electronic revolution in social work: Rethinking the meaning of ethical
practice. Ethics and Social Welfare, 7(1), 2–19.
Reamer, F. (2013). Social work values and ethics (4th ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Reamer, F. G., & Abramson, M. (1982). The teaching of social work ethics. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: The
Hasting Center.
Reamer, F. G., & Nimmagadda, J. (2015). Social work ethics in India: A call for the development of indig-
enized ethical standards. International Social Work. Available at http://isw.sagepub.com/content/early/
2015/02/16/0020872814559563.full.pdf+html [Accessed 16 February 2015].
Rothman, J. C. (2005). From the front lines: Student cases in social work ethics. Boston: Pearson.
Sanders, S., & Hoffman, K. (2010). Ethics education in social work: Comparing outcomes of graduate social
work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 46(1), 7–22.
Swindell, M., & Watson, J. (2006). Teaching ethics through self-reflective journaling. Journal of Social Work
Values and Ethics, 3(2), 4–12.
Swindell, M., & Watson, J. (2007). Ethical delegates in the social work classroom: A creative pedagogical
approach. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 4(1). Available at www.socialworker.com/jswve/
index2.php [Accessed 10 October 2010].
Taylor, C. R. (2008). Right Relationships: Foundation for Health Care Ethics. In W. J. E. Pinch, & A. M.
Haddad (Eds.), Nursing and health care ethics: A legacy and a vision (pp. 243–254). Silver Spring, MD:
American Nurses Association.
169
Eleni Papouli
Trevithick, P. (2014). Humanising managerialism: Reclaiming emotional reasoning, intuition, the relation-
ship, and knowledge and skills in social work. Journal of Social Work Practice, 28(3), 287–311.
Vapalahti, K., Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2013). Online and face-to-face role-play simulations in
promoting social work students argumentative problem-solving. Journal of Comparative Social Work, 8(1),
1–35. Available at http://jcsw.no/local/media/jcsw/docs/jcsw_issue_2013_1_02_article.pdf [Accessed
3 February 2015].
Walmsley, C., & Birkbeck, J. (2006). Personal narrative writing: A method of values reflection for BSW
students. Journal of Teaching and Social Work, 26(1/2), 111–126.
Weinberg, M. (2014). The ideological dilemma of subordination of self vs. self-care: Identity construction
of the ‘ethical social worker.’ Discourse and Society, 25(1), 84–99.
Welbourne, P. (2011). 21st century social work: The influence of political context on public service pro-
vision in social work education and service delivery. European Journal of Social Work, 14(3), 403–420.
170
15
DEVELOPING RESEARCH
AND SCHOLARSHIP IN LAW
TEACHING FOR SOCIAL
WORK EDUCATION
Introduction
Learning about the legal rules that influence the powers and practices of social workers is a core
element of the social work curriculum across the four countries of the UK.The emphasis placed
upon law within social work education in these jurisdictions to some extent reflects the state’s
reliance upon social work for delivery of its social policy objectives in respect of children and
adults requiring care, support and protection. In respecting human rights while observing a duty
of care, the local state, in the form of local authorities, must act within the boundaries of legal
rules that define the grounds on which interference in the lives of private citizens is lawful and
justified. Social workers, who are the employees of those local authorities, must therefore under-
stand the range of delegated powers and duties that they hold, and the limits of their authority.
This emphasis on law raises interesting pedagogic challenges that are somewhat specific to
the topic. How best to teach a knowledge base from one discipline (law) to students of another
(social work)? How can students be supported to learn outside their comfort zone, in a knowl-
edge area they perceive as “not social work”, and “hard to understand”? Given this divide, do
some models of teaching and learning produce better learning outcomes than others? What do
we mean in any case by good learning outcomes in this arena? Are we merely talking about the
possession of accurate legal knowledge? Or do we look further, for some critical exploration
of that legal knowledge and an ethical intelligence in its application to the real-life situations
encountered in social work practice?
This chapter draws together research that casts light on these questions and can help educa-
tors develop an evidence-informed approach to this aspect of social work education. It will first
set out the background to the research agenda, linking this to debates about the relationship
between law and social work in the UK. It will consider the methodological challenges involved
in identifying robust evidence of “what works” in pedagogical terms, and provide an overview
of research findings developed through a range of methodological approaches. Finally, it will
synthesise the key insights from the research, contributing to the evidence base on promoting
law learning for social work students.
171
Background
The relationship between law and social work has been hotly contested in the UK over the last
thirty years. Enquiries during the 1980s into a series of child deaths in circumstances of extreme
abuse and neglect, where social services had been involved (DHSS, 1982; Blom-Cooper, 1985;
London Borough of Greenwich, 1987), concluded that the practitioners involved had been
insufficiently proactive in using the law to protect the children in question – that all would have
been well if social workers had done what the law required them to do.Yet other reports found
that social workers were overzealous in their use of law (Butler-Sloss, 1988) and that their use
of statutory mandates was sometimes ill-advised and did not facilitate constructive plans for
children (DHSS, 1985).
It was unsurprising that attention would turn to how social work students learn about law,
and the publication of a report fiercely critical of law teaching in social work education (Ball
et al., 1988) fuelled calls for “legally competent practice” (Vernon, Harris & Ball, 1990). Under-
lying the recommendations for reform of law teaching was the clear view that law, in allegedly
providing a clearly defined and unambiguous mandate, was the pivot upon which social work
turned, a view reflecting the perspective of the chair of the earlier enquiry reports:
We are strongly of the view that social work can, in fact, be defined only in terms of
the functions required of its practitioners by their employing agency operating within
a statutory framework.
(Blom-Cooper, 1985: 12)
Indeed this view has endured through subsequent more recent child death enquiries: “The
legislative framework for protecting children is basically sound . . . the gap is not a matter of law but in its
implementation” (Laming, 2003). Argued against this was a counter perspective proposing that it
was instead an ethical duty of care that provided the cornerstone for social work intervention
(Stevenson, 1988), drawing on the view that:
The image of the social worker as “agent of the law” is . . . partial and dangerous . . . it
encourages a view of professional competence which rests solely or mainly on an
ability to interpret and execute legal requirements, whereas, in fact, such competence
rests on far wider abilities in which that elusive but crucial element of professional
judgement is central.
(Stevenson, 1986: 503)
Others (Braye & Preston-Shoot, 1990, 1991) conceptualised social work as occupying a
dialectic space in which it held the tension between those two polarities, neither of which
alone can guarantee safe outcomes, and argued that a key learning goal was to enable students
to use the dilemmas posed as dynamic processes in the exercise of professional discretion in
decision-making.
The drive for better legal knowledge, however, was unstoppable. Law subsequently became
the only subject for which explicit direction was provided in national guidelines (CCETSW,
1995), and since the introduction of the social work degree in 2003, governments in all four
countries of the UK have specified the inclusion of law within their curriculum requirements
(DH, 2002; DHSSPS, 2003; NISCC, 2003; Scottish Executive, 2003; CCW, 2012). Knowledge
of the legal rules and skills in their application have been prominent in the social work sub-
ject benchmark statements (QAA, 2000, 2008). In terms of learning outcomes at the point of
172
Research and scholarship in law teaching
qualification, in England the Health & Care Professions Council Standards of Proficiency for
Social Work (HCPC, 2012) identify the ability to practise with the legal boundaries of the pro-
fession as a key requirement, and the Professional Capabilities Framework (TCSW, 2012) lists
a range of ways in which understanding of law underpins social work practice. In Wales and
Northern Ireland, the National Occupational Standards (Skills for Care & Development, 2011)
refer to knowledge of statutory, legal and procedural requirements and place a strong emphasis
on international and national legal frameworks, emphasising too their relationship with profes-
sional practice, including research-based critiques of that relationship. In Scotland the Standards
in Social Work Education (Scottish Executive, 2003) and the Practice Governance Framework
(Scottish Government, 2011) emphasise the need for qualifying practitioners to demonstrate
competence in regularly updating legal knowledge.
This, then, is the background context in which the development of research and scholarship
in the pedagogy of law learning has taken place, a development that is marked by two distinct
phases. First came scoping research that identified conceptual and descriptive accounts of how
social work students learn about the law, but found a lack of robust research evidence on the
effectiveness of different approaches. This was followed by empirical research that attempted to
provide enhanced evidence on the outcomes of student learning, in order to inform pedagogic
development.
Scoping the evidence

An international systematic review of the English-language literature (Braye & Preston-Shoot
et al., 2005) found little empirical evidence upon which to base judgements about the effec-
tiveness of different approaches to law learning for social work students. The review uncovered
conceptual analyses of the law/social work relationship, and descriptive accounts of a wide
range of curriculum designs, methods of teaching, forms of assessment and student satisfac-
tion, but little focus on outcomes, and no evidence on which to base recommendations about
the most effective approach. Given the evidence sourced related predominantly to classroom
teaching, it was followed by an empirical study of law learning on fieldwork placement (Braye,
Preston-Shoot & Thorpe, 2007). This revealed lost opportunities for social work students on
placement to engage with the legal rules that underpinned their practice: law was often an
unspoken element of the practicum, law learning outcomes were not explicit, practice teachers
and assessors lacked confidence in developing students’ knowledge of, and practice skills in,
applying law, and the learning was more often focused upon following agency procedures. This
absence of “law talk” is reflected too in qualified social work practice, where absence of refer-
ence to legal rules is a striking feature of practitioners’ narratives, particularly in adult social care
(Braye, Preston-Shoot & Wigley, 2013).
These findings contributed to the emergence of the concept of legal literacy, defined
(Braye & Preston-Shoot, 2010) as a distillation of knowledge, understanding, skills and values
that enables practitioners to connect relevant legal rules with the professional priorities and
objectives of ethical practice. It involves a complex negotiation between different domains of the
law/social work relationship (Braye & Preston-Shoot, 2006): doing things right (informed by
accurate technical legal knowledge), doing right things (informed by a moral/ethical lens) and
rights-based thinking (informed by human rights). Legal literacy became an important concep-
tual underpinning for the empirical research on outcomes that was to follow.
Student satisfaction with law learning has been mixed. Wallis-Jones and Lyons (2003)
reported perceptions of law learning as highly relevant, students rating their knowledge and
skills as good; Lyons and Manion (2004) found that three-quarters of newly qualified students
173
from the Diploma in Social Work (then the initial qualification) rated their law learning as
good or excellent. The evaluation of the subsequently introduced social work degree (Evalua-
tion of Social Work Degree Qualification in England Team, 2008) found 37% of students to be
very satisfied with the law component of their programme (the third most highly rated com-
ponent), and continuing professional development programmes have been found to promote
increased understanding of and confidence in using the legal rules (Brown et al., 2008). Less
positively, practitioners have criticised the effectiveness of their law learning and reported lack
of confidence (Marsh & Triseliotis, 1996; Preston-Shoot, Roberts & Vernon, 1997); students feel
daunted by and fearful of the legal rules (Braye & Preston-Shoot et al., 2005); newly qualified
practitioners struggle with understanding legislation (Drury-Hudson et al., 1999); more experi-
enced practitioners had gaps in their knowledge (McDonald, Postle & Dawson, 2008) and found
legislation complicated and difficult to use in practice (Perkins et al., 2007; Pinkney et al., 2008).
The law knowledge review (Braye & Preston-Shoot et al., 2005) was one of a suite of knowl-
edge reviews commissioned in the early days of the social work degree from 2003, in which a
common theme was the lack of robust evidence linking pedagogy to the outcomes of learning
across the breadth of the social work curriculum.This provoked scrutiny of approaches to peda-
gogic research in social work, and a drive to improve the evidence base relating to the outcomes
of social work education (Carpenter, 2005). A strong focus was placed on approaches that would
provide evidence of outcomes with some degree of reliability in attributing outcomes to the
learning strategies employed. In the section that follows, two studies are presented that have
explicitly taken up the challenge of researching outcomes in social work education.
Empirical research into outcomes of law learning
1. A multi-site investigation of outcomes of law

learning for social work students
Mindful of Carpenter’s (2005) criticism of the lack of longitudinal research into the outcomes
of social work education, this study (Preston-Shoot & McKimm, 2012a; 2012b; Preston-Shoot,
McKimm & Thurnham, 2013) has been described as a major and rare example (Moriarty &
Manthorpe, 2014).
Nine social work programmes, five undergraduate and four postgraduate, were recruited
from seven participating universities in England and Wales. Ethical approval for the research was
obtained from each participating university. The project was funded from a Higher Education
Academy National Teaching Fellowship awarded to one of the authors (Preston-Shoot).
The study used a mixed methods approach to generate rich data, which included:
• Concept maps (visual road maps that show patterns of conceptual understanding) to cap-
ture students’ understanding and perceptions of the legal knowledge domain;
• Self-audit questionnaires, using a four-point Likert scale, to explore confidence in knowl-
edge of legal powers and duties, and skills for practising social work law, together with
understanding of the relationship between law and social work;
• Focus groups with students as each cohort progressed through their course (n = 95 students
across twelve groups);
• Interviews with social work law tutors (n = 13);
• Document analysis of module and programme handbooks to map approaches to law teach-
ing, learning and assessment.
174
Undergraduate students completed the self-audit when they joined their programme (the
baseline measure), again at the beginning of their second year of study and finally after conclud-
ing their third-year placement. Postgraduate students completed the self-audit on joining their
programme and again shortly before qualifying.This enabled change to be measured across time.
The sample consisted of 638 students (399 undergraduate and 239 postgraduate) across eleven
separate entry cohorts, representing a 68% response rate.
The self-audit questionnaires were analysed using a Fisher’s Exact Chi-Square test. The
differences between undergraduate and postgraduate students, and between universities, were
explored via two proportion z tests and one-way between-group ANOVAs.
The following themes emerged from the data.
Impact of teaching and learning

By the students’ final year there was a unidirectional change in their levels of confidence in legal
knowledge, and fewer final-year students reported moderate or considerable difficulty with skills
in using law. Often these changes were statistically significant. Perceptions of law and lawyers
also showed positive change.There were positive shifts amongst undergraduate and postgraduate
students in finding that law could support social work values. There was strong support for law
as an agent of social change but an enduring perception too that legal rules could impact nega-
tively on socially disadvantaged groups and fail to meet people’s needs. Students appreciated that
legal rules were one means of challenging inequality and protecting people at risk. However,
students did not necessarily become more positive about using law, perhaps reflecting the devel-
opment over time of more realistic expectations that other factors may limit the effectiveness
of legal rules in meeting people’s needs. High levels of anxiety remained about using legal rules
and keeping up to date.
The concept maps revealed increasing complexity across time, suggesting impact of learning
in the academic curriculum and on placement. In particular, later maps showed greater use of
legal terms, their application to social work practice and their relevance for social work roles
and professional identity.
Learning styles
Both tutors and students emphasised the importance of aligning teaching and learning with stu-
dents’ learning styles. They also stressed alignment to practice tasks so that students could make
connections to social work, perhaps via case studies and presentations. However, perhaps owing to
constraints of curriculum time, the dominant method of teaching was lectures around a common
subject core (law relating to children and families, adult social care, mental health and mental
capacity, legal systems, human rights and equality). Seminars, e-learning, interprofessional learn-
ing, courtroom workshops and case study presentations were used variably.The balance of teach-
ing and learning methods reinforced knowledge of the legal rules but appeared less satisfactory
for enabling students to develop their skills for practising social work law.There was greater vari-
ety in assessment methods, including open book examinations, case studies and report writing.
Time within the academic curriculum

Offsetting the impact of teaching is the finding that across core areas of legal knowledge, such
as powers and duties relating to child protection and adults at risk, under half of students were
175
reasonably or fully confident at the conclusion of their studies. Similarly, at the same point, over
half of surveyed students expressed difficulty instructing lawyers, challenging agency interpre-
tation and use of legal rules, and exercising lawful authority when this was in contravention
of the service user’s wishes. Over one-quarter of students expressed moderate or considerable
difficulty in other practice skills, such as report writing. Such levels of relative confidence raise
doubts about the degree to which qualifying students can advocate for and protect service
users.
The majority of programmes in the study allocated law teaching to one module in the first
year, before any exposure to practice learning and with unclear linkages into other elements of
the academic curriculum. Tutors and students did not feel that this was sufficient preparation
for legally literate practice, and it is perhaps an astonishing delusion (Kinchin & Hay, 2007) to
expect qualifying students to be competent for beginning practice when so little time is allo-
cated to such a core component of UK social work.
Overall, undergraduate students developed greater confidence in their knowledge and skills,
and reported greater movement on anxiety measures, suggesting their additional year of study
may enable them to consolidate their law learning. However, caution is necessary since students
on the two programmes where two modules were given over to law did not report greater
confidence in either their legal knowledge or skills in its application. Postgraduate students also
developed higher levels of knowledge in particular areas, such as childcare knowledge, perhaps
reflecting a greater concentration of focus in the curriculum here. Both undergraduate and
postgraduate students demonstrate greater confidence in their legal knowledge than in their
skills in its application in practice.
Practice learning
Both tutors and students were clear that the development of legal knowledge and skills was
greatly affected by the priority given to law on placement and by the support from practice
teachers when students advocated for service users. Some tutors were critical of employers for
expecting students to be compliant with organisational culture and practice rather than appro-
priately challenging local policies. Those tutors particularly emphasised their role in helping
students to appreciate the possibilities and the limitations inherent in any legal system and to
navigate the tensions when law might run up against ethical and professional principles or
organisational practices.
Curriculum documents were unclear regarding how law learning in the academic curric-
ulum was to be reinforced in practice placements. Tutors mapped a journey for students from
acquiring legal knowledge to its application in practice, but the variable use of case study dis-
cussions, using material from placements, limited their ability to help students navigate law in
practice. Nonetheless, the concept maps from final-year students showed greater familiarity with
social work practice – with links to decision-making, supervision, advocacy and prevention, for
example – and the types of difficulties that people bring to children’s and adult services.
Orientation
A distinctive orientation emerged from analysis of the curriculum documentation and inter-
views with tutors, namely a strong emphasis on social work values. From the interviews particu-
larly, tutors expressed a strong orientation towards exploring the law in practice, and this may
help to account for the shift in students’ attitudes towards the law, increasingly seeing it as less
antithetical to social work.
176
Conclusion: Legal knowledge and skills in applying it in practice are covered by initial teach-
ing but are insufficiently reinforced in the remainder of the academic curriculum or in practice.
The findings reinforce the importance of including legal knowledge and social work law skills
in development opportunities for newly qualified practitioners (for example, the assessed year
in employment scheme in England) as well as in supervision and in continuing professional
development more generally. However, research findings on the extent to which law informs
qualified practice are disappointing (Braye et al., 2013), suggesting that law knowledge and skills
domains may not easily be further developed post qualification.
2. A multi-site investigation of the outcomes of using e-learning

resources in social work law education
A mixed methods approach was used for this longitudinal study (Braye, Marrable & Preston-
Shoot, 2011, 2014). Drawing on an established research design for collaborative capacity build-
ing (Burgess & Carpenter, 2008), eight tutors from universities in England (including two facil-
itators) participated in seven learning set meetings over two and a half years to engage with
e-learning resources and evaluate the outcomes of their use in teaching. Repeat measures ques-
tionnaires coupled with individual interviews and learning set meetings were used to capture
changes in educators’ attitudes and orientations to e-learning and their experience of embed-
ding it in the law curriculum. Evaluating outcomes for students involved:
• repeat measures questionnaires, administered before and after the law teaching, measuring
students’ perceived utility of different learning modes, orientation to e-learning and knowl-
edge, confidence and skills in applying law. At the module end two measures were taken in
order to account for response shift bias: current confidence/knowledge and retrospective
views of confidence/knowledge at the start of the teaching. The findings reported below
arise from the final year of the study, when 235 matched responses were received from the
eight institutions;
• focus group discussions with each of two consecutive year student cohorts, exploring how
e-learning was used and experienced and what impact this study mode had on their learn-
ing. Between three and thirty students attended each group, with twelve groups taking
place over the two years.
Student questionnaire data were analysed using matched t-tests to identify the significance of
changes in student perceptions. Given the small size of the educators’ sample, an effect size was
calculated using a Hedges g measure, corrected for positive bias. Qualitative data were subject to
thematic analysis. Ethical approval was obtained from the university research ethics committees
of the facilitators and from the participating universities as required. The study was funded by
the Social Care Institute for Excellence, which had also funded the development of ten reusable
learning objects (Braye & Preston-Shoot, 2007), the use of which formed the backdrop for the
study. The following themes emerged from the mixed methods employed.
Educators’ capacity in using e-learning

Membership of the learning set facilitated the integration of e-learning resources within the
law curriculum, and greater confidence in their use. Some positive changes in orientation to
e-learning were identified, although educators did not always experience enjoyment and satis-
faction; the pedagogic and practice challenges of integrating this mode of learning are likely to
177
have influenced the more critical appraisal of these domains, and equally the resources them-
selves were not always viewed as well targeted on students’ learning needs.
Educators’ capacity in evaluating learning outcomes

The initial decision to use standardised instruments to measure students’ engagement with
e-learning, supplemented by questions on legal knowledge and confidence, posed a number of
challenges. It became clear that the standardised instruments were not sufficiently well calibrated
to the task, and the variation in how both they and the questions were used by learning set partic-
ipants in the different sites further compounded the difficulty of securing robust data on student
outcomes. Building on this experience, and using their developing understanding of evaluation
methods, the educators were able to develop and subsequently use a purpose-built tool.
Outcomes of students’ law learning

In relation to students’ engagement with learning technologies, the questionnaire findings
showed statistically significant increases (though with small or moderate effect size) in expe-
rience of using information technologies, attitudes to the e-learning environment and their
degree of comfort with it. The qualitative data showed that most students found e-learning
helpful and supportive of their learning, and that it offered a different and complementary learn-
ing experience – “a side order with the main meal”. E-learning was valued for its accessibility
and for its use of visual, interactive and layered elements to render complexity comprehensible.
It was most valued when use of the resources was guided by tutors rather than self-directed,
and was integrated within an overall learning strategy that retained more traditional modes of
delivery such as lectures, notes and reading.
Turning to students’ knowledge, confidence and skills in using law, the questionnaire find-
ings demonstrate positive impacts. Confidence in learning and practising within the legal rules
showed statistically significant improvement (with a stronger effect size when the retrospective
score was applied), as did their estimation of the importance of law for social work. Perceptions
of knowledge and skills showed statistically significant improvements, with a particularly strong
effect size when the retrospective measure was applied. It is not possible, however, from the
quantitative data, to attribute these impacts to e-learning in particular, and while the qualitative
data provide insights into students’ experience of gaining in authority, accountability and legit-
imacy through acquiring legal knowledge, this reflects their experience of their law learning as
a whole.
Synthesis of key messages for evidence-informed pedagogy

This final section brings together a range of insights about research and scholarship in law
learning for social work students, covering both pedagogic insights about teaching law to social
workers and methodological insights about researching outcomes.
Pedagogic insights about teaching law to social workers

The early conceptual development about the three domains of legal literacy (Braye & Preston-
Shoot, 2006) – technical, ethical and rights-based – provides a framework for understanding
the implications of the empirical findings. The way in which tutors construct and present the
law/social work relationship, and in particular the linkages between law and social work values,
178
appears to impact on how social work students perceive the legal rules. A focus on a technical
approach to teaching law does enable students to develop confidence in their detailed knowl-
edge of the legal rules. Equally, a focus on professional values and on how law promotes rights
both emerge strongly as influential in encouraging students to engage critically with the legal
rules and to understand their integration within professional practice. Significantly, tutor sup-
port, expertise and enthusiasm for the subject are key factors in stimulating students’ learning.
The timing of law learning, how it is then reinforced through the remainder of the academic
curriculum and how it is developed during practice placements are challenges that need to be
addressed. Students have to grasp a basic understanding of the law very quickly, and the lack of
curriculum time constrains how law is taught, how scenarios drawn from practice are worked
through, and how students perceive the development of their legal knowledge and skills in its
application. Students also continue to critique the availability of law learning in practice; this is
seen as a site of challenge, and further development of law learning in the practicum remains a
priority.
In learning about a subject experienced as difficult, as is law, a range of learning modes is
particularly beneficial, enabling students to approach the topic using different learning styles,
and learning to be reinforced and consolidated through diversity of modes. Indeed it is arguably
the blend of approaches – taught input, independent study using a range of media, e-learning
resources, group discussion, practice scenarios, and so forth – that contributes to positive learn-
ing outcomes. Students benefit from independent study and from use of resources such as
e-learning when these are integrated within an overall law learning strategy under the direction
of the tutor; law is such unfamiliar territory, particularly in the early stages of study, that clear
pathways and guidance through the material are important. It is important to offer a staged
learning journey, with the stages of learning related both to the student’s progression through
two or three years of study and to the complexity of learning expected at any one level. Thus,
in the early stages foundations need to be laid, with the focus on achieving understanding of
key concepts, core powers and duties, and clear lines of application to practice. Later will follow
greater technical detail, further depth of understanding, critical appraisal of the legal rules and
more sophisticated argumentation about options, as students are able to integrate their greater
understanding of practice. Thus, the same elements of law may be visited at each stage of learn-
ing, building greater complexity through the hierarchies of understanding.
Methodological insights about researching outcomes

Both the empirical studies described in this chapter used mixed methods, seeking to opera-
tionalise calls for more robust evidence of outcomes as well as understanding of processes. The
knowledge/confidence/skills elements of the questionnaires drew on notions of self-efficacy –
that belief in one’s ability to carry out a particular task (here to apply the law to practice) deter-
mines one’s approach to and potential success in that task. Thus changes in students’ confidence
in their legal knowledge and in its application were appropriate elements to measure. Quinney
and Parker (2010) have found self-efficacy scales similarly useful in evaluating the outcomes of
research teaching for social work students and conclude that they make a valuable contribution
to the task of evaluating the effectiveness of learning and teaching.
The longitudinal nature of study 1 demonstrated the feasibility, in terms of Carpenter’s
(2005) typology of four levels at which the outcomes of learning might be evaluated, of moving
significantly beyond level one (reaction to learning experience and satisfaction with training) to
level two (modification in attitudes and perceptions, and acquisition of knowledge and skills).
It illustrated also the potential to capture level three data (implementation of learning in the
179
workplace), but in the framework of the study this is implicit in the self-audit results since stu-
dents were not followed into placement or subsequently into practice as qualified social workers.
In study 2, the standardised, validated questionnaires used to measure change in educa-
tors’ and students’ orientation to e-learning – a decision originally designed to ensure robust
findings – proved not to be the most effective tool. In contrast, the qualitative data showed that
the learning set approach to facilitating collaborative capacity building for the educators pro-
duced good outcomes as perceived by those involved; it was a constructive and empowering
experience, and stimulated expertise and confidence in enhanced pedagogic strategies for law
learning. The student questionnaires provided data on the impact of law learning in general, but
it proved difficult to isolate the specific contribution of e-learning. Again, this emerged more
clearly from the focus group discussions.
Both studies draw power from the data having been generated across several universities,
using relatively large samples. Students were not responding to their own tutors, which may
have encouraged more open and critical reflections. However, in study 1, rather than tracking
each individual student’s journey over time, data are presented at cohort level. Students may
have experienced completion of the research instruments as an additional burden, and equally,
workload demands experienced by tutors meant that not all student cohorts were successfully
engaged throughout the duration of this study. These factors may help to explain some attrition
between baseline and final-year measures. A further cross-site challenge in study 2 was ensuring
consistency across institutions in the use of the student questionnaire. It was only in the third
year that sufficient consistency was achieved to provide reliable results. At that point the intro-
duction of a retrospective measure of Time 1 perceptions at Time 2, to account for response
shift bias (Sprangers & Schwartz, 1999), proved a useful means of gaining a more robust picture
of the impact of teaching.
The concept maps used in study 1 to explore students’ perceptions of the law/social work
relationship illustrated students’ evolving understanding of a knowledge domain and allowed the
impact of teaching and learning to be seen graphically. Operating as visual road maps “intended
to represent meaning relationships between concepts in the form of propositions” (Novak & Gowin,
1984: 15), concept maps have been used elsewhere in social work education research (Anghel,
Fox & Warnes, 2010) to explore students’ conceptual understanding. In the present study the
students completing them could not, as self-selected participants, be seen as representative of
their cohorts, and resources did not allow individual student data from the concept maps and
the self-audit questionnaire to be triangulated.
Overall, the mixed methods enabled an exploration of students’ perceptions of their law
learning across knowledge, skills and attitude dimensions, and measurement of change over time,
with self-audit proving an appropriate method for exploring confidence and proxy measure
of the effectiveness of teaching and learning (Carpenter, 2005). Both studies demonstrate that
teaching and learning does have an impact on affective, knowledge and skills domains and that
it is possible to design outcome studies to generate quality evidence about effectiveness of social
work education. However, such studies take time and require resources and support from a wide
range of colleagues to render them robust.
Future research priorities emerge clearly from the current picture of research and scholarship
in law learning for social work students. The design of the studies reported here did not cap-
ture any link between student responses to teaching and learning and the outcomes of formal
summative assessments. Equally, the voice of practice assessors, social work managers and service
users was not captured in these two studies. A priority for subsequent studies is to ascertain how
service users perceive the development of students’ social work law knowledge and practice
skills, following on from the service users and carers involved in the original knowledge review
180
(Braye & Preston-Shoot et al., 2005), who felt strongly that “sound use of law is one step on the way
of getting things right for people.” Finally, the future research agenda could very usefully develop
methodologies to explore whether and how law learning in social work education actually
translates into practice following qualification and how ultimately it benefits service users.
References
Anghel, R., Fox, J., & Warnes, M. (2010). An exploration of concept mapping as a method of evaluating
student learning in social work. In H. Burgess, & J. Carpenter (Eds.), The outcomes of social work education:
Developing evaluation methods (pp. 34–50). Southampton: HEA Subject Centre for Social Policy and
Social Work.
Ball, C., Harris, R., Roberts, G., & Vernon, S. (1988). The law report: Teaching and assessment of law in social
work education. London: CCETSW.
Blom-Cooper, L. J. (1985). A child in trust: The report of the panel of inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the
death of Jasmine Beckford. London: London Borough of Brent.
Braye, S., & Preston-Shoot, M. (1990). On teaching and applying the law in social work: It is not that sim-
ple. British Journal of Social Work, 20(4), 333–353.
Braye, S., & Preston-Shoot, M. (1991). On acquiring law competence for social work: Teaching, practice
and assessment. Social Work Education, 10(1), 12–29.
Braye, S., & Preston-Shoot, M. (with Cull, L-A., John, R. and Roche, J.) (2005). Knowledge review: Teaching,
learning and assessment of law in social work education. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Braye, S., & Preston-Shoot, M. (2006). Teaching, learning and assessment of law in social work education: A resource
guide. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Braye, S., & Preston-Shoot, M. (2007). Ten e-learning objects on social work and law. London: Social Care
Institute for Excellence.
Braye, S., & Preston-Shoot, M. (2010). Practising social work law (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Braye, S., Marrable, T., & Preston-Shoot, M. (2011). Law learning in action: An action learning project to evaluate
processes and outcomes of using law e-learning objects in social work education. London: Social Care Institute
for Excellence.
Braye, S., Marrable, T., & Preston-Shoot, M. (2014). Building collaborative capacity for using and evalu-
ating the impact of e-learning in social work education: The case of law. Social Work Education, 33(6),
835–853.
Braye, S., Preston-Shoot, M., & Thorpe, A. (2007). Beyond the classroom: Learning social work law in
practice. Journal of Social Work, 7(3), 322–340.
Braye, S., Preston-Shoot, M., & Wigley,V. (2013). Deciding to use the law in social work practice. Journal of
Social Work, 13(1), 75–95.
Brown, K., McCloskey, C., Gulpin, D., Keen, S., & Immins, T. (2008). Evaluating the impact of post-quali-
fying social work education. Social Work Education, 27(8), 853–867.
Burgess, H., & Carpenter, J. (2008). Building capacity and capability for evaluating the outcomes of social
work education (the OSWE project): Creating a culture change. Social Work Education, 27(8), 898–912.
Butler-Sloss, E. (1988). Report of the inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland. London: HMSO.
Carpenter, J. (2005). Evaluating outcomes in social work education. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
CCETSW (1995). Assuring quality in the Diploma in Social Work – 1. Rules and requirements for the DipSW.
London: Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.
CCW (2012). The framework for the degree in social work in Wales. Cardiff: Care Council for Wales.
DH (2002). Requirements for social work training. London: Department of Health.
DHSS (1982). Child abuse: A study of inquiry reports, 1973–1981. London: HMSO.
DHSS (1985). Social work decisions in child care. London: HMSO.
DHSSPS (2003). Framework specification for the degree in social work. Belfast: Department of Health, Social
Services and Public Safety.
Drury-Hudson, J. (1999). Decision-making in child protection: The use of theoretical, empirical and pro-
cedural knowledge by novices and experts and implications for fieldwork placement. British Journal of
Social Work, 29(1), 147–169.
Evaluation of Social Work Degree Qualification in England Team (2008). Evaluation of the new social work
degree qualification in England:Volume 1 – findings. London: Kings College London Social Care Workforce
Research Unit.
181
HCPC (2012). Standards of proficiency – social workers in England. London: Health and Care Professions
Council.
Kinchin, I., & Hay, D. (2007). The myth of the research-led teacher. Teachers and Teaching:Theory and Practice,
13(1), 43–61.
Laming, Lord (2003). The Victoria Climbié inquiry: Report of an inquiry by Lord Laming. London: The Station-
ery Office.
London Borough of Greenwich (1987). A child in mind: Report of the commission of inquiry into the circum-
stances surrounding the death of Kimberley Carlile. London: London Borough of Greenwich.
Lyons, K., & Manion, H. (2004). Goodbye DipSW: Trends in student satisfaction and employment out-
comes – some implications for the new award. Social Work Education, 23(2), 133–148.
Marsh, P., & Triseliotis, J. (1996). Ready to practise? Social workers and probation officers: Their training and first
year of practice. Aldershot: Avebury.
McDonald, A., Postle, K., & Dawson, C. (2008). Barriers to retaining and using professional knowledge in
local authority social work practice with adults in the UK. British Journal of Social Work, 38(7), 1370–1387.
Moriarty, J., & Manthorpe, J. (2014). Controversy in the curriculum: What do we know about the content
of the social work qualifying curriculum in England? Social Work Education, 33(1), 77–90.
NISCC (2003). Framework specification for the degree in social work. Belfast: Northern Ireland Social Care
Council/Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
Novak, J., & Gowin, B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perkins, N., Penhale, B., Reid, D., Pinkney, L., Hussein, S., & Manthorpe, J. (2007). Partnership means pro-
tection? Perceptions of the effectiveness of multi-agency working and the regulatory framework within
adult protection in England and Wales. Journal of Adult Protection, 9, 9–23.
Pinkney, L., Penhale, B., Manthorpe, J., Perkins, N., Reid, D., & Hussein, S. (2008).Voices from the frontline:
Social work practitioners’ perceptions of multi-agency working in adult protection in England and
Wales. Journal of Adult Protection, 10, 12–24.
Preston-Shoot, M., & McKimm, J. (2012a). Tutor and student experiences of teaching and learning law in
UK social work education. Social Work Education, 31(7), 896–913.
Preston-Shoot, M., & McKimm, J. (2012b). Perceptions of readiness for legally literate practice: A longitu-
dinal study of social work student views. Social Work Education, 31(8), 1071–1089.
Preston-Shoot, M., McKimm, J., & Thurnham, A. (2013). Outcomes of law teaching in social work educa-
tion: Further findings from a cohort study. Social Work Education, 32(5), 607–625.
Preston-Shoot, M., Roberts, G., & Vernon, S. (1997). ‘We work in isolation often and in ignorance occa-
sionally’: On the experiences of practice teachers teaching and assessing social work law. Social Work
Education, 16(4), 4–34.
QAA (2000). Subject benchmark statements: Social policy and administration and social work. Gloucester: The
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
QAA (2008). Subject benchmark statements: Social work. Gloucester:The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher
Education.
Quinney, A., & Parker, J. (2010). Developing self-efficacy in research skills: Becoming research minded.
In H. Burgess, & J. Carpenter (Eds.), The outcomes of social work education: Developing evaluation methods
(pp. 16–25). Southampton: HEA Subject Centre for Social Policy and Social Work.
Scottish Executive (2003). The framework for social work education in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Scottish Government (2011). Practice governance framework: Responsibility and accountability in social work prac-
tice. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.
Skills for Care and Development (2011). National occupational standards for social work. London: UK Com-
mission for Education and Skills.
Sprangers, M. A. G., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life
research: A theoretical model. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1507–1515.
Stevenson, O. (1986). Guest editorial on the Jasmine Beckford enquiry. British Journal of Social Work, 16,
501–510.
Stevenson, O. (1988). Law and social work education: A commentary on the law report. Issues in Social Work
Education, 8, 37–45.
TCSW (2012). Professional capabilities framework. London: The College of Social Work.
Vernon, S., Harris, R., & Ball, C. (1990). Towards social work law: Legally competent professional practice.
CCESTSW paper 4.2. London: Central Council for Education & Training in Social Work.
Wallis-Jones, M., & Lyons, K. (2003). The 2001 employment survey: Newly qualified social workers – research
report for the Department of Health. Dagenham: University of East London.
182
16
EVALUATING THE OUTCOMES
OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
John Carpenter
Introduction
This chapter presents a framework for identifying different levels of outcomes for social work
education from learners’ experiences, attitudes, skills and knowledge, through behavioural change
to impacts on organisations and service users. It presents examples of different approaches to
the measurement of outcomes and to the use of research designs in social work education.
The advantages and disadvantages of different research designs are discussed. Some practicalities
concerning the development of an outcomes-based evaluation culture in university-based edu-
cation are considered.
Learning outcomes
The first step in designing an evaluation of the outcomes of social work education, whether a
pre-qualifying programme or post-qualifying continuing professional development, is to define
the intended outcomes.The best-known and most widely used classification of educational out-
comes was devised by Kirkpatrick (1967). This model defined four levels of outcomes: learners’
reactions to the educational experience; learning, conceptualised mainly as the acquisition of
knowledge and skills; behaviour change, including the application of learning to the work set-
ting; and results, assessed in relation to intended outcomes. It was elaborated by Barr et al. (2000)
for a review of interprofessional education in order to include the modification of attitudes as
a learning outcome and to divide ‘results’ into change in organisational practice and benefits to
patients/clients. A generalised version is shown in Table 16.1.
As the framework suggests, learning is conceptualised both as a response to positive reactions
to training and as a causal determinant of changes in the trainee’s behaviour. The advantages
of Kirkpatrick’s model are that it focuses attention on different levels of evaluation and implies
that a comprehensive approach should be concerned with all these levels. Thus, it is insufficient
to evaluate social work education according to whether or not the students enjoyed the pres-
entations and found them informative, or to assume that it is adequate to establish that students
acquired particular skills – in communication, for example – without investigating whether
or not they were able to transfer those skills to practice. Further, since the ultimate purpose is
to benefit service users and/or carers, a comprehensive evaluation should ideally ask whether
training has made any difference to their lives.
183
John Carpenter
Table 16.1 L
evels of outcomes of educational programmes (Carpenter, 2011, after Kirkpatrick, 1967, and
Barr et al., 2000)
Level 1 Learners’ reactions Participants’ views of their learning experience and

satisfaction with the training
Level 2a Modification in attitudes and Changes in attitudes or perceptions towards other
perceptions professionals, service users and carers, their problems
and needs, circumstances and care
Level 2b Acquisition of knowledge and The concepts, procedures and principles of working
skills with service users and carers, and the acquisition
of thinking/problem solving, assessment and
intervention skills
Level 3a Changes in behaviour The implementation of learning from an educational
programme into practice, prompted by modifications
in attitudes or the application of newly acquired
knowledge and skills
Level 3b Changes in organisational Wider changes in the organisation/delivery of care,
practice attributable to an education programme
Level 4 Benefits to users and carers Any improvements in the well-being and quality of life
of people who are using services, and their carers,
which may be attributed to an education programme
In an earlier scoping study conducted on this topic by Carpenter (2011), it was possible to
determine that three-quarters of English-language outcome studies evaluated changes in atti-
tudes (2a) and/or knowledge and skills (2b) only. Fewer than a quarter attempted to measure
changes in behaviour, all using simulations rather than actual practice. Just one measured changes
in service users’ lives, employing validated measures.
Specifying and measuring learning outcomes

Having identified the levels of intended outcomes, we can consider how changes can be meas-
ured. I applied an elaborated Kirkpatrick model to social work education in Carpenter (2005),
which drew on work by Kraiger, Ford, and Salas (1993), who distinguished between cognitive,
skill-based and affective outcomes in Kirkpatrick’s level 2. I gave examples, ranging from basic
skills to higher-level compilation skills and considered how they could be measured (Table 16.2).
Cognitive skills
Kraiger et al. (1993) classified cognitive skills as verbal (declarative) knowledge, knowledge organ-
isation and cognitive strategies. For example, a student on an interviewing skills course with
declarative knowledge should be able to define a concept such as ‘active listening’.This outcome
can be measured in written or multiple choice tests (e.g. Freeman & Morris, 1999).
The next level is ‘procedural’ knowledge – that used in the performance of a task, as organised
into a mental map; the more developed the knowledge, the more complex (interrelated) the
mental map. This ‘internalisation’ of knowledge is conventionally assessed by academic essays,
although this procedure is probably not reliable and is unrealistic as an outcome measure; stu-
dents will not want to write the same assignment at the start and finish of a module.
‘Concept mapping’, in which students are asked to link a series of concepts in relation to a
particular topic, shows promise (e.g. Anghel, Fox & Warnes, 2010; Webber et al., 2010). Students
184
Evaluating social work education
Table 16.2 Knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour: measuring learning outcomes (from Carpenter, 2011)
Dimension Levels Measurement
Cognitive Declarative (verbal knowledge) MCQs; short exam questions

Procedural (knowledge Concept mapping; vignettes
organisation)
Strategic (planning, task judgement) Reflections on simulated interviews with
‘standardised clients’ (OSCE)
Skills Initial skill Self-ratings; observer ratings (scales)
Compilation of skills Observer ratings of DVDs of communication
skills; self-rating of competences
Advanced skills (automaticity) Observation (e.g. of assessment interviews)
Affective Attitudes to users; values Attitude scales
Motivational outcomes; self-efficacy Self-ratings; confidence ratings
Behaviour Implementation of learning (and Self-report; practice teacher/manager report;
barriers) rating scales
Impact Outcomes for users and carers User-defined scales; self-esteem and
empowerment; measures of social
functioning, mental health, quality of life,
child behaviour, etc.
are first trained in the method and then, before the teaching and without the help of books or
papers, are asked individually to draw a map of their existing knowledge. Visually, differences
between maps drawn at T1 and T2 can be impressive; they can be scored in terms of their struc-
tural and relational qualities (Anghel et al., 2010).
Procedural knowledge may also be tested using written vignettes, specially designed outline
case studies. Trained raters can score students’ written responses, e.g. in relation to ‘criticality’
(MacIntyre et al., 2011). Similarly, in a times-series design, Lefevre (2015) rated responses using
a taxonomy of core capabilities for effective communication with children and young people
which had been derived from a systematic review.
Once knowledge has been internalised, we can think strategically about its use, a process known
as ‘metacognition’. Strategic skills include planning, monitoring and revising. An example of higher-
level skills would be reflecting on the process of an interview with a family group so as to modify
the worker’s alliances with different family members and also think about the overall direction of
the interview, while at the same time engaging (cognitively) in active listening with the person
who is talking. These are not easy to measure in direct practice, but Bogo et al. (2012) reported
that students’ written reflections on their performance in a simulated interview with an actor,
the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) adapted for social work, can be assessed
reliably using rating scales. This procedure has not yet been used to measure outcomes over time,
but it does distinguish between students and experienced social workers and the potential is there.
Skills
Kraiger et al. (1993) posited three levels of skills: initial skill acquisition; skill compilation, or the
grouping of skills into fluid behaviour; and, through practice, ‘automaticity’. Automaticity enables
you to accomplish a task without having to think about it consciously and to complete another
task at the same time. A familiar example is learning to drive a car; at the third level you are able
to talk to passengers while monitoring road conditions, change gears and react to sudden hazards.
185
John Carpenter
Nerdrum (1997) measured initial skill acquisition. Student social workers were invited to sug-
gest helpful answers to ten videotaped statements from ‘simulated clients’. The students’ written
responses were then rated by researchers using a standardised measure of ‘empathic understanding’.
More directly, observer rating of students’ communication skills in simulated interviews
offers a method for measuring initial and compilation skills. Bogo et al. (2012) demonstrated
that skills such as the ability to develop a collaborative relationship with service users and com-
pilation skills such as assessment and goal-setting can be reliably rated in the social work OSCE.
There was a reasonable correlation between these ratings and those of fieldwork teachers in the
practicum.1
Evaluators have also measured compilation skills by asking students to self-rate their compe-
tence. For example, Wong and Lam (2005) developed the Competence and Aptitude in Social
Work Scale (CASWS) to assess self-perception of skills and also knowledge and values. CASWS
has good internal reliability, and the skills and values subscale scores correlated significantly with
course marks, demonstrating concurrent reliability.
Not surprisingly, the measurement of the highest level of skill development, automaticity,
poses significant problems, even when attempting to assess apparently straightforward tasks such
as computer programming. Possibly the best indication of automaticity in social work is when
students appear, to a trained observer, to have stopped monitoring their own behaviour in the
accomplishment of a high-level task, or report less conscious awareness of their own actions.
There were no examples in literature searched.
Affective (attitudinal) outcomes

Affectively based outcomes include attitudes and values and commitment to organisational
goals. These are conventionally measured by means of standardised self-rating scales. For exam-
ple, Forrester et al. (2008) used the Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Perceptions Questionnaire to
measure the attitudinal outcomes of a course in motivational interviewing.
Kraiger and colleagues (1993) also proposed motivational outcomes, an example of which might
be a greater determination to change one’s own behaviour in response to learning about racism.
Related to this is the idea of ‘self-efficacy’; that is the (realistic) feeling of confidence that you
have the ability to carry out a particular task in particular circumstances. Holden and colleagues
have pioneered self-efficacy as an outcome measure in social work, developing self-rating scales
measuring self-efficacy in hospital social work, evaluation and, most recently, general social work
competencies as defined by the US Council on Social Work Education (Holden et al., 2015).
Self-efficacy scales have become very popular because they can quite easily be adapted to the
measurement of confidence in the evaluation of programme modules such as communication
with children (Lefevre, 2015) and practice learning (Parker, 2006) as well as short courses for
qualified social workers (Scourfield et al., 2012).
Note that self-efficacy is categorised here as an affective rather than a behavioural outcome.
This is because a person’s confidence may be misplaced if they underestimated the difficulty
of performing the task. In a longitudinal study, Carpenter et al. (2015) invited newly qualified
social workers after three months of practice to make confidential retrospective assessments of
their baseline self-efficacy (“If I knew then what I know now.”); they gave themselves statistically
significantly lower ratings, indicating that they had not appreciated difficulties in practice. Reas-
suringly, participants’ three-month self-efficacy ratings turned out to be remarkably consistent
with independent ratings made by their supervisors on an equivalent efficacy scale assessing the
same outcomes. Nevertheless, self-ratings of motivation and self-efficacy are not as convincing
as actual changes in behaviour.
186
Changes in behaviour
How can we know whether learning has been implemented? Most studies have relied on follow-
up surveys using postal questionnaires or interviews, and in some cases both. Wehrmann, Shin,
and Poertner (2002) asked trainees to rate their acquisition and use of skills (as defined in the
course learning outcomes) at the end of a course and again six months later; however, without
a baseline (pre-course) measure it is not possible to know whether the trainees had gained in
skills overall.
The evaluation of changes in behaviour is most straightforward when there is clear evi-
dence as to whether the trainee carried out the learned behaviour or not. For example, Platt
(2011) evaluated a CPD course designed to promote critical analysis in social work assessments.
A bespoke self-efficacy questionnaire had shown statistically significant improvement in ratings
at the end of the course, with a small (non-significant) reduction at three months follow-up.
However, a structured assessment and scoring of the participants’ actual assessment reports found
no overall evidence of improvements.
This approach would however be more difficult to apply with pre-qualifying social work
students. First, unlike practitioners, it may not be possible to measure a behavioural baseline if
the programme design involves students being taught a skill and then going into practice place-
ments. Second, it might be difficult to implement the method of working because of organisa-
tional constraints. For example, it would be possible to collect evidence that students were using
task-centred casework as taught in the programme (e.g. written, signed contracts with service
users’ goals and tasks, tape recordings). However, a particular student’s failure to implement the
method may have more to do with the practice agency’s function or management than any lack
of learning on the part of the student.
Impact: outcomes for service users and carers

Outcomes for service users and carers are generally considered in terms of changes in such
factors as the quality of life, skills and behaviour, self-esteem and levels of stress (level 4).
Standardised instruments have been developed to assess these factors, although there are few
examples in the literature. Carpenter, Barnes and Dickinson (2006) evaluated the outcomes
for service users of a two-year postgraduate programme in community mental health using
measures of mental health, life skills and social functioning, and psychiatric symptoms of users.
These were taken over six months and compared to a control group, demonstrating positive
changes overall.
Research designs
Having identified outcomes and measures, the next challenge is to develop experimental or
quasi-experimental designs which are feasible to employ in the evaluation of social work edu-
cation. Potential designs are summarised in Table 16.3.
Post-test only
The most common form of evaluation in social work education is almost certainly the comple-
tion of feedback questionnaires at the end of the course or programme. Such a ‘post-only’ design
is useful as formative feedback to the educators, but in the absence of baseline data it cannot tell
us about the outcomes. Other designs should be preferred.
187
John Carpenter
Table 16.3 Possible research designs for assessing outcomes (from Carpenter, 2011)
Design Comment
1 Follow-up (post-test): single group Useful as formative feedback to the trainers, but cannot
inform outcomes.
2 ‘Before and after’: single group Quite commonly used, but outcomes cannot be ascribed
exclusively to the training intervention
3 Pre-test, post-test: two groups Natural comparison groups can be used. Random allocation
preferable.
4 Repeated measures, two groups Students randomly assigned to two groups, both of which
get the intervention at different times. But requires three
measurements.
5 Times series: one group Requires multiple, unobtrusive observations rather than
formal tests.
6 Single-subject experiments Requires repeated measures of the same person before,
during and after the intervention. Small samples.
Pre-test, post-test
This is the ‘entry level’ design which, in practice, means asking students to complete the same
questionnaire, respond to the same vignette or take part in a similar interview, on two occasions.
This is not particularly difficult once a suitable measure has been chosen.
Persuading students to complete measures on two occasions does not seem to be difficult if
the baseline measure (T1) is presented as part of the introduction to the course. Knowledge tests
and attitude questionnaires are simple to administer in this way. Students are generally willing to
complete the measure again at T2 as part of a course review, so long as there is time to do this in
the final session itself and students hand in their forms before leaving the session. For example,
Carpenter and Hewstone (1996) measured changes in social work and medical students’ inter-
professional stereotypes over a short IPE programme.This latter study also asked students to rate
how interesting and useful they had found the course and, because it had also asked about the
students’ expectations at T1, the evaluators were able to put the feedback into perspective. For
instance, they concluded that some participants’ experiences were quite positive given their low
expectations; further, because there were two distinct groups of participants, two-factor analysis
of variance could be employed to distinguish the differential effects of the programme on the
medical and social work students.
The limitation of simple pre/post designs, however, is that any changes observed cannot be
ascribed exclusively to the training intervention. For example, improvements may in part be
attributed to ‘maturational effects’, i.e. a general increase in knowledge, skills and improvement
in attitudes as a consequence of being engaged in professional training. They may be an arte-
fact of practice in completing the measures; for example, thinking more about the answers to
questions about knowledge or appreciating the socially desirable responses in attitude scales.
Consequently, it is preferable to introduce a control group.
Pre-test, post-test: two groups

To be confident that differences between T1 and T2 scores may be attributed to the educational
intervention, we need a no-intervention control group. This is equivalent in design terms to
188
making a comparison between two different methods of intervention. Ideally, the participants
are selected randomly for one of the two interventions, as in the post-test, two group design
described above; this is a ‘true’ experiment. However, ‘quasi-experimental’ designs are generally
easier to accomplish. Here, seemingly equivalent groups which experience different interven-
tions are compared in terms of outcomes.
Nerdrum (1997) compared approaches to training in empathy skills by examining outcomes
for students on different social work degree programmes in Norway.This approach is potentially
very useful for two main reasons. First, it eliminates the problem of some students on a particu-
lar programme feeling that they are getting a ‘worse’ educational intervention than colleagues
on the same programme; all get the same intervention. Second, the sample sizes generated for
statistical analysis will be much larger if two, or more, whole programmes participate than if one
programmes’ students are divided into two groups. This increases the possibility that the analysis
will have sufficient statistical power to detect differences between the two interventions.
There are a number of aspects of comparative, between-programme evaluations which
must be taken into account. The first, and most obvious, is that the student groups must be
closely matched in terms of prior education and social work experience. It is probably safest
to consider comparison groups as being ‘non-equivalent’ and to test statistically for socio-
demographic differences such as age. There may be differences in the baseline scores on the
outcome variables (test scores), i.e. one group performing better on average than the other
at T1. In this case, it is possible to adjust statistically for these differences by using analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA).
Another factor in cross-programme comparisons is the timing of the interventions; com-
paring first- and second-year students would not be useful. A factor that is more difficult to
standardise for is the teacher: some educators are more inspirational or technically proficient
than others. It would therefore be relevant to ask students to rate the trainer’s competence; if
there was an apparent difference in the ratings made by the students on different programmes,
the potential impact on learning outcomes could be checked.
There were no examples of randomised controlled trials of educational interventions in
social work education, and there are very few examples in health and medical education. Again,
difficulty with the assignment of students to groups is probably an important factor.
However, an instructive example of an approach which could be used in social work educa-
tion was published by Cook et al. (1995). They evaluated a two-day programme on community
development for mental health professionals in the US. They used a variation on the pre-test,
post-test two groups design to assess the trainees’ attitudes towards people with mental illness in
the roles of service recipient, service deliverer and trainer.Trainees received the same training on
the first day, delivered by someone who was not a user of mental health services. On the second
day the trainees were randomly assigned to receive training from either a service user or a trainer
who did not have direct experience of using mental health services. There is no mention of the
trainees’ response to being assigned in this way.
Trainees completed two attitude questionnaires before the first day of training and again at
the end of the programme. The authors reported that, compared to those who had been trained
by a non-user, those who were trained by the user trainer expressed more positive attitudes
towards people with mental illness overall. However, this study, although strong in terms of
experimental design, illustrates some of the problems of interpretation of findings. The positive
change in attitudes reported could be due to the trainees having a different trainer on the second
day of the programme. Alternatively, it could be due to some other personal characteristic of the
trainer, as opposed to their status simply as a user of mental health services; thus, the generalisa-
tions that can be drawn from the study are limited.
189
John Carpenter
Waiting list controls with repeated measures

If it is unreasonable or impossible to deny training to a control group, a ‘waiting list’ control
may be acceptable. Here, all participants are given a baseline assessment (T1) and then divided
at random into two groups (Table 16.4). Group 1 receives the intervention, for example a
three-week intensive module in communication and interviewing skills, and all members are
reassessed at the end (T2). Group 2, the (waiting list) controls then start their course and are
assessed at the beginning (T2) and the end (T3). Group 1 students are also reassessed at T3. If
the training was successful, we would expect a greater improvement in mean scores between
T1 and T2 for Group 1 than for Group 2 (we might anticipate some improvement in Group
2 because of practice effects and other generalised learning on the programme). However, we
would expect a greater increase in mean scores in Group 2 between T2 and T3, that is while they
were receiving the training, than for Group 1 (although once again we might anticipate a fur-
ther small improvement in this group on account of continued non-specific learning). If these
assumptions proved correct, we could reasonably conclude that there was consistent evidence of
improvement associated with the training.
A more manageable approach in terms of measures would employ ‘counterbalancing’. Here
the participants would be randomised into two groups. Group 1 would be trained in Method A,
for example brief solution-focused interventions, while at the same time Group 2 would learn
Method B, for example group work. Then, the groups would cross over, with Group 2 learning
Method A and Group 1 learning Method B. Both groups would be assessed at the end of each
module. This approach aims, through randomisation, to deal with ‘order effects’, associated with
practice and generalisation of learning on the one hand and fatigue on the other. Despite the
advantages of this design, it does not appear in the literature, possibly because it appears com-
plex and statistical analysis demands slightly more sophisticated analysis of variance techniques.
However, training small groups of students in intervention methods seems to be quite common
on social work programmes, and there may be potential for the use of this design.
Time series designs

Time series designs do not require a control group. Instead they need multiple measures of the
group members who receive the educational intervention, including multiple baseline meas-
ures. Conclusions about the effects of the intervention are based on an analysis of trends before,
during and after the intervention. In more sophisticated designs, the intervention is withdrawn
and subsequently reintroduced and the effects noted.They are often employed in the assessment
of interventions for people with severe learning disabilities, but there is no reason why they
should not also be used in the evaluation of students trained to use these methods. The focus
in this case would be on the students’ behaviour. In this approach, the numbers of participants
need only be few.The argument about the effect of a training intervention relies on the repeated
Table 16.4 E
xample of a ‘waiting list’ controlled design for the evaluation of a training intervention (from
Carpenter, 2005)
T1 (Baseline) 3 weeks T2 3 weeks T3
Group 1 Assessment Training intervention Assessment Other studies Assessment

Group 2 Assessment Other studies Assessment Training intervention Assessment
190
demonstration of the same pattern in a small number of individual case studies rather than the
aggregated measure of a group. There were no examples of these designs in the literature.
A variant is the double baseline with follow-up group design. Here participants are asked to
complete the measures on four occasions: T0, at course registration (some weeks in advance),
the start (T1) and end (T2) of the course; and some weeks later (T3). The hypothesis is that
pre-training, there would be no change in ratings between T0 and T1; at the end of the course
(T2) any change scores compared to T1 could be attributed to the training; finally, T3 ratings
would indicate whether or not learning had been sustained, although collecting these can be
difficult (Szilassy et al., 2014).
Practical considerations
This section reviews some practical considerations, including how to engage students and ser-
vice users, how evaluation might be linked to assessment and the potential for collaboration
between programmes.
Engaging students
It is both desirable in practice and essential for ethical reasons to engage students in the sys-
tematic evaluation of their own learning. The first step can be to involve student representatives
with staff in an advisory group, where they can be engaged in discussions about the desirability
and feasibility of the various approaches under consideration. They will want to consider the
implications for their time and their learning and to be confident that the findings will be
used appropriately. Thus, they might be engaged if they considered that the findings would be
reported carefully to them as individuals as well as to the group and that they could use the
information to monitor their own performance and learn how to improve. Similarly, students
could be interested in the systematic collection of self-report data for use in the portfolios which
are required on many programmes. These could include ratings of self-efficacy in a range of
relevant practice skills.
Test results, e.g. MCQs, concept mapping scores and observer ratings of communication skills
DVDs could all be used in this way. In some cases students could score these tests themselves,
or if they completed a test (e.g. a case study simulation or knowledge test) on a computer, the
programme could generate an automatic individual score while feeding an anonymous score
to a database for group analysis. If the results are to be used in summative as well as formative
assessment, the measures could be included in the range of assessment methods which feed into
the overall score for a course module.
The experience from the Outcomes of Social Work Education (OSWE) project was that
response rates were high when students were required to participate in the measurement of their
performance for formative and/or summative assessment purposes and given the opportunity
of opting out of the evaluation.
Involving service users and carers

Many of the same arguments may be applied to the involvement of service user and carer con-
sultants in the design of systematic evaluations through the planned review of a course module
and/or practice placements (Dowson et al., 2010). They can advise on the appropriateness and
feasibility of proposed measures and research designs. In addition, their contribution to the
interpretation of findings, particularly from practice, can be invaluable.
191
John Carpenter
Engaging staff
Much course evaluation already happens in universities; the problem is that it is too restricted
in scope and design so that the information it provides is limited. The collection and analysis of
course evaluation data could be more interesting, and less of a chore, if programme staff (1) used
a wider range of measures which could provide information about the learning outcomes in
which they were interested, and (2) attempted some of the research designs suggested here, so
that they could have evidence to see whether the learning outcomes had been achieved.
As a first step the learning outcomes for course modules may be reviewed and measurement
discussed. Since these are often poorly specified, this exercise would be valuable in itself: if they
are to be measured they will have to be revised in order to be observable. This process should
improve the alignment of learning and teaching methods with learning outcomes. The next
step would be to assess these in a pre/post single group design to give an indication of whether
the outcomes are being achieved. The third step would be to use some of the stronger designs
discussed above.
Collaboration between programmes

There are significant advantages in programmes collaborating in evaluation studies. This allows
the comparison of different methods of teaching and learning and the creation of experimental
and control/comparison groups which would be large enough to generate sufficient statistical
power to detect significant differences between conditions. Also, because we know so little about
how these methods of evaluation might be put into practice, it is only through enthusiasts sharing
ideas and experiences that we could hope to make progress.
Conclusion
The rigorous evaluation of the outcomes of social work education is still at an early stage of
development. Most evaluations have focused on changes in attitudes and/or knowledge and
skills only.There is as yet little evidence of changes in behaviour as a result of social work educa-
tion and only one study which measured a positive outcome on the lives of service users. There
has been progress in developing outcome measures, and some of these, particularly self-efficacy
ratings and OSCEs, are being used with increasing sophistication. There is much to be done
to establish the reliability and validity of self-report measures. Published research is heavily
dependent on pre/post designs. There are very few comparative studies and no randomised
trials. Design is an essential area for development, which could be achieved by collaboration
between universities and evaluators.
This kind of research is challenging, even with the expressed support of senior staff and
funding (Burgess & Carpenter, 2008). Lack of time and resources is a significant obstacle. But
at a time of financial constraint, it is all the more important to accumulate evidence of the out-
comes of social work education so that policy makers and the public can be confident that it is
producing high-quality social workers.
Acknowledgement
This chapter is a revised, updated and condensed version of Carpenter, J. (2011). Evaluating
social work education: A review of outcomes, measures, research designs and practicalities. Social
Work Education, 30(2), 122–140. Published with permission.
192
Note
1 Also known as field placement or practice placement
References
Anghel, R., Fox, J., & Warnes, M. (2010). An exploration of concept mapping as a method of evaluating
student learning in social work. In H. Burgess, & J. Carpenter (Eds.), The outcomes of social work education:
Developing evaluation methods (pp. 34–50). Southampton: Higher Education Academy.
Barr, H., Freeth, D., Hammick, M., Koppel, I., & Reeves, S. (2000). Evaluating Interprofessional Education:
A United Kingdom Review for Health and Social Care. BERA/ CAIPE.
Bogo, M., Regehr, C. Katz, E., Logie, C.Tufford, L., & Litvack, A. (2012). Evaluating an objective structured
clinical examination (OSCE) adapted for social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 22, 428–436.
Burgess, H., & Carpenter, J. (2008). Building capacity and capability for evaluating the Outcomes of Social
Work Education (the OSWE project): Creating a culture change. Social Work Education, 27(8), 898–912.
Carpenter, J. (2005). Evaluating the outcomes of social work education. London: Social Care Institute of Excellence.
Carpenter, J. (2011). Evaluating social work education: A review of outcomes, measures, research designs
and practicalities. Social Work Education, 30(2), 122–140.
Carpenter, J., Barnes, D., & Dickinson, C. (2006). Outcomes of interprofessional education for community
mental health services in England: The longitudinal evaluation of a postgraduate programme. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 20, 145–161.
Carpenter, J., & Hewstone, M. (1996). Shared learning for doctors and social workers: Evaluation of a pro-
gramme. British Journal of Social Work, 26, 239–257.
Carpenter, J., Shardlow, S., Patsios, D., & Wood, M. J. E. (2015). Developing the confidence and competence
of newly qualified child and family social workers in England: Outcomes of a national programme.
British Journal of Social Work, 45, 153–176.
Cook, J., Jonnikas, J., & Razzano, L. (1995). A randomized evaluation of consumer versus nonconsumer
training of state mental health service providers. Community Mental Health Journal, 31(3), 229–238.
Dowson, E., Gee, M., Ingram, R., Leeson, B., & Mackenzie, G. (2010). Service user, carer, practice educa-
tor and academic partnership in evaluating decision making by social work students. In H. Burgess, &
J. Carpenter (Eds.), The Outcomes of Social Work Education: Developing Evaluation Methods (pp. 88–95).
Southampton: Higher Education Academy.
Forrester, D., McCambridge, J., Waissbein, C., Emlyn-Jones, R., Rollnick, S. (2008). Child risk and parental
resistance: Can motivational interviewing improve the practice of child and family social workers in
working with parental alcohol misuse? British Journal of Social Work, 38, 1302–1319.
Freeman, K. A., & Morris, T. L. (1999). Investigative interviewing with children: Evaluation of the effec-
tiveness of a training program for child protective service workers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23, 701–713.
Holden, G., Barker, K. Kuppens, S., & Rosenberg, G. (2015). Self-efficacy regarding social work competen-
cies. Research on Social Work Practice. doi: 10.1177/1049731515586466
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1967). Evaluation of training. In R. L. Craig, & L. R. Bittel (Eds.), Training and develop-
ment handbook (pp. 87–112). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Kraiger, K., Ford, K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based and affective theories of learn-
ing outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311–328.
Lefevre, M. (2015). Becoming effective communicators with children: Developing practitioner capability
through social work education. British Journal of Social Work, 45, 204–224.
MacIntyre, G., Green Lister, P., Orme, J., Crisp, B., Manthorpe, J., Hussein, S., Moriarty, J., Stevens, M., &
Sharpe, E. (2011). Using vignettes to evaluate the outcomes of student learning: Data from the evalua-
tion of the new social work degree in England. Social Work Education, 30, 207–202.
Nerdrum, P. (1997). Maintenance of the effect of training in communication skills: A controlled follow-up
study of level of communicated empathy. British Journal of Social Work, 27, 705–722.
Parker, J. (2006). Developing perceptions of competence in practice learning. British Journal of Social Work,
36, 1017–1036.
Platt, D. (2011). Assessments of children and families: Learning and teaching the skills of analysis. Social Work
Education, 30, 157–169.
Scourfield, J., Tolman, R., Maxwell, N., Holland, S., Bullock, A., & Sloan, L. (2012). Results of a training
course for social workers on engaging fathers in child protection. Children and Youth Services Review, 34,
1425–1432.
193
John Carpenter
Szilassy, E., Carpenter, J., Patsios, D., & Hackett, S. (2014). Outcomes of short course interprofessional train-
ing in domestic violence and child protection. Violence Again, 19(11), 1370–1383.
Webber, M., Currin, L., Groves, N., Hay, D., & Fernando, N. (2010). Social workers can e-learn: Evaluation
of a pilot post-qualifying e-learning course in research methods and critical appraisal skills for social
workers. Social Work Education, 29, 48–56.
Wehrmann, K., Shin, H., & Poertner, J. (2002). Transfer of training: An evaluation study. Journal of Health
and Social Policy, 15, 23–37.
Wong, D., & Lam, D. (2005). Problem-based learning in the BSW programme; a study of learning out-
comes. In V. Pearson (Ed.), Problem-based learning in a social work context. Monograph No. 53. Dept. of
Social Work and Social Administration, University of Hong Kong.
194
SECTION 4
New insights into field education

17
PRACTICE LEARNING
Challenging neoliberalism in a turbulent world
Introduction
The turmoil, struggle, deepening poverty and inequality in which the world finds itself requires
a responsive social work practice, theory and education. However, the current era of neoliber-
alism, ‘post-welfare capitalism’ and external socio-political pressures (Ioakimidis, Cruz Santos &
Herrer, 2014), increasingly suppresses social work’s mandate of working for social justice and
social change (Sewpaul, 2013;Yazbek, 2014).The reconceptualisation of social work in a context
of rampant wealth accumulation and deepening poverty has led to the need for more orthodox
social work assumptions and theories to be challenged (Harms Smith, 2013; Ioakimidis et al.,
2014; Sewpaul, 2013).
This crisis around ‘neoliberal social work’ has furthermore meant that a new radicalism and a
new ‘audience’ for radical social work has emerged (Garret, 2009; Ferguson & Woodward, 2009).
Current social work writing abounds with descriptions of appropriate and relevant responses to
this turbulent context (Stubbs & Maglajlic, 2012; Ferguson & Lavalette, 2013; Ioakimidis, 2015).
However, how social work students are prepared for such practice settings from within increas-
ingly neoliberal social work practice contexts requires interrogation.
Practice learning in unconventional practice settings of activism, social justice advocacy
work, overtly political organisations and social movements offers opportunities for critical con-
scientisation and reconceptualisation of social work in the current context.
In an earlier paper, we have argued that while more appropriate and radical social work
knowledge content seems to be offered in present-day curricula, practice learning which
would provide the experiential learning and praxis for social work students is not always
adequately provided. Further, the past decades of neoliberalism have led to difficulty for
qualifying-level social work programmes in promoting and ensuring social justice alignment
(Fenton, 2014).
There is therefore a need for the development of innovative ways to educate social work
students for engagement with more radical social justice and social change-oriented practice.
These may occur through the use of specifically selected pedagogical practices such as ‘activist
pedagogy’ (Preston & Jordan, 2014) and through anti-oppressive and conscientisation method-
ologies (Askeland & Payne, 2006; Smith, 2008). Further and more importantly, practice learning
opportunities should be offered that expose students to more progressive, radical, politicised
197
practice contexts. These settings should offer context-appropriate interventions that resist the
individualist neoliberal ideologies of traditional frameworks.
International exchange programmes in the ‘developing world’ for students from more afflu-
ent societies have often been seen to offer such learning experiences, especially for the enhance-
ment of cross-cultural learning and anti-oppressive practice (Schwartz et al., 2015). It is argued
here, however, that practice learning experiences in more progressive and radical contexts offer
important opportunities for social work in situations of inequality and oppression, social change,
conflict and social turbulence.
Reconceptualisation of social work in a turbulent world

Ioakimidis et al. (2014: 290) call for the reconceptualisation of social work in a post-welfare
capitalist environment and argue that there is a need in the new social work landscape to exam-
ine the foundation of social work, as “broader structural changes in society and consequent
challenges within the profession operate in a dialectic relationship, which dynamically forms the
material and theoretical foundation of a social work reconceptualization.”
Social work knowledge and practice frequently finds itself reconceptualised, as it is shaped by
both the context in which it is practiced (Ferguson & Woodward, 2009; Gray & Webb, 2013) as
well as by the ideological positions of those practicing and directing it (Therborn, 1980; Carey,
2013; Harms Smith, 2013).
Although historically and from its inception, social work was “dominated by an ideology of
individualism, which sought explanations of poverty in the character of the individual rather
than in social or economic structures” (Ferguson, 2008: 90), there arose an opposition to this
harsh ideology. There was a sense among social workers that “there needed to be a fundamen-
tal reform of the existing political order” (Powell, 2001: 27). A more radical practice became
evident in the USA, especially in the Settlement movement, where direct help was provided as
well as campaigning around issues of child labour and working hours. Social workers involved
themselves in social movements of the period, such as trade unionism, feminism and pacifist
movements (Reisch, 2004). The movements “undermined prevailing notions of social work
practice . . . used tactics like strikes and boycotts, and displayed open sympathy for allied left-
wing causes” (Reisch & Andrews, 2002: 79).
The importance of social work knowledge responding to the context in which it finds itself
is also true today. The turbulent world in which social work practice occurs is one that requires
very different knowledge and practice forms than the neoliberal individualised, status quo main-
tenance which forms the basis for present-day social work (Finn & Jacobson, 2003; Payne, 2005;
Lavalette, 2011).
These alternative forms of practice are slowly starting to emerge. According to Ferguson,
Lavalette and Whitmore (2004), in a collection of writing about social work globally, few coun-
tries had escaped the pressures of neoliberal globalisation, such as the growing dominance of
care management approaches in a social care market (Harris, 2004) or the consequences of the
imposition of crippling structural adjustment programmes, such as in countries like Argentina
(Alayon & Grassi, 2004). Many examples exist internationally of the constraints imposed by
neoliberal economic policies (Sewpaul & Holscher, 2004;Yazbek, 2014). However, the past few
years have also shown that many new ways of doing social work have emerged. People have been
helped by social workers to resist structural oppressions, challenge injustices and increase their
levels of political power (Healy, 2005; Ferguson & Lavalette, 2006; Cuskelly, 2013).
According to Ioakimidis (2015: 7), “reluctance to engage with the issue of socio-political
and armed conflict could be seen as a part of a diachronic ambivalence of social work towards
198
Challenging neoliberalism
politically contentious issues.” It is necessary, therefore, to offer students practice opportunities

which expose them to practice that facilitates learning around social justice and radical, progres-
sive perspectives.
Perusing current social work writing provides ample insight into, and findings about, social
work practice around oppressive structural and turbulent contexts, such as in the following
examples from studies across the world:
• Stubbs and Maglajlic (2012: 1174) have argued that, in South East Europe, there is a need
“for a longer-term engagement in war and post-war communities, based on practices that
build alliances between social workers, community activists and service users”;
• Social work with Palestinian women on “empowerment as resistance” was felt to highlight
the need for “alternative ways of understanding empowerment that . . . recapture some of
the original associations the term had with power and resistance” (Kuttab, 2010: 247);
• In Greece, Spain and Portugal, the current economic crisis was seen to have “generated a
profound (re)politicization of social workers” leading to a “redefinition of the core values
and principles of social work” (Ioakimidis et al., 2014: 285);
• In South Africa, during the time of the 2012 police ‘Marikana Massacre’ of 34 protesting
mineworkers, social workers were called upon to intervene at a community level around
collective trauma as well as to advocate at a structural and political level around social injus-
tice and violations of human rights (Smith & Alexander, 2013);
• It has been argued that in conflict zones such as Northern Ireland, Palestine and Israel, the
consciousness of “social workers, agencies and policies about issues in a world which is
increasingly afflicted by violent political conflict” should be raised with recommendations
for “Support, education and training for social workers which transcend national contexts
and further international research in this important area” (Ramon et al., 2006: 435);
• In Palestine, where youth of Ramallah have been living in “dehumanizing and abnormal
conditions,” it has been argued that individualised notions of resilience and social work
intervention, as developed in predominantly Western settings, have been overemphasised to
the detriment of the “local idiom of communal care and support” (Nguyen-Gillham et al.,
2008: 291);
• Also in Palestine, in work in refugee camps with traumatised and terrorised young people,
projects have been identified which successfully used advocacy and rights-based approaches,
leading Lavalette (2015: 33) to argue that “social work may be enriched by ‘popular’ forms
of social work that originate outside of the profession’s self-imposed boundaries”;
• In South Africa, in the context of recent xenophobic violence, social workers have been
called upon to “actively and constructively address those socio-economic factors that con-
tribute to such violence and dislocation” (Sewpaul, 2015: 21).
Many further examples of a responsive and progressive social work resisting neoliberalism
and working for social change and social justice can be found in work in Colombia, Beirut,
Greece, Sri Lanka, Cyprus, Canada (Lavalette & Ioakimidis, 2011), Somalia, Rwanda and South
Africa (Sewpaul, 2015).
Social work education and practice learning

Social justice is acknowledged as a foundational value of social work (Midgley, 2007; Gray &
Webb, 2013). The examples given above suggest that, in the current global context, educators
should attempt to construct knowledge and practice learning opportunities for students which
199
are rooted in ethics of social justice and which better prepare them to respond actively to
issues of oppression, poverty and inequality. For example, in South Africa curricula have increas-
ingly come to include content on social justice and critical, radical and progressive social work,
approaches which are directly responsive to structural oppressions and injustices (Harms Smith,
2013).There has similarly been a greater shift towards the inclusion of locally contextualised
and indigenous knowledge content (Sewpaul & Jones, 2004; Gray, Coates & Yellow Bird, 2008;
Thabede, 2008; Hochfeld et al., 2009).
Effective and emancipatory practice requires that practice learning situations should reflect
the demands of the ‘real’ world.The restructuring of curricula to prepare students for challenges
around social justice (Healy & Wairire, 2014) requires a concomitant change in the approach to
practice learning. Social work practice must be connected to “the areas of oppression, discrim-
ination and disadvantage” and must fight “with, and on behalf of, service users” (Fenton, 2014:
330).
Although social work education adheres to general global standards (Sewpaul & Jones, 2004),
practice learning requirements vary from country to country. In England, for example, students
are required to practice in at least two distinct service delivery models, one of which must be
a statutory setting. In South Africa, one of the requirements is that students should be involved
in settings with conditions which allow for the analysis of systematic oppressions experienced
by service users (Spolander et al., 2011). Social work education and practice learning in that
country also includes attention to all three levels of intervention at the micro, meso and macro
levels (case, group and community work).
Most social work educational settings encourage personal reflection. However, such reflec-
tion does not always extend to processes of reflexivity (D’Cruz, Gillingham & Melendez, 2007)
which, as a process of action and reflection, leads to praxis and engagement with oppressive
dynamics and structural injustice (Freire, 1972). Such reflexivity which leads to critical con-
scientisation contributes to the formation of a responsive social worker, committed to acting on
these social dynamics (Smith, 2008). Reflexivity allows for the assumptions of formal theories
to be critically questioned. It “addresses the multiple interrelations between power and knowl-
edge, and acknowledges the inclusion of self in the process of knowledge creation in social work
practice” (Man Lam, Wong & Fong Leung, 2007: 91). This need for reflexivity as a means to the
development of appropriate social work practice is acknowledged extensively (Ledwith, 2001;
Askeland & Payne, 2006; Lishman, 2007; Gray & Webb, 2013).
Furthermore, learning should be responsive to the structural dynamics of increasingly unjust
and turbulent societies. Wayne, Raskin, and Bogo (2010: 334) argue that all pedagogies must
adjust to changes in society and to evolving norms of practice, and they cite Schulman (2005),
who is concerned about “the phenomenon of ‘pedagogical inertia – that is, maintaining the
status quo simply because nothing deflects [a way of doing things into] . . . another direction”.
Practice placements for progressive social work learning

We have previously reported on how student fieldwork placements in Johannesburg within
progressive or non-traditional placement settings, “including campaigning social movements
and welfare organisations working at the sharp end of South African society” (Ferguson &
Smith, 2012: 979) appeared to facilitate the development of a more radical social work practice,
better able to address the structural oppression, inequality and poverty experienced by people in
South Africa. The organisations at which final-year students at a South African university were
placed included the Anti-Privatisation Forum, a radical anti-capitalist campaigning organisation;
200
Khulumani, a progressive organisation with its focus on the unfinished work of the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission and intervening with families of those who disappeared during
the apartheid regime; the Reproductive Health Research Unit, with a progressive gender focus;
and the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, with its work with survivors of
torture and work with ex-combatants who had been involved in the military struggle against
apartheid and were subsequently unsupported by the post-apartheid state. Since the original
study in 2009, further placements have been used, such as the Centre for Applied Legal Studies,
a university-based law, human rights and social justice organisation; the Socio-Economic Rights
Institute, involved in important constitutional law and socio-economic rights activism; and the
Jesuit Refugee Services, working with asylum seekers and refugees.
Services and activities of the various organisations providing more radical and progressive
student practice learning placements include:
• advocacy work around human rights violations, homelessness and unconstitutional evic-
tions (SERI);
• community work and therapeutic work with ex-combatants and their children (CSVR);
• working with Zimbabwean women survivors of torture ( JRS);
• participatory action research and campaigning for the right to electricity in townships
(APF);
• a media project aimed at helping people in rural areas to express and publicise their needs
(CSVR);
• campaigning work with people who had experienced torture or the loss or disappearance
of relatives under the apartheid regime but whose suffering and loss had not been recog-
nised by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission set up after 1994 (Khulumani);
• counseling and advocacy work around issues of HIV and AIDS, including educational work
with sex workers from other parts of Africa;
• working with victims of trauma at both an individual and a community level;
• an informal settlement area in Soweto around housing (CALS);
• trauma counseling with families of victims of the Marikana Massacre; and
• women’s empowerment work with communities of the platinum belt during the miners’
strike (SERI).
Such ‘alternative placements’ for progressive learning offer a range of learning opportunities
such as development of critical consciousness; political awareness; competencies in mobilisa-
tion, organisation and social action; application of community work processes; application and
understanding of social justice principles; and the development of understanding of structural
dimensions to problems.
Traditional placements such as statutory child protection or criminal justice placements,
non-governmental organisations in the field of substance abuse and community development
projects may offer useful learning opportunities in generic social work, including some commu-
nity work. However, it is generally the more progressive, human rights or social justice organ-
isations that offer social work students valuable learning experiences in collective social action
and structural contexts.
The selection of placements such as these could be based on criteria derived from the learn-
ing needs of the students involved, the knowledge and reconceptualisation project of the learn-
ing institution as well as the needs of the agency or setting itself. Broadly speaking, the following
settings may be suitable.
201
Socio-economic and human rights campaigning organisations

Organisations that form around socio-political concerns may offer students excellent expo-
sure to social action processes, knowledge development around socio-political issues and to the
organisational and mobilisation skills required for community work. Non-governmental organ-
isations in the area of socio-economic rights work are one suggestion, as they make significant
contributions to political life and to political change in developing countries (Clarke, 1998).
Students could receive valuable learning opportunities in promoting socio-economic and health
rights claims in situations where human rights violations are present, such as in the case of the
Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) and its struggle for universal HIV/AIDS treatment (Hey-
wood, 2005).This may happen via litigation, negotiation in appropriate forums or through con-
frontational campaigning. These serve an important function in shaping the legal and political
context of a society. Social work students therefore learn the importance of advocacy, lobbying
and mobilisation as social work strategies.
Non-governmental agencies or settings, which attract funding from

sources outside of the formal state or business sector
Such agencies are freer to pursue context-relevant practice as they are not constrained by the
regulations and limitations frequently imposed by funders on the nature of their work. This
allows them to pursue more radical strategies, which may challenge structural oppression and
the status quo (Ferguson & Smith, 2012). Such organisations, having the freedom to practice in
context-appropriate ways and in accordance with expressed needs of communities, allow stu-
dents opportunities to explore and develop a full range of social work practice responses.
Social movements
According to Barker et al. (2001: 4), social movements are a form of “contentious politics which
demonstrate the agency of participants through collective action”. It is this collective action
which makes social change possible, specifically in relation to issues of class and power.
The collective focus and social justice aspect of social work has receded dramatically in the
past few years (Ferguson, 2008), and there seem to be fewer learning opportunities in traditional
practice settings for such exposure. Social work writing has increasingly drawn on the work of
social movements to develop theory for its own community organisation and advocacy theory,
and the work of social movements have proven to offer important insights for social work
(Barker, Johnson & Lavalette, 2001; Harms Smith, 2015).
Organisations with an overtly political dimension

These placements are concerned with challenging state policies and the policies of powerful
private corporations. All social work is political in that it is shaped by ideologies and power
configurations, while social workers bring their own political worldviews to the task, whether
consciously or otherwise (Ferguson, 2008; Ramon et al., 2006). Social workers are also increas-
ingly being called on to take on active political roles and to increase their participation in polit-
ical activities (Mmatli, 2008; Servio, 2014), and such placements offer learning and knowledge
development opportunities for such competencies. In more repressive societies, social workers
are called upon to take a political stand. Current and historical examples include practice in
apartheid South Africa or in settings where human rights violations occur, such as mentioned
202
earlier in this chapter. In this way, social work students have access to learning about anti-
oppressive practice, environmental and social justice work.
Services around violence and trauma

Social workers, regardless of where they may practice, may find themselves working in situations
of conflict and trauma, such as in the context of war, post-war, xenophobia, natural disasters and
conflict. Traditional social work placements do not generally offer learning opportunities in this
regard. Organisations which are specifically set up to respond in such situations (such as those
mentioned as well as international relief organisations) offer services to people traumatised psy-
chologically and collectively. Social workers are often critically positioned and are able to form
part of an intervention team, to offer support, counseling and community interventions in such
contexts. Placements in such organisations would therefore offer students first-hand experience
in trauma intervention at the individual and collective level.
Community work, community development and activist organisations

Social workers, in their commitment to social justice, may also often find themselves involved in
community-based, activist organisations in their personal capacity. Such organisations may offer
valuable insights and learning for more formal social work and tend to rely on community work
principles such as democratic participation, social justice principles, empowerment, conscious-
ness raising and action in small groups (Ife, 2013). The nature of more traditional, conventional
settings often prevents workers from practicing community work due to ideological, knowledge
and managerial constraints. Such placements therefore conscientise students about the need and
nature of successful community work. Ferguson and Smith (2012) argue that students are able to
learn skills such as planning, lobbying, organising, liaising and advocacy in such contexts.
Challenges
Such placements may however give rise to a number of challenges (Ferguson & Smith, 2012).
These challenges may be found in the context of learning itself and the relatively undefined role
of the social worker, supervision and guidance of the student by a supervisor external to the
setting, contextual issues such as lack of resources as well as the trauma and emotional distress
associated with the exposure to the realities of severe deprivation and poverty.
‘Culture shock’ and emotional trauma

In the earlier study we found that students had experienced what could be termed ‘culture
shock’, where students coming from more affluent communities are frequently confronted with
extreme levels of poverty and the lived realities of people with whom they work.While this may
be particularly true in more progressive and social justice/human rights-based organisations,
practice contexts in situations of extreme inequality and poverty arising from socio-economic
realities such as those found in South Africa are ubiquitous. The ongoing trauma of individuals
and communities living in war, conflict and severe poverty is difficult for students, as these expe-
riences are often unpredictable and students don’t always know how to react. Secondary and
vicarious trauma is therefore a consequence for the students involved (Figley, 2002). Students
need to engage in reflexive practice and supportive supervision to be enabled to work through
the emotional distress that they experience through their involvement in such contexts.
203
Lack of resources and helplessness

The lack of resources and the immense difficulties experienced by service users and community
members such as ex-combatants, people evicted without alternative places to live and citizens
in war and conflict situations is clearly evident in practice. Agencies trying to work in such
contexts are often unable to assist with even the most basic needs. Students working in such
situations may experience frustration at what they see as their own inability to make a difference
in people’s lives. Many non-governmental and third sector organizations such as those rendering
services in countries facing severe deprivation, poverty and conflict may face difficulties around
funding and resources (Lavalette & Ioakimidis, 2011; Ferguson & Smith, 2012; Sewpaul, 2015).
Slow pace of community processes

A further challenge and frustration for students may relate to the slow pace of community work
and the difficulties of engaging local people in community action. These include, for example,
having to travel long distances to community meetings in rural settings on the weekend and
a general lack of community participation. Students would need to be encouraged to retain a
more positive outlook and understand that community work is a process which takes lots of
time and requires patience. The importance of community work principles of working accord-
ing to the pace and process of local people is evident in such situations (Ife, 2005).
Practicing social work in secondary settings

Secondary settings by definition do not focus primarily on the psychosocial or social work
aspect of students’ work. The role of the social worker may be unclear or poorly defined. This
may result in work allocation that may be regarded as ‘non-social work tasks’ and the absence
of a social work role model. Students placed in such settings need to be professionally confi-
dent and show initiative in developing their own role as a student social worker. The role of
the supervisor therefore becomes even more important in supporting students in this aspect of
their work.
Furthermore, where there is no social worker available to act as supervisor or practice teacher,
an ‘external supervisor’ would need to perform that role. It is clear, however, that the organisa-
tions in our study found the role of student social workers to be valuable and in some cases even
led to the consideration of formal employment of social workers in the future.
Relationships with other social work agencies

More radical or progressive placement organisations may have tenuous relationships with more
traditional welfare organisations. In placements, for example, in the legal and rights-based advo-
cacy field, students’ positioning around issues involving social workers in more traditional and
established social work agencies may lead to tension and/or ethical dilemmas. In some instances,
for example, placement organisations may be engaged in human rights litigation in respect of
evictions, housing and specific families’ rights, while other social work agencies may be working
with local authorities who may be seen as ‘the enemy’. Students may find themselves involved
in social action and protest activities, where the plans of a campaigning organisation working for
the protection of people’s rights may include lobbying, mobilising and being willing to break
the law by proceeding with protest action which may have been deemed to be an illegal gather-
ing. In cases such as this, students would need to be assisted by the supervisor and the university
to make decisions about their own participation and safety.
204
Lessons and cautions

Although the examples discussed in this chapter cannot be generalised to all contexts, there are,
nevertheless, lessons “for those seeking to develop forms of social work education better able
to equip the practitioners of the future to address the structural realities that shape the lives of
clients across the globe” (Ferguson & Smith, 2012: 989).
First, as stated earlier in this chapter, reflexivity is important. In community work generally
and in placements such as these specifically, in which processes of critical conscientisation are
pursued, among the participants of projects as well as within the practitioners themselves, such
self-reflection is vital for an appropriate praxis (Freire, 1972; Fook, 2007).
Second, the theoretical underpinnings of students’ knowledge must provide them with the
conceptual and analytical tools to make sense of the political and economic realities of the
context in which they find themselves. Such contexts are unique and find expression in differ-
ent ways. For example, in South Africa this would mean the post-colonial and post-apartheid
context, structural oppression and racial and class-based social stratification. In the context of
South East Europe, the realities of post-war conflict and breakdown in community relationships
would require social work involvement in that regard. In the case of many European countries,
the context of increasing austerity, deepening poverty and issues around migration and refugees
would require understanding.The integration of theory and practice must therefore be ensured,
for students to be equipped for such analysis and understanding.
Third, both students and the practice settings need considerable preparatory work for an
understanding and agreement about what the role of the student should be. Similarly, there
needs to be ongoing support for both the student and the organisation. The role of the practice
teacher or supervisor is therefore even more important than in a setting where there are social
workers to act as professional role models.
Students should be specifically selected for placement in such progressive and non-traditional
settings.They should be willing to be politically engaged and have initiative in constructing their
role in the organisation. The fact that such placements may initially have little understanding of
what to expect from social workers and students may prove difficult for the students concerned.
Conclusion
Practice learning as a pedagogical imperative for social work education also contributes to
the development of its theory. The need for the reconceptualisation of social work for current
turbulent times may therefore benefit from reflection on new practice learning contexts and
non-traditional placements and the radical discourse which arises through these experiences.
As social work grapples with its own reconceptualisation and definition, individualist–reformist
social work approaches focussing on status quo maintenance, remediation and development and
that fail to address issues of structural inequality are increasingly irrelevant and lacking in legit-
imacy (Ferguson, 2008; Sewpaul, 2013).
Traditional placements frequently offer little scope for social justice work, campaigning,
social action, community work, political engagement and radical interventions. They tend to
operate within uncritical neoliberal ideological frameworks of and discourses of individualism
and blaming the poor. However, utilising progressive, non-traditional placements offers renewed
hope for social work. The contexts of turmoil that social workers encounter, if engaged with in
a progressive and radical manner, may very well serve to help shape a new social work. As stated
aptly by Ioakimidis et al. (2014: 297), “It is our contention that the same conditions, which have
pushed mainstream social work to the brink of extinction, might as well act as a catalyst for the
radical reconceptualization of the profession.”
205
References
Alayon, N., & Grassi, E. (2004). Neo-liberalism in Argentina: Towards a different practice. In I. Ferguson,
M. Lavalette, & B.Whitmore (Eds.), Globalisation, global justice and social work (pp. 23–40). London:Taylor
and Francis.
Askeland, G. A., & Payne, M. (2006). Social work education’s cultural hegemony. International Social Work,
49(6), 731–743.
Barker, C., Johnson, A., & Lavalette, M. (2001). Leadership and social movements. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Carey, M. (2013). Social work, ideology, discourse and the limits of post-hegemony. Journal of Social Work,
13(3), 248–266.
Clarke, G. (1998). Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and politics in the developing world. Political
Studies, 46(1), 36–52.
Cuskelly, K. (2013). Social work and the struggle for social justice in Ireland. Critical and Radical Social Work,
1(1), 125–130.
D’Cruz, J., Gillingham, P., & Melendez, S. (2007). Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social work:
A critical review of the literature. British Journal of Social Work, 37(1), 73–90.
Fenton, J. (2014). Can social work education meet the neo-liberal challenge head on? Critical and Radical
Social Work, 2(3), 321–334.
Ferguson, I. (2008). Reclaiming social work. London: Sage.
Ferguson, I., & Lavalette, M. (2006). Globalisation and global justice: Towards a social work of resistance.
International Social Work, 49(3), 309–318.
Ferguson, I., & Lavalette, M. (2013). Crisis, austerity and the future(s) of social work in the UK. Critical and
Radical Social Work, 1(1), 95–110.
Ferguson, I., Lavalette, M., & Whitmore, B. (Eds.) (2004). Globalisation, global justice and social work (pp. 23–40).
London: Taylor and Francis.
Ferguson, I., & Smith, L. (2012). Education for change: Student placements in campaigning organisations
and social movements in South Africa. British Journal of Social Work, 42(5), 974–994.
Ferguson, I., & Woodward, R. (2009). Radical social work in practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
Figley, C. R. (2002). Treating compassion fatigue. Sussex: Brunner-Routledge.
Finn, J. L., & Jacobson, M. (2003). Just practice: Steps toward a new social work paradigm. Journal of Social
Fook, J. (2007). Reflective practice and critical reflection. In J. Lishman (Ed.), Handbook for practice learning
in social work and social care (pp. 363–375). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed (translated by Myra Bergman Ramos). New York, NY: The Sea-
bury Press.
Garret, P. M. (2009). Marx and modernization: Reading capital as social critique and inspiration for social
work resistance to neoliberalism. Journal of Social Work, 9(2), 199–121.
Gray, M., Coates, J., & Yellow Bird, M. (Eds.) (2008). Indigenous social work around the world:Towards culturally
relevant education and practice. England: Ashgate.
Gray, M., & Webb, S. (Eds.) (2013). Social work theories and methods. London: Sage.
Harms Smith, L. (2013). Social work education: Critical imperatives for social change. PhD Thesis, University of
the Witwatersrand.
Harms Smith, L. (2015).What should social work learn from ‘the fire of social movements that burns at the
heart of society’? Critical and Radical Social Work Journal, 3(1), 19–34.
Harris, J. (2004). Globalisation, neo-liberal managerialism and UK social work. In: Ferguson, M. Lavalette
and E. Whitmore. (Eds.), Globalisaton, Global Justice and Social work (pp. 81–94). London: Routledge
Healy, K. (2005). Social work theories in context: Creating frameworks for practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Healy, L. M., & Wairire, G. G. (2014). Educating for the global agenda: Internationally relevant conceptual
frameworks and knowledge for social work education. International Social Work, 57(3), 235–247.
Heywood, M. (2005). Shaping, making and breaking the law in the campaign for a national HIV/AIDS
treatment plan. In P. Jones & K. Stokke (Eds.), Democratising development:The politics of socio-economic rights
in South Africa. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Hochfeld, T., Selipsky, L., Mupedziswa, R., & Chitereka, C. (2009). Developmental social work education in
Southern and East Africa. Johannesburg: Centre for Social development in Africa.
Ife, J. (2013). Community work in an uncertain world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
206
Ioakimidis,V. (2015). The two faces of Janus: Rethinking social work in the context of conflict. Social Dia-
logue, 2(10), 7–13.
Ioakimidis, V., Cruz Santos, C., & Herrer, I. M. (2014). Reconceptualizing social work in times of crisis:
An examination of the cases of Greece, Spain and Portugal. International Social Work, 57(4), 285–300.
Kuttab, E. (2010). Empowerment as resistance: Conceptualizing Palestinian women’s empowerment. Devel-
opment, 53, 247–253.
Lavalette, M. (2011). Radical social work today: Social work at the crossroads. Bristol: Policy Press.
Lavalette, M. (2015). Palestinian refugees and popular social work. Social Dialogue, 2(10), 30–34.
Lavalette, M., & Ioakimidis, V. (2011). Social work in extremis, Lessons for social work internationally. Bristol:
Policy Press.
Ledwith, M. (2001). Community work as critical pedagogy: Re-envisioning Freire and Gramsci. Commu-
nity Development Journal, 36(3), 171–182.
Lishman, J. (Ed.) (2007). Handbook for practice learning in social work and social care: Knowledge and theory. Lon-
don: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Man Lam, C.,Wong, H., & Fong Leung,T.T. (2007). An unfinished reflexive journey: Social work students’
reflection on their placement experiences. British Journal of Social Work, 37(1), 91–105.
Midgley, J. (2007). Perspectives on globalization, social justice and welfare. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare,
34(2), 17–36.
Mmatli,T. (2008). Political activism as a social work strategy in Africa. International Social Work, 51, 297–310.
Nguyen-Gillham,V., Giacaman, R., Naser, G., & Boyce, W. (2008). Normalising the abnormal: Palestinian
youth and the contradictions of resilience in protracted conflict. Health & Social Care in the Community,
16(3), 291–298.
Payne, M. (2005). Modern social work theory. Basingstoke and Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Powell, F. (2001). The politics of social work. London: Sage.
Preston, S., & Jordan, A. (2014). Resisting neoliberalism from within the academy: Subversion through an
activist pedagogy. Social Work Education, 33(4), 502–518.
Ramon, S., Campbell, J., Lindsay, J., McCrystal, P., & Baidoun, N. (2006). The impact of political conflict
on social work: Experiences from Northern Ireland, Israel and Palestine. British Journal of Social Work,
36(3), 435–450.
Reisch, M. (2004). American exceptionalism and critical social work: A retrospective and prospective anal-
ysis. In I. Ferguson, M. Lavalette, & E.Whitmore (Eds.), Globalisaton, global justice and social work. London:
Routledge.
Reisch, M., & Andrews, J. (2002). The road not taken: A history of radical social work in the United States. Phil-
adelphia: Brunner Routledge.
Schwartz, K., Kreitzer, L., Barlow, C., & MacDonald, L. (2015). A Sherpa in my backpack: A guide to interna-
tional social work practicum exchanges and study abroad programmes. Ontario, Canada: De Sitter Publications.
Servio, M. (2014). The Latin American reconceptualisation movement. Critical and Radical Social Work, 2(2),
193–201.
Sewpaul, V. (2013). Neoliberalism and social work in South Africa. Critical and Radical Social Work Journal,
1(1), 15–30.
Sewpaul,V. (2015). Alien demons: Xenophobia and violence in South Africa. Social Dialogue, 2(10), 18–22.
Sewpaul,V., & Holscher, D. (2004). Social work in times of neo-liberalism. Durban: UKZN Press.
Sewpaul,V., & Jones, D. (2004). Global standards for the education and training of the social work profes-
sion. Available at www.iassw-aiets.org/en/About_IASSW/GlobalStandards.pdf [Accessed 22 Novem-
ber 2014].
Smith, L. (2008). South African social work education: Critical imperatives for social change in the
post-apartheid and post-colonial context. International Social Work, 51, 371–383.
Smith, L., & Alexander, P. (2013). Marikana massacre: Explosive anger. Critical and Radical Social Work Journal,
1(1), 131–132.
Spolander, G., Pullen-Sansfacon, A., Brown, M.,& Engelbrecht, L. (2011). Social work education in Canada,
England and South Africa: A critical comparison of undergraduate programmes. International Social Work,
54(6), 816–831.
Stubbs, P., & Maglajlic, R. A. (2012). Negotiating the transnational politics of social work in post-
conflict and transition contexts: Reflections from South-East Europe. British Journal of Social Work, 42,
1174–1191.
207
Thabede, D. (2008). The African worldview as a basis for practice in the helping professions. Social Work,
44(3), 233–245.
Therborn, G. (1980). The ideology of power and power of ideology. London:Verso Books.
Wayne, J., Raskin, M., & Bogo, M. (2010). Field education as the signature pedagogy of social work. Journal
of Social Work Education, 46(3) (Fall 2010), 237–339.
Yazbek, M. C. (2014). Changes in capitalism and challenges to social work: A view from Brazil. Critical and
Radical Social Work, 2(3), 275–286.
208
18
ASPIRATIONS AND REALITIES IN
DELIVERING FIELD EDUCATION
IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY
CONTEXT
Learning from Papua New Guinea
Catherine Flynn, Dunstan Lawihin and John Kaupa Kamasua
Introduction: social work in a globalised world

The Asia Pacific region has seen considerable growth in social work in recent years (Noble,
Henrickson & Han, 2013). This growth has been paralleled with increasing scholarship from
larger countries such as China as well as from a range of smaller Pacific nations. The voices of
Papua New Guinea social workers, however, are notably absent. The authors of this chapter
include social work academics from the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) and Monash
University (Australia). This chapter, reflecting on our collaborative work since 2010, which
focused initially on research mentoring and curriculum development, allows us to share our
learning about developing social work education which is relevant in both the local and global
context.
Social work is often presented as a contested discipline, with debates concerning its defini-
tion, theoretical framework and the extent to which it is a profession being rife in the literature.
This is currently more evident in discussions about non-Western countries, where social work
is less developed (Fahrudin, 2008; Sullivan, Forrester & Al-Makhamreh, 2010). A consistent and
fundamental ethos, however, has been that social work seeks to promote a more inclusive society.
With its earliest endeavours focused on the need to assist those who were facing problems of
daily life grounded in poverty (Payne, 2005; Hugman, 2010), core principles were established
and remain concerning social justice, human rights and collective responsibilities, along with
respect for diversity (International Federation of Social Workers [IFSW], 2014). Contemporary
research with social work graduates from a range of countries indicates a shared ideology and
agreement about the goals of social work (Weiss-Gal, 2005). This is despite diversity in how
social work is practiced in different settings with regards to professional recognition and auton-
omy, fields of practice, and the knowledge base, as well as knowledge development (Weiss-Gal &
Welbourne, 2008).
There is also agreement that social work has a Western basis, which has then been imported
into other settings. Given that significant growth in social work in recent years has been in
209
Catherine Flynn et al.
non-Western settings, much discussion has focused on ensuring that social work, as it is taught
and ‘done’ in the different settings, is culturally valid (Faleolo, 2013), or indigenised. The term
‘indigenisation’, first proposed in 1971 (Ugiagbe, 2014), has been in common usage over the
past two decades (Yunong & Xiong, 2008). While there are a wide range of views on this con-
cept, it is generally accepted that the development of relevant social work education and practice
in each context benefits from attention to local and global issues (e.g. see Yunong & Xiong,
2008; Gray & Coates, 2010; Lyngstad, 2012). Social work is practiced in a global and intercon-
nected world. Social workers are themselves mobile (Hussein, 2014) and seeking the knowledge
and skills to practice in other settings (Tanga, 2013). Payne (2001) emphasises, however, that it is
imperative that one kind of knowledge does not come to dominate and that knowledge needs
regularly to be reevaluated and subject to critical examination.
The processes by which culturally relevant curricula, and ultimately practices, are developed
have received less attention, although some general principles have been identified (Faleolo,
2013; Noble, 2013; Atal (1981) cited in Yunong & Xiong, 2008). These include use of local lan-
guage and materials (specifically non-Western texts), building local knowledge by incorporating
existing cultural knowledge into teaching (e.g. Faleolo’s [2013] discussion of the use of parables),
alongside conducting research and sharing the findings in public forums. Some attention has
also been given to the need to reconsider appropriate assessment strategies. There has been less
consideration given to how a global perspective can be incorporated.
A focus on the global aspects of social work and its core principles is stated by Trygged
(2010: 652) to be most important in settings in which the profession is in a developmental
stage. He contends that “[t]here is a need to know how to do social work and how to educate
in social work,” indicating the need for a sense of coherence and connection to a wider profes-
sion. The development of social work in non-Western settings in recent decades has seen some
similar challenges arising in each of these settings: limited guidance; limited acknowledgement
of the profession (Fahrudin, 2008; Nikku, 2010); and the need for social work to develop new
responses to imported problems (Fahrudin, 2008; Sullivan et al., 2010). Identity and leadership
would seem to be key issues in this debate. Whilst Mendes (2005) states that the role of pro-
fessional associations in the advancement of social work is poorly understood and little docu-
mented, others are clear about the negative impact of a lack of leadership in countries where
social work is developing (Fahrudin, 2008; Nikku, 2010; Sullivan et al., 2010; Tanga, 2013). This
has specific impact in field education, given the interplay between classroom and practice-based
learning.
Field education: social work’s ‘signature pedagogy’

Much can be understood about social work via a specific focus on field education, where stu-
dents engage in “learning by doing” (Coventry & Grace, 2013: 305). In the discussion about
universalising and localising social work practice, field education is on the front line. It involves
students being embedded in the local context (at times removed from ‘social work’, and led by
organisational values). It is also the area which is arguably most subject to the vagaries of the
local environment. Yet, classroom learning and field education have remained the twin com-
ponents of formal social work education across the globe (Rai, 2004), what Wayne, Bogo and
Raskin (2010) term its ‘signature pedagogy’. It is through the field practicum that students
engage with practice that is guided by both knowledge and values (Rai, 2004; Wayne, Bogo &
Raskin, 2006; Wong & Pearson, 2007; Dhemba, 2012; Khan & Holody, 2012). It is understood,
from both the student and employer perspectives, to be one of the most important components
of learning (Edmond et al., 2006). It is also the area of learning about which students express
210
considerable anxiety, often feeling ‘unprepared’; this has been evidenced in research in a number
of countries (e.g. see Rosenthal Gelman, 2004; Tanga, 2013).
Papua New Guinea: a country, a profession, and a partnership

Archaeological evidence suggests that while human settlement in Papua New Guinea (PNG)
dates back some 60,000 years, European contact with this country did not occur until at least the
sixteenth century. PNG is described as a Melanesian culture whereby the people rely primarily
on religious knowledge as the basis for knowing and understanding the world in which they live
(Whiteman, 1984) and have a strong tradition of connection to the land (Denoon, 2005). There
are understood to be around 800 language groups in the country of around 7 million people.
The existence of the community, and a system of mutual obligation, is viewed as essential
to the emergence of social order in PNG and, according to traditional values, the community
assumes precedence over individual preference. Life is understood in terms of health, wealth,
good relationships, security, prestige and strength (Mantovani, 1984, cited in Brydon & Lawi-
hin, 2014). These concepts can also be understood in terms of wholeness, holism and totality as
distinct from the components of the whole. Such thinking is inherent in the ways in which the
people of Melanesia generally, and in PNG in particular, relate to each other and their environ-
ment, and the value they attach to both nurturing and maintaining relationships. Life without
good relationships is viewed as leading to disequilibrium and sometimes catastrophe. For learn-
ing and transfer of knowledge and skills to occur outside of the immediate family circles, the
relationship has to be strong and demand respect, responsibility, commitment and trust, most
often for mutual gain. Whilst this view carries important messages for both social work practice
and field education, to date this knowledge has not been clearly articulated and connected, as
evidenced by no coherent local statement regarding social work. Part of the ongoing review
process is to develop that common mission for social workers in the country.
PNG has been undergoing rapid economic growth in recent decades, but such “financial
resources are not the most significant determinant of development” (MacPherson, 1996: 58).
Development has proven uneven, with particular challenges in reaching and supporting geo-
graphically isolated populations (AusAID, 2012). Life expectancy is the lowest in the region,
with high levels of maternal and child mortality. Only about half of the population is literate.
The primary source of income for 85% of the population is agriculture; and while there is a
large and capital-intensive mining sector, it only provides about 3% of employment (Feeny,
2005). There are well-documented problems in relation to crime, violence against women and
children, and health – particularly communicable diseases such as AIDS and malaria (Dundon &
Wilde, 2007; WHO, 2014).
It is in this challenging context that social workers operate. Social work education was intro-
duced to the UPNG through the appointment of the first lecturer in social work in 1971
(O’Collins, 1973; Brydon et al., 2014). At that time the university itself was relatively new, having
been established in 1965 as one response to rapid social change and the realisation of the need
to develop professionals trained to respond to both the preventative and remedial functions of
social welfare problems (O’Collins, 1973). The intention of the social work program was to
“respond to the welfare and social development needs of Papua New Guinea and the interna-
tional community” (Yeates, 1982 cited in O’Collins, 1993: 81). MacPherson (1996: 62) describes
the program as a combination of social work, sociology and social administration.Whilst he does
not use the language of indigenisation, it is implied in his description of PNG social work as a
distinct blend of disciplinary knowledge, with the primary purpose being “local social devel-
opment”. It is arguable, however, whether this emphasis on welfare and social development has
211
been fully realised or is in fact now limiting. New and emerging social issues require a range of
ways of being considered and responded to (Fahrudin, 2008). Despite its relatively established
history, the social work program at UPNG has been challenged in recent years: it has operated
in relative isolation, with limited support or oversight either academically or professionally, with
the local professional association, the Papua New Guinea Social Workers Association (PNG-
SWA), having been largely inactive for some years. There are subsequently no local standards or
guidance with regard to social work education or practice. Although the UPNG program was
given international accreditation in 1974 by the IASSW, and remains listed as a member organ-
isation of IFSW (IFSW, 2014), its current accreditation status is unknown, as a result of limited
oversight, either internal or external.
Social work was one of the four discipline areas identified in 2009 by UPNG as needing
external support and assistance. The Vice-Chancellors of the Australian Group of Eight (Go8)
universities subsequently teamed with UPNG with support from AusAID (now Australian Aid)
to address these issues. Although described in more detail elsewhere (e.g. see Brydon et al., 2014;
Flynn et al., 2014), it is important here to summarise some key aspects of the partnership which
has ensued. The original brief did not seek collaboration or partnership but was conceived
of and implemented in a top-down fashion, simply seeking Australian academic ‘volunteers’.
Although it was not explicitly discussed in the development of the project, there was a clear
donor-recipient relationship implied: the resources and services of Monash staff (along with
other Go8 universities) were sought to work with UPNG. Yet, without overt expression, the
two teams of staff resisted this framework and brought a collaborative focus, with two key areas
of attention emerging. First, the building of local knowledge: this was done through collab-
orative research and dissemination, as well as the development of a documentary, Envisioning
Tomorrow: Social Work in PNG (Rose, Flynn & Brydon, 2013), which engaged with local social
work practitioners and educators to showcase how the profession is making a key contribution
to development in PNG, through programs and approaches based on the fundamental principle
of equality and inclusion. Second, we engaged in curriculum review and resourcing, with a
particular focus on field education.
The UPNG social work field education practicum

Social work at UPNG offers two streams of qualifying programs: a four-year undergraduate
social work qualification (Bachelor of Arts, Major in Social Work), for school leavers, and the
two-year Bachelor of Arts (Professional Studies), for those who have a minimum of seven years’
acceptable professional work experience; this latter group are exempt from the field education
component. Field education within the BA in Social Work is offered through the subjects Social
Work Practice A and B (part-time integrated placements, a total of 52 days) at the third-year level
of study and Advanced Fieldwork (full-time block placement of 65 days) in the final year. The
overall goal is for students to be able to develop the social work intervention skills required of a
beginning social work graduate practitioner. Historically, however, the field education program
has been less defined by structure, articulated curricula, or emphasis on learning for practice.
The social work program at UPNG has established and strong informal linkages with health
and human service providers, community development programs, NGOs, churches, donor-
funded projects and government that have continuously offered placements for social work
students. These partnerships reflect a strong Melanesian tradition that emphasises personal and
professional person-to-person relationships over organisational and institutional standards of
engagement. This tradition is founded based on the merits of a wantok as an important social
protection mechanism and platform for reciprocity. A wantok is someone to whom you relate by
212
family, language, religion, political affiliation, geographical location, work, educational history
and/or business. While this can create opportunities for bypassing set protocols and standards,
the wantok system remains the strength and foundation by which many Melanesian communi-
ties are built.These informal connections with placement organisations, often established on the
basis of wantok relationships, stand as one of the single most important reasons that the UPNG
Social Work Program has been able to continue to deliver in the absence of formalised and
institutionalised standards. As the program continues to grow and problems facing communities
become more complex, it is increasingly urgent for the profession in PNG that standards and
expectations are both clarified and formalised in a way that simultaneously coheres with local
realities as well as prevailing international standards for education and training in social work
(Sewpaul & Jones, 2004).
Building knowledge about field education

To begin to define the future of field education at UPNG, a process of ‘looking back’ was
deemed necessary.This began with UPNG staff initiating a process of self-assessment – a process
recommended by the IFSW (2012) in working toward global standards in social work educa-
tion. Peer review was incorporated, via the UPNG-Monash partnership. This initial auditing
involved a mapping of global social work expectations (Sewpaul & Jones, 2004), current teach-
ing practices and the knowledge and skill needs identified by social work practitioners and stu-
dents. Whilst mindful of the need to consider this issue broadly (i.e. considering core curricula:
the domain of the profession, domain of the professional, methods of practice, and social work
paradigms), the primary focus was on practice – specifically field education.
To further investigate the initial trends identified in this audit, two small studies1 were
subsequently conducted. Flynn et al. (2014) sought to describe student expectations and expe-
riences of field education – specifically first placements; while Lawihin (2012; Brydon &
Lawihin, 2013, 2014) investigated the local knowledge of practitioners and educators – their
current practices and views on what should shape field education. See Figure 18.1 for a
Study 1: Flynn et al. (2014) Study 2: Lawihin (2012); Brydon &

Lawihin (2013); Brydon & Lawihin (2014)
Focus: Student perceptions of
preparedness for field education Focus: Field supervisor and
academics views on field education
Sample: 23 students
Sample: 3 academic staff; 7 field
Method: Anonymous individual educators
questionnaire
Method: 2 focus groups and 10
Data: retrospective (experience follow-up individual interviews
of preparation and placement)
Data: exploratory study to understand
contemporary experiences and
perceptions
Field
education
@ UPNG
Figure 18.1 Summary of studies on the experiences of the field education program at UPNG
213
summary. While both studies sought data on experiences of the field education program,
Lawihin’s research (Lawihin, 2012; Brydon & Lawihin, 2013, 2014) broadened the focus, by
seeking to ascertain the extent to which Melanesian values were seen to have an effect on the
field education placement. Although carried out independently, the studies provide a multi-
faceted, albeit initial, view on field education at UPNG, including current issues and future
considerations.
Given that research into field education programs in developing countries – specifically
across the Pacific region – is limited and there has been no known review of field education at
UPNG, both studies took an exploratory approach (Neuman, 2011) to begin to build knowl-
edge in this area. Each study took a different approach, informed by an understanding of ethical
research and the likely power differential in the different stakeholder groups. Flynn et al. (2014)
relied on anonymous questionnaires with a convenience sample of UPNG social work students
in 2010, with potential participants able to provide data anonymously, or not at all, if they did
not wish to participate. On the other hand, Lawihin (2012; Brydon & Lawihin, 2013, 2014),
in research conducted approximately two years later, utilised both focus groups and individual
interviews with a purposive sample of academic staff and field educators.
Key findings
Flynn et al.’s (2014) student participants described core concerns around preparation for learn-
ing and practice, and gaps in knowledge and skills. In relation to preparation, around one-half
of the students (n = 11) reported that they felt ‘just prepared’ for placement. This trend is
reflective of ‘universal’ research findings about student concerns preceding placement, and
most feeling they had had only ‘moderate’ preparation (e.g. see Rosenthal Gelman, 2004). In
Western environments, this is often discussed as anxiety, associated with particular student
characteristics such as age or experience (e.g. see Rosenthal Gelman & Lloyd, 2008). Yet lack
of preparedness has been raised specifically in other settings where social work is a developing
profession, specifically China (Liu, Sun & Anderson, 2013) and Lesotho (Tanga, 2013). Of
interest to this discussion here is how a limited sense of a social work identity may impact on
this preparation. Given that one aim of field placement is to introduce students to the pro-
fession’s values, principles and attitudes in practice, it was concerning to see that almost no
respondents raised these issues. Although not explored in that study, this may reflect, in part,
the lack of access to both a documented, local code of ethics and local professional guidelines
shaping field education.
Overall the responses led us to question the extent to which there is a shared understanding
(from the student, the academy and the supervisor/organisation) of the purpose of a field edu-
cation placement. In an environment where many supervisors are not qualified social workers,
there can be a lack of clarity in relation to the fundamental aims of field education placement,
as well as desired learning outcomes, both of which clearly shape the tasks students engage in.
Anecdotally, some students have been reported by staff to have been given menial tasks, such
as watering the plants, as a significant part of the placement activities. Similar concerns about
students doing “odd jobs that are not social-work-related such as preparing tea for other staff
members, cleaning offices, sorting mail and fetching drinking water for the office” were noted
by Tanga (2013: 169).This is seen to be at least partly the result of a lack of clear roles and expec-
tations about social work and social work students on placement.
One important gap noted by just under one-quarter of students (n = 5) was in relation to
their understanding of general social work practice, and their understanding of the nature of
social work and their role:
214
[We need] real knowledge on the concept of social work i.e. to view/perceive social
work to be something different rather than only to do with stuff like counselling
only.
. . . we don’t specialise in any type of category. I have no idea what I am supposed
to do. The only thing that I’m sure of is being a welfare officer, apart from that, what
are my specialities? What are my fields, as a social worker?
This provides an overall sense of feeling unprepared: about the social work role, the place,
or even expectations, despite a curriculum that had been structured to ensure that, prior to
embarking on field education, students had been exposed to some input in basic communica-
tion skills, research, planning, writing and basic computer skills. This is of particular concern if
supervisors are not social workers and are not able to help students make connections between
what they are doing on placement and professional practice, with links to guiding values, ethics
and theories.
In Lawihin’s research (Lawihin, 2012; Brydon & Lawihin, 2013, 2014), the most encour-
aging finding from academic and field supervisor perspectives demonstrated a high degree of
convergence of views, with both holding field education as being centrally concerned with the
integration of classroom learning and direct practice. It was suggested that the framework could
best be aligned with the PNG concept of ‘initiation’; that is, the trial and testing of abilities, to
ensure that abilities are confirmed prior to being ready to assume a new role (Brydon & Law-
ihin, 2013).
However, there was also a clear view that there were a number of issues needing attention.
These primarily addressed the need for planning and delivery of the field education program
(Brydon & Lawihin, 2013). In particular, challenges were perceived in developing a program
that could simultaneously meet international expectations whilst also being sensitive to local
realities.Within this context, a critical issue related to the notion that the ‘Melanesian Way’ needs
emphasis.The principle of the Melanesian Way is derived from the National Goals and Directive
Principles as enshrined in the PNG Constitution specified in Goal 5: Papua New Guinean Ways.
Central to the Melanesian Way is the relationship: that is, nurturing of relationships in an infor-
mal way that prioritises relationships as a prerequisite for more formal partnership (Brydon &
Lawihin, 2014). Although not explicitly articulated in the curriculum, it was also held that Mel-
anesian values have underpinned this:
Social work in PNG is more community orientated, it is not individualist. Individual

is only when they go down for counselling. That is when they go one-on-one. This is
because in our Melanesian context when a problem happens, it involves the family, the
extended family and the community. . . .
(Research respondent cited in Lawihin, 2012 and Brydon & Lawihin, 2014)
This is not to hold, however, that the notion of the Melanesian Way is to be accepted une-
quivocally. At its broadest level, Melanesian values can be held up as an umbrella term which
may overshadow the rich complexity and diversity of life within PNG. It was held that the pres-
ence of a wantok system promoted themes of collective caring, respect and helping each other.
It also was held, however, to undermine time management and promote ‘laziness’, as well as
suggesting that negative feedback could only be constructed as unacceptable rather than perhaps
contributing to character building (Brydon & Lawihin, 2014).
Consequently, while Melanesian values may be influential in social work within PNG, there
is also a broader professional concern that seeks to balance autonomy with support and to
215
challenge the interplay of professional and cultural values. What is clear from the studies is a
shared perception of social work field education in PNG as being central to the development
of competent practitioners, with some indication of a shared view on this matter between aca-
demics and some field educators.
Discussion
Reflecting on the recent developments in field education at UPNG, and on knowledge devel-
oped through the two studies conducted to date, it is clear that there is learning which can be
useful in other developing contexts, with regard to ensuring locally relevant field education as
part of the broader social work curriculum.
Our experiences highlight the need to begin with a locally informed and shared under-
standing of what social work ‘looks like’ in a specific context. Our research with educators from
academia and a small number from the field indicates that these two groups have some shared
ideas about the scope of social work in PNG. A more widespread understanding of these ideas,
however, seems questionable. Data from social work students describe a lack of clarity with
regard to their understanding of the social work role, as well as that of their supervisors. This
has implications for the expectations and responsibilities of students undertaking placements.
This gap also points to the current lack of documentation about social work in PNG, such as
a national statement or code of ethics from the professional association, which could act as a
point of reference for educators, students and supervisors alike. As noted above, the association
has been dormant for a number of years, and efforts to revive it have, so far, met with limited
success. More recently the process of reactivating the national social work professional body has
been renewed, with the hope that local standards will be one of its key priority undertakings.
Developing curriculum in this context, it may also be appropriate to look for assistance from
neighbouring social work professional associations as well as the Asian and Pacific Association of
Social Work Education.This is a critical area for development if the field education program, and
indeed the entire social work education program, of which field education is only one compo-
nent, is to develop in a way that can respond to peer review that is both rigorous and transparent
and seeking to commit to a process of ongoing improvement in order the meet changing needs
within the local context. By way of caution, it is critical that emergent standards fulfil a role as
benchmarks and guides but do not stifle the local context. They also need to meet international
benchmarks (IFSW, 2014) but remain mindful of the realities and constraints of the local con-
text.The goal is to recognise that social work practice in developing countries – in this instance,
PNG – is both similar to and different from that in other contexts, addressing particular social
problems in a context of a particular level of development. To insist on uniformity would be to
risk stifling the development of truly indigenous theories and models of social work practice.
The research by Lawihin (2012; Brydon & Lawihin, 2013, 2014) highlights some of the initial
steps which may be useful in apprehending and articulating local cultural knowledge, notably
consultation with social workers in the field and specifically seeking this localised knowledge
and ways of thinking and doing. To advance this beginning knowledge requires specific seek-
ing of other values and more nuanced understanding of the ‘Melanesian Way’, marrying up
these ideas with universal concepts of social work. To that end, one of our authors (Lawihin)
is currently engaged in research which specifically examines what knowledge key stakehold-
ers in social work see as necessary to advancing field education in PNG; this involves explicit
exploration and naming of local values and knowledge. As Ugiagbe (2014) notes, some cultural
practices may enhance social work theory and practice. This research seeks to balance both a
local and global view.
216
This ongoing engagement in research and publishing also ensures that the voices of local
social workers reach a wider audience, sharing how social work is done in a specific context,
as well as elucidating the shared achievements and challenges. To further this global perspec-
tive, ongoing collaboration internationally would seem valuable. Our collaboration to date has
generated mutual benefits for both staff teams, shared learning and closer ties between the two
schools of social work.
Conclusion
The collaboration between UPNG and Monash demonstrates that whilst it is ultimately the role
of local academics, in partnership with local social work practitioners and students, to find ways
forward in developing relevant curricula to guide culturally valid practice, international partner-
ships can provide resources, a ‘sounding board’ and a global viewpoint. It is also clear, however,
that leadership and local standards are needed to support these developments. This partnership
has supported the beginning steps in indigenising the curriculum, reflecting on and critically
interrogating the foundational values as shared and defined by both international standards and
the in situ values and norms of the local context. Accordingly, neither the local nor the global
are privileged: the challenge is to work out how they best intertwine to meet the needs of local
service users. In the context of PNG this means that attention needs to be paid not only to the
importance of Melanesian values but to the critical analyses of these; this is a work in progress.
Within this framework, opportunities emerge to claim the most desirable elements of West-
ern, non-Western and Melanesian values in order to build local, or indigenous, knowledge.
Critical and investigative mapping of prevailing international standards to local practice and
local realities is vital. This is not an exercise that simply asks, “How do we adapt local practice
to international standards?” Rather, it ought to allow us to ask what local knowledge we pos-
sess; how that knowledge is relevant to our endeavours; and to what extent is it consistent with
international standards and expectations. Essentially, this does not entail subordinating local
knowledge to the international: it seeks to promote the ways in which the local coheres to the
international in a similar, but different, way.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the original support offered through the Go8 Vice-Chancellors and
funding from AusAID as well as the ongoing support of our respective institutions. Thanks is
also due to Dr. Kerry Brydon, who was a key member of the UPNG-Monash collaboration and
gave considerable feedback on this chapter.
Note
1 Both studies were approved and supported by the UPNG School of Humanities and Social Sciences
Research and Publications Committee and Monash University HREC.
References
AusAID (2012). Papua New Guinea annual program performance report. Available at www.ausaid.gov.au/
countries/pacific/png/Documents/png-appr-2011.pdf [Accessed 16 November 2013].
Brydon, K., Kamasua, J., Flynn, C., Mason, R., Au, R., Ayius, D., & Hampson, R. (2014). Developing an
international social work education collaboration: A partnership approach between Monash University,
Australia and University of Papua New Guinea. International Social Work, 57, 590–604.
217
Brydon, K., & Lawihin, D. (2013). The current situation in social work education in Papua New Guinea.
Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, 15(2), 69–83.
Brydon, K., & Lawihin, D. (2014). Melanesian visions? Some preliminary thoughts about social work edu-
cation and practice in Papua New Guinea. International Social Work, doi: 10.1177/0020872813515012.
Coventry, L., & Grace, M. (2013). Reciprocity and cultural diversity: Creating successful field education
placements. In C. Noble, M. Henrickson, & I. Y. Han (Eds.), Social work education. Voices from the Asia
Pacific (2nd ed., pp. 303–324), Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Denoon, D. (2005). A trial separation: Australia and the decolonisation of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pan-
danus Books.
Dhemba, J. (2012). Fieldwork in social work education and training: Issues and challenges in the case of
Eastern and Southern Africa. Social Work and Society, 10(1), 2013. Available at http://nbn-resolving.de/
urn:nbn:de:hbz:464-sws-13 [Accessed 26 June 2013].
Dundon, A., & Wilde, C. (2007). Introduction: HIV and AIDS in rural Papua New Guinea. Oceania, 77(1),
1–11 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1834-4461.2007.tb00001.x.
Edmond, T., Megiven, D., Williams, C., Rochman, E., & Howard, M. (2006). Integrating evidence-based
practice and social work field education. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 377–396.
Fahrudin, A. (2008). Social welfare and social work in Indonesia. In S. C. B. L. Furuto (Ed.), Social welfare in
East Asia and the Pacific (pp. 136–157). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Faleolo, M. (2013). Authentication in social work education: The balancing act. In C. Noble, M. Henrick-
son, & I. Y. Han (Eds.), Social work education. Voices from the Asia Pacific (2nd ed., pp. 105–132), Sydney:
Sydney University Press.
Feeny, S. (2005). The impact of foreign aid on economic growth in Papua New Guinea. The Journal of
Development Studies, 41(6), 1092–1117.
Flynn, C., Kamasua, J., Brydon, K., Lawihin, D., Kornhauser, T., & Grimes, E. (2014). Preparedness for field
education placement: Social work students’ experiences in Papua New Guinea. Social Work Education,
33(4), 435–450.
Gray, M., & Coates, J. (2010). “Indigenization” and knowledge development: Extending the debate. Inter-
national Social Work, 53(5), 613–627.
Hugman, R. (2010). Understanding international social work: A critical analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hussein, S. (2014). Hierarchical challenges to transnational social workers’ mobility: The United Kingdom
as a destination within an expanding European Union. British Journal of Social Work, doi: 10.1093/bjsw/
bcu050.
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). (2012). Global standards. Geneva: International Feder-
ation of Social Workers. Available at http://ifsw.org/policies/global-standards/ [Accessed 14 February
2015].
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) (2014). Global definition of social work. Geneva: Inter-
national Federation of Social Workers. Available at http://ifsw.org/get-involved/global-definition-of-
social-work/ [Accessed 14 February 2015].
Khan, R., & Holody, R. (2012). Supporting field instructors’ efforts to help students improve writing. Jour-
nal of Social Work Education, 48(1), 65–72.
Lawihin, D. (2012). Shaping the future of student fieldwork in social work education at UPNG, Papua New Guinea.
Applied Research Study Report, Department of Social Work, Monash University, Melbourne.
Liu, M., Sun, F., & Anderson, S. G. (2013). Challenges in social work field education in China: Lessons from
the western experience. Social Work Education:The International Journal, 32(2), 179–196.
Lyngstad, R. (2012). Contextual social work and internationalizing social work education: Two sides of the
same story? Journal of Social Work, 13(4), 400–418.
MacPherson, S. (1996). Social work and economic development in Papua New Guinea. International Social
Work, 39, 55–67.
Mendes, P. (2005). The history of social work in Australia: A critical literature review. Australian Social Work,
58(2), 121–131.
Neuman, L. (2011). Social research methods qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Nikku, B. R. (2010). Social work education in Nepal: Major opportunities and abundant challenges. Social
Work Education:The International Journal, 29(8), 818–830.
Noble, C. (2013). Social work in the Asia Pacific: From rhetoric to practice. In C. Noble, M. Henrickson &
I. Y. Han (Eds.), Social work education: Voices from the Asia Pacific (2nd ed., pp. 343–366). Sydney: Sydney
University Press.
218
Noble, C., Henrickson, M., & Han, I. Y. (2013). Introduction. In C. Noble, M. Henrickson & I. Y. Han
(Eds.), Social work education.Voices from the Asia Pacific (2nd ed., pp. v–ix), Sydney: Sydney University Press.
O’Collins, M. (1973). Introducing social work education at the University of Papua New Guinea. Interna-
tional Social Work, 16(1), 20–25.
O’Collins, M. (1993). Social Development in Papua New Guinea 1972–1990: Searching for Solutions in a chang-
ing World. Political and Social Change Monograph 18. Canberra: Australian National University.
Payne, M. (2001). Knowledge bases and knowledge biases in social work. Journal of Social Work, 1(2),
133–146.
Payne, M. (2005). The origins of social work: Continuity and change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rai, G. (2004). International fieldwork experience: A survey of U.S. schools. International Social Work, 47(2),
213–226.
Rose, C., Flynn, C., & Brydon, K. (2013). Envisioning tomorrow: Social work in PNG. Melbourne: Monash
University, DVD production.
Rosenthal Gelman, C. (2004). Anxiety experienced by foundation year MSW students entering field place-
ment: Implications for admissions, curriculum, and field education. Journal of Social Work Education, 40(1),
39–54.
Rosenthal Gelman, C., & Lloyd, C. (2008). Foundation-year MSW students’ pre-placement anxiety: A
follow-up study. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(1), 173–183.
Sewpaul,V., & Jones, D. (2004). Global standards for social work education and training. Social Work Educa-
tion:The International Journal, 23(5), 493–513.
Sullivan, M. P., Forrester, D., & Al-Makhamreh, S. (2010).Transnational collaboration: Evaluation of a social
work training workshop in Jordan. International Social Work, 53(2), 217–232.
Tanga, P. T. (2013). The challenges of social work field training in Lesotho. Social Work Education, 32(2),
157–178. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2012.741578.
Trygged, S. (2010). ‘Balancing the global and the local: Some normative reflections on international social
work’, International Social Work, 53(5), 644–655.
Ugiagbe, E. O. (2014). Social work is context-bound: The need for indigenization of social work practice
in Nigeria. International Social Work, doi: 10.1177/0020872813515013.
Wayne, J., Bogo, M., & Raskin, M. (2006). The need for radical change in field education. Journal of Social
Wayne, J., Bogo, M., & Raskin, M. (2010). Field education as the signature pedagogy of social work educa-
tion: Congruence and disparity. Journal of Social Work Education, 46(3), 327–339.
Weiss-Gal, I. (2005). Is there a global common core to social work? A cross-national comparative study of
BSW graduate students. Social Work, 50(2), 101–110.
Weiss-Gal, I., & Welbourne, P. (2008). The professionalization of social work: A cross national exploration.
International Journal of Social Welfare, 17(4), 281–290.
Whiteman, D. (1984). Melanesian religions: An overview. In E. Mantovani (Ed.), An introduction to Melane-
sian religions (pp. 1–22). Goroka PNG: The Melanesian Institute, Available at www.mi/org/pg/Pages/
Point/Melanesian%20Institute%20 [Accessed 27 September 2013].
Wong, Y., & Pearson, V. (2007). Mission possible: Building social work professional identity through field-
work placements in China. Social Work Education, 26(3), 292–310.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2014). Country cooperation strategy Papua New Guinea. Available at
www.who.int/countryfocus/cooperation_strategy/ccsbrief_png_en.pdf [Accessed 14 February 2015]
Yunong, H., & Xiong, Z. (2008). A reflection on the indigenization discourse in social work. International
Social Work, 51(5), 611–622.
219
19
CONTESTING FIELD EDUCATION
IN SOCIAL WORK
Using critical reflection to enhance student
learning for critical practice
Introduction
Global social forces have significantly impacted the delivery and orientation of field education
in social work throughout contemporary neoliberal, capitalist countries. A key consequence of
this has been the valorisation of generic skills and competency-based approaches to learning at
the expense of theoretically informed and critically reflective practice. This reduces social work
practice to a set of techniques that are inadequate for equipping students to respond to the
potentially complex, diverse and uncertain practice situations they are likely to encounter in the
field. Dominant technicist approaches decentre the importance of theory within field education,
bolster artificial divisions between academia and the field, can lead to conservative practice, and
may limit field education opportunities to mainstream, organisational practice (resulting in a
shift away from policy, community development and activist placements).
However, despite this contemporary emphasis on standards and techniques, field education
remains a contested and discretionary space in which both students and supervisors can and
do devise ways to practice critically. What are the opportunities for field education to promote
critical social work practice? And how might critical reflection be a useful pedagogical tool to
assist with this aim? This chapter explores these questions through the prism of a case study
based on a critical incident that occurred during a student’s placement. This practice example
demonstrates how critical reflection assisted the student to: 1) question the influence of oppres-
sive (racist, patriarchal and colonialist) discourses; and 2) develop greater congruence between
espoused theory and actual practice, in ways that may not be explored in technique-oriented
field education programs.
The impact of global forces on social work and social work education
Global social forces such as global capitalism, neoliberalism and managerialism have significantly
affected the social and political contexts in which social workers practice and teach (see for
example Morley, Macfarlane & Ablett, 2014). The consequences of this for social work, which
have been comprehensively critiqued elsewhere (see for example Rees, 1999; Baines, 2006;
Ferguson and Lavalette, 2006; Holscher & Sewpaul, 2006; Wehbi & Turcotte, 2007; Madhu,
220
Contesting field education
2011; Wallace & Pease, 2011), include a denial of structural explanations of social problems,
a disproportionate emphasis on individual responsibility, and a focus on market values that
affronts the emancipatory goals of social work. Constituting the discourses that justify global
capitalism, neoliberalism creates a set of organisational practices, referred to as managerialism,
which views all problems as economic problems that can be solved by expecting practitioners
to achieve more outcomes with fewer resources (Holscher & Sewpaul, 2006; Wallace & Pease,
2011). Cost-cutting measures, the standardisation of practice, the pursuit of scientific certainty
to explain complex social, economic and political problems, and a preoccupation with risk at
the expense of social justice and human rights are some of the hallmarks of neoliberalism and
managerialism that are all now well documented (Holscher & Sewpaul, 2006; Marginson, 2006;
Fook & Gardner, 2007; Bellinger, 2010; Madhu, 2011). A key consequence of these sweeping
contextual changes in the higher education sector is that education, which was once viewed as
a public good and essential for a democratic society, is now treated as a commodity that can be
privately owned, resulting in a complete misunderstanding of the nature of knowledge (Giroux,
2011; Riddle, 2014).
The fundamental purpose of higher education is to contribute to a democratic soci-
ety through fostering socially responsible, critical and self-reflective thinkers (Giroux, 2011).
Numerous scholars have warned of the potential for neoliberalism and managerialism to reo-
rientate social work education towards market imperatives, impoverishing academic standards
and diminishing the core purpose of education (see for example Marginson, 2006; Wehbi &
Turcotte, 2007; Madhu, 2011; Preston, George & Silver, 2014). Some commentators have spe-
cifically cautioned against the “risk of acquiescing to a more mainstream curriculum” in social
work that offers little resistance to the neoliberal agenda (Preston et al., 2014: 45).
The impact of global forces on social work field education

Not surprisingly, the same global social forces that are shaping social work education and prac-
tice more broadly have significantly affected the concept and practice of field education.This has
resulted in greater divisions between academia and the field and the sidelining of field education
programs within universities that regard them as time-consuming and expensive (Morley &
Dunstan, 2013). For example, in the Australian context, some states (including Victoria), are
now requiring universities to pay for placements in health, and there are growing expecta-
tions for universities to pay for placements in other fields of practice also. In South Australia,
universities are required to contribute funds for clinical supervision in some programs. This
market-based model is becoming a driver of social work education, resulting in field placements
being regarded as costly and problematic by some universities (Wilson & Campbell, 2013;
Zuchowski, 2015). Within this context, field education can be devalued and seen as less impor-
tant than other priorities including the pursuit of funded research by some academic staff and
managers. This can marginalise the position of field education within social work education,
leading to academic staff being less involved in field-related work, and an ultimate lack of inte-
gration between field education and classroom learning and teaching (Raskin, Wayne & Bogo,
2008; Wilson & Campbell, 2013; Zuchowski, 2015).
At the same time, the Australian context has seen a proliferation of Master of Social (Qualify-
ing) coursework programs emerge in recent years.These programs offer a two-year postgraduate
qualification in social work for applicants with a prior three-year degree. Many of these students
may have considerable experience in human service, counselling, community work or related
roles and regard undertaking the 1,000 hours of unpaid field education required by the Austral-
ian Association of Social Workers (AASW) as tantamount to slavery. The issues of poverty and
221
financial hardship for social work students undertaking placement hours without remuneration
have been well documented in Australia (Brough et al., 2015).
Collectively these issues marginalise social work field education within the academy, and
social work educators are challenged to consider strategies to resist pressures to compromise
academic standards and maintain quality and integrity in social work field education programs
(Morley & Dunstan, 2013). In attempting to alleviate the rising costs and pressures associated
with field education, some academic leaders in Australia are discussing the restructuring of
undergraduate social work education from a four-year degree with field education embedded,
to a three-year coursework degree with a one-year internship (replacing field education).
Having adopted a similar model in the United Kingdom, critics have acknowledged that it is
not without its difficulties. Concerns include the inequitable nature of internships (i.e. privileg-
ing students who represent dominant groups) as students are individually required to compete
for placements, rather than universities making arrangements for students to complete the field
education component of their degree (Atkinson, 2010). The potential for internships to reduce
field education to competency-based training has also been noted as a problem (Peters, Hal-
comb & McInnes, 2013; Preston et al., 2014).
Competency-based approaches
It is no coincidence that competency-based approaches, which reduce practice learning to the
acquisition of generic skills and techniques, have gained ascendance during neoliberal times.
With its rampant focus on individualism, a neoliberal agenda is supported by competency-based
approaches that, in the pursuit of technical proficiency, tend to neglect injustices and divisions in
existing social arrangements (Wehbi & Turcotte, 2007; Preston et al., 2014). Among other things,
practice involves moral, ethical, political, social, intellectual and theoretical dimensions that can-
not be reduced to a set of techniques. Falsely mistaking practice for technique tends to lead
to politically conservative practice that focuses on individual adjustment and maintenance of
the status quo, instead of theoretically informed and critically reflective analysis aimed at trans-
forming social and political structures and power relations that cause inequality (Ferguson &
Smith, 2012; Morley et al., 2014). Technicist approaches are inadequate for equipping students
to respond to the potentially complex, diverse and uncertain practice situations they are likely
to encounter in the field and perpetuate the perception that practice is somehow unaffected
by global social forces including neoliberal, capitalist, colonialist, patriarchal and medicalised
discourses (see for example Dominelli, 2009; Morley et al., 2014). This negates the need for
field education and practice generally to be critically reflective and distracts practitioners from
broader emancipatory social change goals.
Narrowing of placement opportunities

A further consequence of managerial practices in field education is the shift to an “agency-based”
model of field education, which tends to be tied to mainstream organisational practice (largely
work with individuals focused on assessment and intervention in case management roles) at
the expense of “community-based” models. Preston et al. (2014) argue that the dominance
of agency-based models in field education may limit the exploration of less traditional place-
ment options. This can involve a shift away from social change-oriented practices such as policy
development, community development and activist work, in favour of more clinical settings
and practices. They point to the disjuncture between critical content that is taught in the class-
rooms of progressive social work programs and students’ experiences of working in bureaucratic
222
organisations dominated by managerial practices.They call for a “radical transformation” of field

education that includes consideration of community placements that are issue based and empha-
sise learning that advances progressive social change (Preston et al., 2014). For this reason, they
argue community-based placements are fundamental “to maintaining a commitment to prepar-
ing and supporting critical activist practitioners” (p. 57). Whilst the broadening of placement
options strengthens opportunities for critical practice, we also support the view that critical
practice can and is being undertaken in a range of agency contexts including those identified as
bureaucratic and dominated by neoliberalism (see for example Pockett & Giles, 2008; Fook &
Gardner, 2013).
Field education as vehicle to affirm or contest mainstream conservatism?

Underpinning these tensions about how to best deliver and structure field education programs,
a number of scholars point to two competing epistemological positions that inform social work:
those that complicitly embrace and work within neoliberal principles, and those that seek to
challenge and resist them. Some have characterised these contrasting positions as the positivist/
conservative modernist perspectives on one hand, which augment neoliberal doctrines; and the
critically reflective/ postmodern paradigms on the other, which aim to challenge and resist neo-
liberalism (Holscher & Sewpaul, 2006). A similar distinction has been drawn between conserva-
tive and progressive (Mullaly, 2007), or establishment and critical understandings of social work
(Morley et al., 2014).This mirrors observations made about the divisions between casework and
community work (Salle, 2003), the differences between ecological and radical practice (Preston
et al., 2014), or the view of social workers as agents of social control or agents of social change
(Hick, 2006).Within these competing perspectives, field education in social work can become a
vehicle to affirm mainstream conservatism or a catalyst to challenge and resist it.
Field education influenced by neoliberal and managerial principles privileges the former
in its construction and operations. This is visible in the documents that govern field education
produced by a number of professional accrediting bodies. For example, four out of eight “key
components of practice” identified by the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW)
Practice Standards include “professionalism”, “communication and interpersonal skills”, “infor-
mation recording and sharing” and “professional development and supervision” (AASW, 2013:
8). Former references to social policy and critical reflection as key areas have been removed
from the most recent iteration of the practice standards document (AASW, 2013). The current
draft of the Education and Policy Accreditation Standard for the US Council on Social Work
Education (CSWE) also seems to privilege “evidence-informed practice through scientific
inquiry” (CSWE, 2015: 1) and a “competency-based” approach to education which is explicitly
“outcomes-orientated” (CSWE, 2015: 2). Consistent with these themes, The College of Social
Work (TCSW) in England has similarly developed a Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF)
that sets out responsibilities for practitioners and expectations for standards of practice in ways
that support the dominant conservatism in social work. Whilst critical reflection is listed as one
of the nine PCF domains, critical reflection is a diverse and contested concept. The assump-
tions underpinning critical reflection as presented in the PCF document are quite different to
the model of critical reflection being proposed below. According to Preston et al. (2014), the
Canadian standards of social work practice correspondingly emphasise “psychosocial and social
functioning” rather than critical, emancipatory, social change-orientated goals (Preston et al.,
2014, citing Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, 2008: 7). Referring
to the Canadian Association for Social Work Education, Wiebe (2010: 70) also notes that the
field education standards “place little emphasis on social justice”.
223
From a critical perspective, social work education is inherently political and aspires to facili-
tate agents of change who understand the moral and social implications of their practice and are
cognisant of their role to challenge social injustice (Ferguson & Smith, 2012; Morley & Mac-
farlane, 2014). Providing a fundamental connection between universities and the communities,
social work education and the field, and the relationship between theory and practice (Razack,
1999; Cleak & Wilson, 2013), we agree with others who contend that field education can play a
vital role in enabling students to realise the emancipatory and transformative potential of critical
social work in practice (Razack, 1999; Ferguson & Smith, 2012; Preston et al., 2014). In this
way, field education provides a space for critically reflective practice of students to “inform and
reform knowledge” (Razack, 1999: 35) as we “reimagine field education creatively” to expose
and unsettle “current practices” and challenge global social forces that lead to mainstream con-
servatism in the field (Preston et al., 2014: 67).
Critically reflective field education

Despite the commodification of field education, the contemporary emphasis on standards and
techniques, and the narrowing of placement opportunities outside of conventional settings, field
education remains a contested and discretionary space in which both students and supervisors
engage in critical practice.Whilst critical approaches to field education have only received sparse
attention in the literature (Razack, 2002; Fook & Askeland, 2006; Pockett & Giles, 2008; Fergu-
son & Smith, 2012; Morley & Dunstan, 2013), critical reflection is one strategy that enables stu-
dents and educators opportunities to engage critically with placement experiences and position
field education as a site of critical learning and teaching (Morley & Dunstan, 2013) as well as a
“site of resistance” to dominant social forces (Preston et al., 2014: 58).
Given the numerous understandings of critical reflection, in this chapter, we draw on Fook’s
(2012) model of critical reflection as it assists us to understand the ways we frame problems
and offers a concrete process towards transformative change. Borrowing from related tradi-
tions including reflective practice (Schon, 1987) discourse analysis (Gee, 2010), deconstruction
(Derrida, 1978), reflexivity (Taylor & White, 2000) and critical postmodern theories in social
work (see for example, Allan, Briskman and Pease, 2009), critical reflection assists students and
practitioners to identify and reform implicit values, beliefs and assumptions that are influenced
by dominant ideologies, power structures and relations that are unhelpful for practice. As a peda-
gogical approach, critical reflection has been used to: 1) evaluate practitioners’ social positioning
and the role of geographic/locational, historical, ethnic, gendered and socioeconomic factors in
shaping personal biographies and worldviews; 2) analyse practitioners’ perceptions of the impact
of socio-political factors on client problems and practice decisions; and 3) reflect on professional
practice to discern possibilities for action (Fook, 2012). Key roles of critical reflection are to
assist students and practitioners to pay greater attention to context, develop multiple and diverse
ways of knowing, develop greater acceptance of uncertainty, advance more multifaceted under-
standings of power and identity (Allan et al., 2009; Fook, 2012) and unearth new insights into
professional practice (Tseris, 2008: 31).
The remainder of this paper explores how critical reflection can be a useful pedagogical
tool to assist field education to become a site of critical learning, theorising and practice. A case
study/critical incident that one of the authors (David) encountered during his final placement
will be used to demonstrate how critical reflection prompted him to: 1) question the influence
of oppressive (racist, patriarchal and colonialist) discourses on his practice; and 2) develop greater
congruence between his espoused theory and actual practice.
224
My first account of the critical incident

I completed my final placement within the social work education department at the university in
which I was studying. One of the research projects I worked on during my placement was an inde-
pendent evaluation of sexual health training offered by a family planning centre (FPC).The follow-
ing narrative represents a critical incident that occurred in the context of undertaking this research.
Consistent with Fook’s (2012) model of critical reflection, I documented a detailed description of
the incident and recorded my initial reflections about why the incident was critical for me. The
story was then deconstructed (taken apart) to expose essentialist qualities, hidden assumptions and
dichotomous constructions embedded within it (Fook, 2012).The final stage involved reconstruc-
tion: a re-telling of the story in a way that highlights alternative understandings.The reconstruction
also demonstrates the learning gained from critical reflection that was ultimately crucial to my field
education learning and development as a professional social worker (Fook, 2012).
Given that the sexual health training we were evaluating was being delivered in a commu-
nity with a significant Aboriginal population, the contact person for the FPC arranged for the
research team to meet with Aboriginal Elders and other interested parties in the community
to discuss the research. After some brief introductions at this meeting, one of the Uncles1 was
asked if he would like to give a “welcome to country”.2 I have witnessed many such welcomes
before, which have been polite and hospitable, but this one was different. To my surprise, Uncle
responded, “If I have to give the welcome, I will, but I am sick of you bloody white fellas com-
ing up here telling us what to do. What do you know about Aboriginal culture? I have done
secret men’s business. What have you done? I have been doing this since the sixties. I have seen
the destruction of our sacred lands, the poisoning of our rivers and devastation of our culture.
I have been involved in civil rights marches. I have been in these meetings for over thirty years
and nothing has changed.”
At this point, my work colleague/field educator from the university (Christine) assured
Uncle that we were not there to evaluate his cultural knowledge; that we were there to hear
people’s stories and to explore with them whether they felt the sexual health training was appro-
priate for the community’s needs. Uncle was sitting directly across the table from me. I sensed
that Uncle’s anger was channelled at me. I was stunned and felt as if I had been ambushed.
I looked across the table at the FPC worker, waiting for her to intervene, but nothing happened.
My initial reflections indicate that I constructed myself as having less power than anyone
else in the room at that point; a common experience for students who may position themselves
as passive learners (Finch, Beacon, Klassen & Wrase, 2003). This construction also hid another
implicit assumption about power existing as a commodity that people can possess (McKinlay,
Carter & Pezet, 2012: 8). I also privileged a construction of my identity as “inexperienced stu-
dent”, positioning myself in binary oppositional terms to my “experienced work colleagues”,
thereby expecting more from them than myself to intervene and address Uncle’s behaviour.
When the meeting ended I brushed off the heated barrage from Uncle. However, when
I got home later that night I felt angry and upset. I thought, how dare he call me some white
fella? I would not call him some black fella; that would be racist! I felt Uncle had made a lot
of assumptions about me before I even had a chance to speak. Uncle did not know my history.
Being Irish, I too come from a country that was colonised, and six of the counties are still under
the United Kingdom’s domain. I too speak English as a consequence of colonisation.
Feeling comfortable and familiar with the concept and practice of critical reflection from my
classroom learning, I recognised the incident as critical for me and embarked on a process of
inquiry as part of my field education learning. Some initial, quite superficial reflection focused
on wanting to learn about how I perceived myself in the world, including aspects of having
225
agency or feeling powerless; however, I still felt torn, agitated and angry, which was a good indi-
cation that the reflection needed to go further. Consequently, multiple understandings of the
critical incident became apparent (Gardner, 2006).
Deconstruction
In deconstructing the incident, I became aware that I had essentialised Uncle (Hollinsworth,
2006). I had expected him to act in a prescribed manner in accordance with my previous expe-
riences. Tripp (1998: 36) notes, “we tend to set people up to accept and maintain a view of the
world that is based on our own values.” I had expected Uncle to act like the “nice, Aboriginal
people” who do the polite “welcome to country”. Despite extensive cultural awareness training,
and critiques of doing so, I perceived Uncle as part of a homogenous group with no personal
identity of his own (Ridani et al., 2015: 2). This can be seen as an insidious form of assimilation
where one must align with the dominant view (Augoustinos and Every, 2007). Assimilation also
perversely holds the “other” accountable for “their misappropriations”, and they are silenced
through disqualification (Pease, 2002). Critically reflecting on this placement experience assisted
me to expose and challenge these unconscious ethnocentric and hegemonic assumptions that
influenced my initial construction of Uncle and the incident (Nelson, 2013).
This initial construction had also positioned Uncle and I within a coloniser/colonised
dichotomy (Hansen, 2006). With my commitment to supporting the plight of Aboriginal peo-
ple in Australia, yet feeling unjustifiably attacked by Uncle, I thought, “Hey, we are on the same
side!” Deconstruction highlights that this way of thinking (my way of thinking) has the potential
to be very oppressive, as I was trying to regulate and confine Uncle to my constructed reality
(Savaya & Gardner, 2012). I was not hearing Uncle’s story during the incident. Rather, I was
interpreting his story and shaping it into a narrative that reinforced my subjective experience.
Featherstone and Fawcett (1995: 29) note, “universal theorising in this way elides differences
and operates in ways which silences and obscures.” There are common themes among colo-
nised groups, but there are also variations and individual stories within those groups (Briskman,
2007).This highlights the need to be aware of modernist categories that ignore the diversity and
fluidity of beliefs that constitute the lived experience (Madhu, 2011). On reflection, I also feel
aligning myself with Uncle in this way is a form of self-gratification and a denial of my white
privilege (Zufferey, 2012).
My agitation at not acting in the meeting was compounded by the gendered and patriarchal
constructions I held and will continue to interrogate (Bailey, Buchbinder & Eisikovits, 2011;
Henrickson, 2013). At the time of the incident, I felt I should be defending the honour of my
female colleagues and to not do so made me less of a man. No one else at the table implied
I needed to protect my female colleagues. However, I was measuring myself against a perceived
masculine ideal, which “acts as a form of discipline and conditioning where one conditions
oneself and holds others to those judgements” (Randall & Munro, 2010: 1487). By exclusively
employing a modernist critical perspective, I had reproduced dominant constructions of gen-
der, which led to defining my female colleagues as a homogenous group, therefore continuing
the cycle of patriarchal thinking. Morley (2009: 153) states, “feminism utilises the gendered
categories of masculinity and femininity . . . the deconstruction of these dichotomies argua-
bly . . . operates to bolster dominant power relations.”
One aspect of the narrative I had omitted from my original account was Uncle’s gratitude
for clarification of our roles. When my field educator clarified our positions in relation to the
project, Uncle responded, “Thank you, sister. I appreciate that.” Bay and Macfarlane (2011:
753) note that the information we choose to include, limit, omit or distort in our accounts,
226
“usually serves the dominant discourse”. I excluded Uncle’s response from my initial account,
as it diminished my view that Uncle had done the wrong thing. I used language such as “heated
barrage” to describe his speech to reinforce the rightness of my view. I also felt that as the only
male member of the research team, I should have been the one to clear up any misunderstand-
ings, thereby preserving hegemonic constructions of masculinity (Hinojosa, 2010; Bowley, 2013;
Henrickson, 2013). Exposing these contradictions in the story increases the opportunity for the
fragmentation of dominant discourses. Elucidating the gap between how I practiced and how
I would like to practice also provides valuable opportunities for learning and renewed practices
that are more in line with my espoused anti-oppressive intentions (Fook, 2012).
Reconstruction
Whilst my reconstruction is not the “truth” (Darder, Baltodano & Torres, 2009: 10), providing
only another “interpretation of reality rather than reality itself ” (Fook, 1996: 4), it has enabled
me to reinterpret the incident in ways that developed new thinking that improves my capac-
ity for ethical and emancipatory practice. More effective than focusing on a code of ethics or
practice standards as set out by professional bodies and universities, critically reflecting on this
incident forced me to confront my unconscious ethnocentric and patriarchal beliefs that led me
to essentialise Uncle and my female work colleagues (Hollinsworth, 2013). Critically reflecting
also enabled me to develop alternative practices that are more congruent with my commitment
to critical social work.
Even though the rights of Aboriginal and other indigenous peoples throughout the world
were strongly emphasised throughout my undergraduate social work education, it was not until
systematically critically reflecting on this incident that I fully understood the need to interrogate
white privilege in every situation (Razack, 2002). I was shocked to discover that the modernist
structural analysis I had used to theorise the situation externalised the issues and I therefore
viewed them as something outside of myself (Cox, 2007).
Reconstructing my initial account of Uncle’s welcome to country highlights its richness as a
learning opportunity. I now see that Uncle did me a great service, and I am indebted to him, as
he “invoked my praxis potential . . . by unsettling the settled mentalities” (Madhu, 2011: 18) and
toppling the present “order of things” (Madhu, 2011: 18, citing Foucault, 1966).
Featherstone and Fawcett (1995: 26) remind us that “discourses attempt to regulate what
can and cannot be said . . . and [are] maintained by the suppression of differences. However
discourses contain contradictions . . . [and] will imply other subject positions and the possi-
bility of reversal.” From this perspective, I can understand Uncle’s words as an exercise in self-
determination, the insurrection of subjugated knowledge and disrupting dominant discourses
and institutional practices (Muller & Gair, 2013). Reconstructing my original assumptions about
power existing as a commodity that people possess, I can view Uncle’s upending and influence over
the discourse as an exercise of power (Austin-Broos, 2011). As such, reconstructed interpretations
of Uncle’s behaviour completely resonate with my deep commitments to social justice. Hence
all of my anger and agitation about the incident has dissolved. Moving away from the problem
ecology of Uncle’s “welcome to country” and viewing it as an opportunity to create ongoing
dialogue opens up a whole range of interpretations and thus possibilities for change (Madhu,
2011; Morley & Macfarlane, 2011).
Intersectionality also allows for the multiplicity in people’s lives (Fook and Askeland, 2006).
Although Uncle and myself have aspects of colonisation within our identities or histories, we
are not confined or defined solely by those identities or histories. Like Uncle, I am also a father,
brother, son, student and teacher. These identities intersect and can be complementary and/or
227
contradictory; however, “many of these categories have been artificially created” (Fook, 1996:
5). Within these categories are diverse complex intersectional properties that are given meaning
by contextually subjective individuals who may transcend the relativism of those defined prop-
erties. Morley and Macfarlane (2011: 693), citing Yuval-Davis, state, “transversalism – which in
contrast to universalism, begins with a genuine, respectful engagement with diverse standpoints.”
Critically reflecting on my work in field education has given me deep appreciation of what
these statements actually mean for my practice. Despite my own experiences of colonisation,
and my best intentions to work constructively with Aboriginal people for change, to minimise
the genocide that occurred in Australia and deny the ongoing colonialist injustices towards
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians by comparing them to my experience was not
consistent with my espoused critical and anti-racist framework (Bartoli et al., 2013). Collective
and political action is necessary for marginalised peoples, in addition to creating the concep-
tual space in which individual stories can be heard and validated (Hollinsworth, 2013). Critical
reflection enabled me to bring my espoused commitments to critical and anti-racist theory in
line with my actual practice (Mattsson, 2013).
Conclusion
This paper has briefly overviewed the impact of global social forces on social work and social
work education, with a particular emphasis on the delivery and orientation of field education
programs. Despite this contemporary emphasis on competency-based approaches to learning,
practice standards and techniques, field education remains a contested space that enables stu-
dents to realise the emancipatory and transformative potential of critical practice. It is contended
that field education provides a vital site for students to critically reflect in ways that challenge
global social forces currently leading to mainstream conservatism in social work.
One of the authors, David, shared a critical reflection that emerged in response to a critical
incident that occurred on his final placement. This practice example demonstrates how criti-
cal reflection enabled him to challenge the influence of oppressive dominant discourses that
were impacting his practice, and align his espoused anti-oppressive theory with the assumptions
embedded within his thinking and practice. Critical reflection on practice incidents that occur
during field education can provide important learning opportunities for students to engage in
the cyclical process of linking theory to practice (Fook, 2012), and to alert students and prac-
titioners to the presence of dominant ideologies that influence the construction of perceived
“realities”, in ways that might be quite undermining of social justice ideals.
Notes
1 Uncle is a term of respect, which is applied when addressing or referring to a male Elder in the Aborig-
inal Community.
2 Welcome to country gives custodians the opportunity to formally welcome people to their land.
References
Allan, J., Briskman. L., & Pease, B. (Eds.) (2009). Critical social work:Theories and practices for a socially just world
(2nd ed.). Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.
Atkinson, W. (2010). The myth of the reflexive worker: Class and work histories in neo-liberal times work.
Employment and Society, 21(3), 413–429.
Augoustinos, M., & Every, D. (2007). The language of race and prejudice: A discourse of denial, reason and
liberal-practical politics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(2), 123–141.
228
Austin-Broos, D. (2011). The politics of difference and equality: Remote aboriginal communities, public
discourse, and Australian anthropology. Journal of the Association of Black Anthropologists, 19 (2), 139–145.
Australian Association of Social Workers (2013). Practice standards, Canberra: Australian Association of Social
Workers.
Bailey, B., Buchbinder, E., & Eisikovits, Z. (2011). Male social workers working with men who batter:
Dilemmas in gender identity. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(9), 1741–1762.
Baines, D. (2006). If you could change one thing: Social service workers and restructuring. Australian Social
Work, 59(1), 20–34.
Bartoli, A., Tedam, P., Curran, B., Singh, S., Kennedy, S., Chukwuemeka, C., & Crofts, P. (2013). Anti-racism
in social work practice, [e-book] St Albans, Great Britain: Critical Publishing Ltd. Available at http://
criticalpublishing.com/ [Accessed 25 April 2015].
Bay, U., & Macfarlane, S. (2011). Teaching critical reflection: A tool for transformative learning in social
work? Social Work Education, 30(7), 745–758.
Bellinger, A. (2010). Talking about (re)generation: Practice learning as a site of renewal for social work.
Bowley, B. (2013). Soft boys, tough boys and the making of young sport masculinities at a private boys’
school. Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity, 27(3), 87–93.
Briskman, L. (2007). Social work with indigenous communities. Sydney: Federation Press.
Brough, M., Correa-Velez, I., Crane, P., Johnstone, E., & Marston., G. (2015). Balancing the books: An assess-
ment of financial stress associated with social work and human service student placements. Brisbane: Queensland
University of Technology.
Cleak, H., & Wilson, J. (2013). Making the most of field placement, South Melbourne: Cengage Learning
Australia.
Council on Social Work Education. Education policy and accreditation standards. Available at www.cswe.
org/File.aspx?id=41861 [Accessed June 10 2015]
Cox, L. (2007). Fear, trust and aborigines: The historical experience of state institutions and current
encounters in the health system. Health and History, 9(2), 70–92.
Darder, A., Baltodano, M., & Torres, R. (2009). The critical pedagogy reader. New York and London: Routledge.
Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dominelli, L. (2009). Introducing social work. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Featherstone, B., & Fawcett, B. (1995). Oh no! not more “isms”: Feminism, postmodernism, poststructur-
alism and social work education. Social Work Education,14(3), 25–43.
Ferguson, I., & Lavelette, M. (2006). Globalization and global justice: Towards a social work of resistance.
International Social Work, 49, 309–318.
Ferguson, I., & Smith, L. (2012). Education for change: Students placement in campaigning organisations
and social movements in South Africa. British Journal of Social Work, 42(5), 974–994.
Finch, J., Beacon, J., Klassen, D., & Wrase, B. (2003). Critical issues in field instruction: Empowerment prin-
ciples and issues of power and control. In W. Shera (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on anti-oppressive practice.
Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press Inc.
Fook, J. (Ed.) (1996). The reflective researcher: Social workers, theories of practice research. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Fook, J. (2012). Social work: A critical approach to practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Fook, J., & Askeland, G. (2006). The ‘critical’ in critical reflection. In S. White, J. Fook, & F. Gardner (Eds.),
Critical reflection in health and social care. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (2007). Practising critical reflection: A resource handbook. Maidenhead: Open University
Press.
Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (Eds.) (2013). Critical reflection in context: Applications in health and social care. London
and New York, NY: Routledge.
Gardner, F. (2006). Working with human service organisations. Oxford: South Melbourne.
Gee, J. P. (2010). An introduction to discourse analysis:Theory and method. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Giroux, H. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York, NY: Continuum.
Hansen, J. (2006). Counselling theories within a postmodernist epistemology: New roles for theories in
counselling practice. Journal of Counselling and Development, 84(3), 291–297.
Henrickson, M. (2013). Teaching heterosexual privilege. In C. Noble, M. Henrickson, & I. Y. Han (Eds.),
Social work education voices from the Asia Pacific (2nd ed.). Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Hick, S. (2006). Social work in Canada: An introduction (2nd ed.). Toronto: Thomson Educational Publishing.
Hinojosa, R. (2010). Doing hegemony: Military, men, and constructing a hegemonic masculinity. Journal of
Men’s Studies, 18(2), 179–194.
229
Hollinsworth, D. (2006). Race and racism in Australia (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Thomson Learning.
Hollinsworth, D. (2013). Forget cultural competence: Ask for an autobiography. Social Work Education: The
International Journal, 32(8), 1048–1060.
Holscher, D., & Sewpaul, V. (2006). Ethics as a site of resistance: The tension between social control and
critical reflection. Research Reports, 1, 251–272.
Madhu, P. (2011). Praxis intervention:Towards a new critical social work practice. [e-book] SSRN eLibrary. Avail-
able at Social Science Research Network http://ssrn.com/paper=1765143 [Accessed 8 January 2012].
Marginson, S. (2006). Hayekian neo-liberalism and academic freedoom. Keynote address. In Proceedings
of the 35th Conference of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Mattsson, T. (2013). Intersectionality as a useful tool: Anti-oppressive social work and critical reflection.
Journal of Women and Social Work, 29(1), 8–17.
McKinlay, A., Carter, C., & Pezet, E. (2012). Govermentality, power and organization. Management and
Organizational History, 7(1), 3–15.
Morley, C. (2009). Using critical reflection to improve feminist practices. In J. Allan, B. Pease, & L. Briskman
(Eds.), Critical social work: An introduction to theories and practices (2nd ed., pp. 145–159), Crows Nest, NSW:
Allen & Unwin.
Morley, C., & Dunstan, J. (2013). Critical reflection: A response to neoliberal challenges to field education?
Morley, C., & Macfarlane, S. (2011). The nexus between feminism and postmodernism: Still a central con-
cern for critical social work. British Journal of Social Work, 42(5), 687–705.
Morley, C., & Macfarlane, S. (2014). Critical social work as ethical social work: Using critical reflection to
research students’ resistance to neoliberalism. Critical and Radical Social Work, 2(3), 337–356.
Morley, C., Macfarlane, S., & Ablett, P. (2014). Engaging with social work: A critical introduction. South Mel-
bourne: Cambridge.
Mullaly, B. (2007). The new structural social work (3rd ed.). Ontario: Oxford.
Muller, R., & Gair, S. (2013). Respecting knowledge: Circular movement in teacher/learner roles to
advancing Indigenous social work education and practice. In C. Noble, M. Henrickson, & A. Frost
(Eds.), Social work education:Voices from the Asia Pacific (2nd ed.). Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Nelson, J. K. (2013). Denial of racism and its implications for local action. Discourse and Society, 24(1),
89–109.
Pease, B. (2002). Rethinking empowerment: A postmodern reappraisal for emancipatory practice. British
Peters, K., Halcomb, E., & McInnes, S. (2013). Clinical placements in general practice: Relationships
between practice nurses and tertiary institutions. Nurse Education Practice, 13, 186–191.
Pockett, R., & Giles, R. (Eds.) (2008). Critical reflection: Generating theory from practice:The graduating social work
student experience. Sydney: Darlington Press.
Preston, S., George, P., & Silver, S. (2014). Field education in social work:The need for reimagining. Critical
Social Work, 15(1), 57–72.
Randall, J., & Munro, I. (2010). Foucault’s care of the self: A case from mental health work. Organization
Studies, 39(11), 1485–1504.
Raskin, M., Wayne, S., & Bogo, M. (2008). Revisiting field education standards. Journal of Social Work Edu-
cation, 44, 173–188.
Razack, N. (1999). Anti-oppressive social work: A model for field education. In G. Y. Lie & D. Este (Eds.),
Professional social service delivery in a multicultural world (pp. 311–330).Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press Inc.
Razack, N. (2002). Transforming the field: Critical antiracist and anti-oppressive perspectives for the human services
practicum, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.
Rees, S. (1999). Managerialism in social welfare: Proposals for a humanitarian alternative. European Journal
Ridani, R., Shand, F., Christensen, H., McKay, K., Tighe, J., Burns, J., & Hunter, E. (2015). Suicide and life
threatening behavior, suicide prevention in Australian aboriginal communities: A review of past and
present programs. American Association of Suicidology, 45(1), 111–140.
Riddle, S. (2014). Education is a public good, not a private commodity. The Conversation. Available at the-
conversation.com/education-is-a-public-good-not-a-private-commodity-31408 [Accessed 1 February
2015].
Salle, A. (2003). A generalist working definition of social work: A response to Bartlett. Research on Social
Work Practice, 13(3), 349–346.
230
Savaya, R., & Gardner, F. (2012). Critical reflection to identify gaps between espoused theory and theory-
in-use. National Association of Social Workers, 57(2), 145–154.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner:Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions.
San Fancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, C., & White, S. (2000). Practising reflexivity in health and welfare: Making knowledge. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
The College of Social Work. Professional capabilities framework. Available at www.tcsw.org.uk/Professional
CapabilitiesFramework [Accessed 10 June 2015].
Tripp, D. (1998). Critical incidents in action inquiry in ethnography. In J. Symth, & G. Shacklock (Eds.),
Being reflective and critical in educational and social research (pp. 36–49). London: Farmer Press.
Tseris, E. (2008). Examining these words we use: ‘participation’, ‘empowerment’, and the child protection
role. In R. Pockett & R. Giles (Eds.), Critical reflection: Generating theory from practice. Sydney: Darlington
Press.
Wallace, J., & Pease, B. (2011). Neoliberalism and Australian social work: Accommodation or resistance?
Journal of Social Work, 11, 132–142.
Wayne, J., Raskin, M., & Bogo, M. (2006). Field notes: The need for radical change in field education. Jour-
nal of Social Work Education, 41, 161–169.
Wehbi, S., & Turcotte, P. (2007). Social work education: Neoliberalism’s willing victim? Critical Social Work,
8(1), 1–9.
Wiebe, M. (2010). Pushing the boundaries of the social work practicum: Rethinking sites and supervision
toward radical practice. Journal of Professive Human Services, 21(1), 66–82.
Wilson, G., & Campbell, A. (2013). Developing social work education: Academic perspectives. Journal of
Social Work, 43(5), 1005–1023.
Zuchowski, I. (2015). Being the university: Liaison persons reflections on placements with off-site supervi-
sion. Social Work Eduation the International Journal, 34(3), 301–314.
Zufferey, C. (2012). Not knowing that I do not know and not wanting to know: Reflections of a white
Australian social worker. International Social Work, 56(5), 639–673.
231
20
FLUIDITY AND SPACE
Social work student learning in field supervision
Phyllis Chee
Introduction
A changing understanding of field learning is one of the key factors informing current
approaches to social work field1 supervision. This chapter aims to highlight key characteristics
of a student-informed understanding of field learning and examine how field supervision can
be conceptualised in the light of this understanding. It does so by drawing on findings from my
earlier doctoral research which examined the field learning experiences of social work students
in field supervision in Hong Kong (Chee, 2010).
The context of the study and its research methodology are briefly summarised. This is fol-
lowed by discussion of two key characteristics of field learning that featured strongly in the study.
The situated and constructed nature of field learning sets the broader context of social work
practice and field education. The notion of student learning as fluid and dynamic is discussed
with the intention of highlighting the need to examine field supervision practices with refer-
ence to this understanding of field learning. The chapter further conceptualises the supervision
space and, in particular, draws emphasis to the primary purpose of field supervision as a learning
space. Considerations are also given to key elements that create a conducive supervison envi-
ronment, with attention to an uncluttered learning space that allows students to engage deeply
when learning in the field.
Field education in Hong Kong

Students in an undergraduate social work programme in Hong Kong are required to complete
two field placements in the final two years of the programme. At the point when this study was
conducted, the Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) was a three-year full-time programme, although
it has since been replaced with a four-year undergraduate curriculum.The Social Workers Reg-
istration Board (SWRB) for Hong Kong requires each programme to provide a minimum of
800 hours of placement plus 100 hours of placement preparation or placement-related activities
(Social Workers Registration Board, n.d.). Although universities in Hong Kong have slight var-
iations in the organisation of their two field placements, they commonly consist of two con-
current placements or a combination of a block and a concurrent placement. The concurrent
placement is normally of a seventeen-week duration, with students spending three days in the
placement agency each week and attending classes at the university on the non-field-placement
232
Fluidity and space
days. The block placement is usually over the summer semester with students doing a five-day
week over a ten-week period.
Hong Kong has a particular model of organising field supervision, whereby it changed from
a voluntary provision of field supervision by social workers in local agencies to the present
arrangement where the universities employ suitably qualified social work staff to undertake the
majority of the supervision of social work students on placement. The SWRB expects a mini-
mum of one and a half hours of supervision per week for students on concurrent placement and
a minimum of two hours of supervision per week for students on block placement. The mode
of supervision requires that one-to-one supervision be carried out for at least 50 percent of the
total required supervision time.
The research methodology

I have adopted a qualitative and exploratory approach to my study. Through the use of a
semi-structured multiple inquiry approach, the research participants were invited to a conversa-
tional space to reflect on their learning experiences and deepen their understanding of how they
learn and the factors that help or hinder their learning on field placement.
There were two objectives in the selection of research participants. The first was for par-
ticipants to find their involvement in this study relevant and meaningful. The second was to
ensure that, given the time commitment for the multiple inquiry approach, the sampling strat-
egy took into consideration issues of accessibility and availability of research participants (Mills,
2001: 287). With this in mind, I used a purposeful sampling approach where the focus was on
“selecting information-rich cases for study in depth . . . those from which one can learn a great
deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry” (Patton, 2001: 230).
The research participants were recruited from a cohort of undergraduate social work students
attending the same university in Hong Kong who were undertaking their final field placement.
Invitation to participate in the study was extended to the group of students whom I supervised
on their field placements and also to students supervised by other field supervisors who were
interested in participating in the study. Students were briefed on the aims of the study and the
nature of their participation in the study.
I was acutely aware of my dual role as both researcher and field supervisor and undertook
considerable measures to address any potential sensitivity or vulnerability students might feel
about their participation or non-participation. All students were assured of the voluntary nature
of their participation and that, if they declined the invitation or withdrew their participation, it
would not in any way affect their field placement. Maintaining an ethical relationship between
the researcher and student participants in this study was a key objective. Students entrusted their
stories and talked about their experiences at a point when they were undertaking their field
placement. The issues of the power differential in the relationships were on two levels: between
the researcher–research participant and between the field supervisor–student. Etherington
(2004) writes that, by accepting that researchers are in a powerful position, “the researcher can
constantly monitor the ethical issues that emerge as the research unfolds” (p. 226). As researcher,
this was something I sought to achieve throughout.
The study recruited a total of twelve final-year undergraduate social work students; eight
were students under my supervision and four were students supervised by two other field super-
visors. The study used a small sample size in view of the in-depth nature of the inquiry process,
including the opportunity for each participant to be interviewed on multiple occasions.This was
sufficient to achieve rich, deep, profound and varied meanings in the research questions being
233
Phyllis Chee
asked (Moustakas, 1990). That said, the possible presence of sample bias must be considered due
to the smallness of this group of research participants.
Students were organised into pairs for the inquiry sessions, totalling six pairs of students. Each
pair of students attended three inquiry sessions over the duration of their seventeen-week place-
ment.The first inquiry session was conducted in the fifth week of placement, the second inquiry
session in the tenth week and the final inquiry session in the fifteenth week of placement. A total
of eighteen inquiry sessions were conducted. Students had full attendance at these sessions.
A thematic analysis approach was adopted to analyse the research data. This approach allows
important themes and issues to emerge. Transcripts of all inquiry sessions were prepared and
NVivo, a software programme for analysing qualitative data, was used to code and analyse the
research data.
Ethical clearance for this research project was approved by the University of Queensland,
Behavioural Social Sciences Ethics Committee.
The situated and constructed nature of field learning

One perspective featuring strongly in my study was the extent students’ learning was situated
and constructed in their individual placement settings. This was evident in students’ descrip-
tions of key influencing factors on their learning, such as the organisational setting, the practice
environment and the professional staff in the agency. Students reported benefiting from oppor-
tunities to participate in professional activities and to engage in actual practice. Meaningful
participation in core and appropriate areas of professional acitvities was significant to student
learning, and conversely a placement environment that was overly restrictive or where students
were kept at the periphery of professional practice was experienced as limiting learning. Stu-
dents in my study were also sensitive to the practice environment they were in.This was in rela-
tion to the degree of tolerance of practice mistakes and the severity of consequences if mistakes
were made. Students were more ready to engage in practice when the consequences of practice
mistakes or unknown outcomes were more tolerated. The presence of social work practitioners
in the agency whom student could engage with was also reported as helpful to their learning.
The findings indicated how different factors within these areas shaped students’ view of practice
and the scope of what students learned.
The literature discusses students’ learning about social phenomena and human functioning
as “situated within a community of practice in which knowledge is socially constructed, that
is, it is created, sustained and changed through interaction” (Mcalpine, 2004: 123). A situated
theory of learning emphasises the importance of experiential learning and socially constructed
processes of learning where emphasis is on connecting the learner’s cognition and social worlds
(Lave & Wenger, 1991; Chaiklin & Lave, 1993; Hair and O’Donoghue, 2009). This differs from
traditional cognitive theory, where learning is conceived of as a process contained in the mind of
the learner that is separated from the lived-in world and distanced from experience (Chaiklin &
Lave, 1993: 7). Wells (2007) discusses the notion of learning as a process of meaning making in
thinking and in dialogue with others and advocates that “it is in the dialogue that arises from
inquiry . . . in ‘knowing together’ that individual understanding is most powerfully enhanced”
(p. 271).
Social work students are expected to actively engage with their learning environment, make
sense of practice encounters, link theory to practice and construct new meanings and under-
standings of practice. For some students this shift from classroom to the field can be daunting.
Students on placements grapple with practice situations where there is often no dichotomised
right or wrong way to practice but rather where different possiblities of practice actions exist.
234
Fluidity and space
This is one of the most valuable aspects of field education: students develop an acute apprecia-
tion of the complex nature of social work practice through the immersion in real practice envi-
ronment. Once on field placement, students often realise the need to broaden their approach to
make the most of learning in the field, so that they can develop a more sophisticated view of
practice. Students, however, are likely to need help to develop their ability to engage with this
new way of learning.
A common task that students undertake at the beginning of their field placements is to
design the learning plan. This structures the placement learning curriculum that is individually
developed by each student in consultation with their field supervisors and university liaison staff.
In order to prepare this document, students need to have acquired a nascent understanding of
their placement context, and to have identified the types of learning opportunities and profes-
sional activities available on placement in order to develop their learning goals and objectives.
The scope of their learning needs to fulfil the broader field education curriculum set out by the
universities. Universities further prescribe the structure and format of supervision arrangement
and placement requirements such as learning activities, written requirements and evaluations of
students’ performance. The individually developed learning plan is additionally situated within
the scope and services of each placement organisation and their own organisational policies and
guidelines pertaining to student placements.
The process of constructing learning opportunities and contracting how field supervision
can best support student learning is an important undertaking between students and field super-
visors (Irwin, 2006). Bogo (2010) advocates that the responsibility lies with the field supervisor
to provide leadership in the design of the learning plan at the beginning stages of the field
placement (p. 107). Students tasked with having to come up with an individually negotiated
learning plan are immediately challenged to think about what constitutes professional practice
and activities and how to set learning goals to reflect the progression and depth of their learning.
This contructed nature of learning and knowledge is well noted in the literature. Eraut
(1994) points out that “professional knowledge is constructed through experience and its nature
depends on the cumulative acquisition, selection and interpretation of that experience” (p. 20).
Taylor and White (2005) note that student learning needs to shift “the focus from knowledge
using per se (conventional basis for educational programmes) to an acknowledgement of the
knowledge-making processes inherent in practice” (p. 950). More recently, Hair and O’Dono-
ghue (2009) propose understanding social work supervision through a social contructionist lens
where “knowledge and learning happens as ideas are reconstructed through dialogs that invite
exchanges of thoughts, opinions, questions, and feelings” (p. 76).
It is not uncommon for students to feel somewhat ill equipped to make such a profound
epistemological shift with regards to their professional knowledge base and knowledge-making
processes, particularly at the beginning of a placement, but such a shift is necessary if learning
for practice is to be maximised. This raises a number of important questions. How well have
students been prepared by the taught curriculum to engage in field learning in this way? How
well equipped are field supervisors to facilitate student learning within this dialogic understand-
ing of knowledge and learning? How conducive is field supervision and the broader placement
learning environment in supporting learning of this nature? Jones (2004) suggests that “the
supervisor’s role is one of facilitating learning and students’ ability to engage in this process
of creating and constructing knowledge” (p. 20). Implicit in this role is the importance of the
field supervisors’ own epistemological position and conceptions of learning, and how these are
aligned with their approach to supervision and their negotiation with the agency environment
on the student’s behalf. It is suggested that the approach field supervisors take to supervision
does foster or discourage students’ approach to learning of this nature.
235
Phyllis Chee
The notion of fluidity and student learning

The notion that field learning is fluid and dynamic is an important one. Students in my study
reported high levels of development in their learning process. Changes described by students
are captured in the following dimensions: the implicit–explicit dimension, the specific–general
dimension and the surface–depth dimension. They are briefly summarised here.
Students in my study talked about the process of making implicit learning explicit, starting
from an implicit sense of knowing in practice, moving to articulating, framing and presenting
what they know for scrutiny by field supervisors and professional peers. Students also learned to
relate taught content and propositional knowledge to practice and progressed towards integrat-
ing these forms of knowledge into their practice framework. These “inside out and outside in”
processes occurred simultaneously for students on placement.
The specific–general dimension is another important characteristic of field learning. Stu-
dents build on their learning from a specific practice context to form a general understanding
of practice. They also draw on general knowledge to make sense of specific practice situations.
Students in my study expected themselves to demonstrate their ability to make the connection
and move between the two ends of the continuum.
In the surface–depth dimension, when students engage in ‘deep learning’, they are believed
to be constructing meaning, interpreting and understanding reality and developing as a per-
son, whereas in ‘surface learning’ students are thought to focus on a quantitative increase in
knowledge, on memorising and on acquiring, for subsequent utilisation, facts, methods, and
so forth. (Marton & Säljö, 1997: 55). My study indicated that students were aware of the need
for a deeper engagement in their learning. Most also aimed for and worked towards that depth
in learning. However, equally important is the observation from my study that an unhelpful
movement from deep to surface learning can also occur for students. This can happen when the
cluster of conditions that support students to engage in deep learning, such as confidence, safety
and trust in supervisory relationship, is compromised to the point where students feel they have
to adopt a “play it safe” approach to learning.
The fluid nature of students’ learning process seen in my study is reflected in the literature.
Miller et al.’s (2005) study on student and field instructor perceptions of the learning process in
field education, in particular, supports the notion of fluidity in student learning.Their study dis-
cusses the limitations of Kolb’s learning cycle and observes that “one change made by both field
instructors and students was, in various ways, to make the Cycle non-sequential and to empha-
size that elements of the learning process occur multi-directionally as well as concurrently and
interactively. This suggests students and field instructors experience learning as a fluid, dynamic
process, starting at any point in the Cycle and moving along individualized and sometimes
repeating pathways” (p. 142).
Gould (2000) comments that the process of acquiring social work knowledge is dynamic
and there are different ways of knowing. Learning, far from being fixed, rigid or linear, is lively,
layered and multidimensional. These learning movements are crucial for students if they are
to learn well. It is encouraging to note that the majority of students in my study had a good
sense of what constitutes desirable progression and direction in learning. Students became
uneasy when learning felt stagnated or was moving backwards. Students’ self-awareness and self-
monitoring of how they were experiencing and attending to their learning was seen to be an
important learning quality in field education, particularly in students’ preparation to become
self-regulating professional social workers.
Many components have to come together to offer the kind of quality learning experience
we want and hope that students can have on field placements. Students’ desire and motivation
236
Fluidity and space
to achieve depth of learning need to be accompanied by their ability to develop their own
approaches to deep learning which can help them negotiate the learning environment. Howe
(1989) states,“if social work is an activity that benefits from practitioners who are able to explore
the nature and meaning of situations, developing deep approaches to learning seems not only
worthwhile but essential” (p. 11). Helping students develop these approaches is educationally
and professionally necessary.
A couple of distinctions are drawn in regard to students’ differing approaches to learning.
Marton and Säljö (1976) indicate that students’ approaches to learning in their study “were
not personality traits or fixed characteristics but were intentions. If students perceive the
learning context to require a deep approach, then they will take it, if however, they perceive
the learning context to demand regurgitation of factual knowledge, in exams for example,
then they will take a surface approach” (p. 4). Attention is also drawn to the distinction
between students’ approach to learning and pre-existing learning styles. The learning styles
of students receive significant attention in the literature (e.g. Kolb, 1984; Gardiner, 1989;
Carter et al., 1992). A ‘learning style’ tends to be seen as a general cognitive approach and a
‘learning strategy’ as how a student tries to learn a specific task. Kolb’s learning style model
is widely used in field learning, in particular his learning style inventory, where it is believed
that people learn differently, according to their preferred learning styles (Kolb, 1984). While
building on students’ preferred or dominant learning style may be helpful as a starting point
to engage students in their learning, proceeding with field learning equipped only with this
is simply inadequate (Miller et al., 2005). Students in my study realised this quite early on in
field placement. They were confronted with the reality that they need to draw on different
ways of learning and knowing.
It follows that a key priority is to help students develop flexible and adaptable approaches to
learning. Students need to develop ways to learn to practise in diverse field settings. They need
to be equipped with learning approaches that will help them deal with complex practice situ-
ations. Eraut (1994) suggests prioritising helping students develop their abilities to be analytical
and creative when practising in fluid and uncertain contexts, rather than teaching increasingly
obsolete blocks of propositional knowledge (p. 113). This is something field supervisors could
take forward.
Conceptualising the supervision learning space

While organisations providing social work field placements offer important learning sites across
diverse settings, to a large extent, the arrangement of field supervision serves as a constant and
an intentional space set aside for students to examine their practice experience with their field
supervisors and, possibly, professional peers. Students in my study reflected on several key aspects
of field supervision that particularly highlighted supervision as a shared learning space that
engaged them intellectually, socially and emotionally. They recognised that it was important for
students and field supervisors to actively participate in shaping this space and to feel the shared
responsibility to make it work.
The literature defines field supervision as an ongoing educational process (Hart, 1982) which
emphasizes a process-oriented view of learning. It provides an opportunity for dialogue and
reflection to occur (Rogers, 1995) and for the construction of knowledge and learning based on
students’ practice experiences (Karvinen-Niinikoski, 2004). Time is set aside on a regular basis
for student and field supervisor to meet. This contracted time and space allows the quality of
attention to be given to students to make sense of their practice observations, actions and inter-
pretations and to examine their underlying value orientation and practice assumptions. Students
237
Phyllis Chee
in my study valued the continuous conversation and dialogue in supervision that helped them
sustain a significant level of professional engagement and development over time.
The focus students placed on the learning and educational function of field supervision was
very evident in my study. This strong emphasis does not negate other key functions such as the
support and administrative functions that supervision in social work fulfils (Kadushin & Hark-
ness, 2014). Indeed, students in my study also stressed the importance of the support function
as significant to student learning. However, within the scope of this chapter and in the context
of student supervision, the discussion on the learning focus is intentionally stressed to underline
the emphasis students placed on field supervision.
Humphries (1988) stresses that, in order to facilitate learning, it is important to create a learn-
ing environment that reflects a culture of support, encouragement, non-judgemental acceptance,
mutual help and individual responsibility (p. 15). Students in my study identified a number of
elements which helped create a learning space. These included the value of being present; the
engaging nature of interactions and exchange; the openness of participants; the embracing of
uncertainties in practice; the freeing and affirming nature of genuine conversations; and finally,
the revealing, dismantling and transforming of students’ practice and learning.
The notion of a learning space is by no means new. Education and learning literatures offer
helpful insights into the definition and significance of learning space (e.g. Chaiklin & Lave,
1993; Wenger, 1998; Baker, Jensen & Kolb, 2002; Fazey & Marton, 2002; Montegomery, 2008).
Baker, Jensen and Kolb’s (2002) idea of a receptive conversational space is highly relevant to
the discussion here. They define this as one “where all individuals are given voice to explore
their assumptions, share their experiences, articulate their ideas, express their feelings, and stay in
conversation in collaborative ways that foster communities of learning” (Baker, Jensen & Kolb,
2002: x).
All participants in the supervisory system play a critical role in making supervision work.
While the traditional one-to-one supervision model is still the dominant arrangement, var-
ious configurations have been noted in supervision groups, where multiple students or field
supervisors may be present. The qualities that all parties bring to supervision directly impact on
the quality of the learning space. The findings in my study indicated that the learning relation-
ships that are respecful, supportive, open, collaborative and that encourage participants to be a
resource to each other in the learning journey, form the foundation for a conducive supervision
environment which provides a shared space where the supervision group affirms, critiques,
challenges and extends students learning about practice.
Due to the differential in power between students and field supervisors, creating a conducive
learning environment in supervision rests largely upon the field supervisor/practice educator
(Doel & Shardlow, 2005). The important role field supervisors play in influencing the quality of
student learning experience is well supported in the literature. My own study provided several
insights with regards to the quality of exchange and engagement in supervision. Some students
reflected on how hard they had to work in supervision because their field supervisors required
them to examine their practice, to explore different interpretions of practice and to reflect
deeply on their practice. While some indicated they might not be used to such intensity and
scrutiny of their practice, they saw this as a positive aspect of learning. Conversely, some students
in my study indicated a lack of opportunity to engage in this manner as limiting their learning.
A couple of points can be made here in regards to field supervisors’ approach to facilitate student
learning. First, field supervisors’ understanding of the complexity of practice influences their
approach to facilitating student learning in the field. Papell states that “when teaching social
work learners in the field it is a stimulating experience to show a student how conceptual and
theoretical knowledge can cast light on a practice situation, but also how a specific theory is
238
Fluidity and space
rarely enough, since every human situation has its own uniqueness, can elude the theory and
always requires a search for the meaning in the minds of those who are the recipients of service”
(Papell, 1996: 14). Second, equally important to creating the best possible supervision learning
environment, is field supervisors’ conception of learning and understanding of how students
learn in practice. Adequate training for field supervisors in taking up this role is vital (Rogers &
McDonald, 1992; Lefevre, 2005; Bogo, 2010). The training field supervisors receive in develop-
ing a supervision framework that aligns with good field education pedagogy is hugely important
to ensure the quality of field supervision that students receive.
The centrality of field supervision and the student-supervisor relationship (Bogo, 1994) in
facilitating student learning does have its risks when there is a breakdown in supervision and
the supervisory relationship. Putting in place structures to address these issues when they arise
and strengthening other domains of field education to ensure robustness of the field learning
environment are necessary.
De-cluttering the learning space

My study indicated that students do well when their learning space was uncluttered and when
they were not distracted by excessive or conflicting demands placed on their learning. Creat-
ing and safeguarding this learning space in the field education context is not an easy task. The
placement environment is a complex mix of expectations and requirements of organisations,
universities, field supervisors and students. Careful review of existing arrangements and their
alignment with the desired learning outcomes is necessary to identify helpful and unhelpful
elements for student learning.
At the university level, the learning literature suggests that factors such as heavy work-
load, overly prescriptive placement structure, articulated learning curriculum and an alienating
assessment system cause students to engage in surface learning (Rust, 2002; Kember, Leung &
McNaught, 2008). For instance, concerns have been raised in social work literature in relation to
the incompatibility of current social work training models to critical reflection (Lam, Wong &
Leung, 2007) and the need to develop coherence in learning frameworks to adequately prepare
social work students for practice (Taylor, 1996; Taylor & White, 2005). Lam, Wong and Leung
(2007) argue that the “existing curriculum structure, in compliance with technocratic demands,
fails to enable students to engage in activities which encourage the critical appraisal of knowl-
edge” (p. 101). Ironically, many of these structures and requirements are intended to facilitate
student learning and assess performance. Hence the need to ensure constructive alignment of
teaching practices, assessment and the focus on student learning is apparent (Rust, 2002).
At an individual level, the findings from my study showed that for some students, it was not
uncommon to be preoccupied with placement written requirements, performance and grades
that very often take up a significant portion of their energy and time. Students’ concerns with
these matters are understandable, although my study shows that a preoccupation with some of
these concerns diminish students’ focus on learning.
To de-clutter requires taking a critical look at the current field education curriculum and
the direction it is heading. De-cluttering and removing learning structures that are not con-
structively aligned with helping students learn is a challenging task, particularly if any proposed
actions are significant departures from current and established practices. A helpful starting point
is to revisit the core elements that characterise social work practice. Parton (2000) defines these
as indeterminacy, uncertainty and ambiguity, arguing against attempts “to rationalize and sci-
entize increasing areas of social work activity via introduction of ever more complex procedures
and systems of audit – whereby it is assumed the world can be ever more subject to prediction
239
Phyllis Chee
and calculation” (p. 460). The challenge for social work field education is to resist the tendency
to attribute more and more to what may already be a crowded curriculum. De-cluttering
requires a thoughtful consideration of what matters when it comes to facilitating students to
develop a solid understanding of the essence of social work practice and creating a space where
students can fully engage and immerse in their learning.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this chapter aimed to highlight key characteristics of a student-informed under-
standing of field learning and examine how field supervision can be conceptualised in the light
of this understanding. The situated and constructed nature of learning on field placements is
distinctly different from classroom learning. Social work students are expected to somehow
make a profound epistemological shift in their understanding of practice knowledge and their
approach to knowledge construction. I raised the importance of helping students develop their
ability to engage in this form of learning, with the view that field supervisors’ examination of
how their own epistemological stance aligned with their supervision practices would help their
facilitation of student learning.
Appreciating the complexity of practice and the fluid and dynamic nature of student learning
in the field has implications on how we prepare students for field education. If students are to
learn well, it is essential they are helped to develop approaches that are flexible and adaptable in
diverse practice settings, and approaches that allow them to engage at a deeper level of learning.
In the discussion on the supervision space, I highlighted the importance social work students
placed on supervision as a learning space over other functions of supervision. The potential of
supervision to engage students to think deeply about practice, to imagine different possibilities
and to practise creatively was evident in the findings of my study. I further raised the notion of
de-cluttering the student learning space. A crowded curriculum is not conducive for students
to have the space to critically reflect on their learning. The challenge for field education, and
indeed social work education, is understanding what constitute essential and core elements of
learning to practice and how to free up space for students to learn well in practice contexts that
are diverse and vastly different.
The field learning environment is unique in that the expectations and requirements of stu-
dents, field supervisors, placement agencies and universities converge. Organisational settings are
diverse and the placement learning contexts can differ significantly.While this diverse and com-
plex mix and interaction of key domains in field education has its complexities and challenges,
I believe it offers the authenticity and richness of experience for students to learn and develop
as professional social workers.
Note
1 Field supervision is known elsewhere as practice placement or practicum supervision. Ditto field
learning.
References
Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (Eds.) (2002). Conversational learning: An experiential approach to knowl-
edge creation. Westpoint, CT: Quorum Books.
Bogo, M. (1994).The student/field instructor relationship:The critical factor in field education. The Clinical
Supervision, 11(2), 23–36.
Bogo, M. (2010). Achieving competence in social work through field education.Toronto, ON: Univeristy of Toronto
Press Incorporated.
240
Fluidity and space
Carter, P., Chan, C., Everitt, A., Ng, I., & Tsang, N. M. (1992). Reflecting on supervision: Supervising students
in practice. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic, Department of Applied Social Studies; Newcastle:
University of Northumbria, Social Welfare Research Unit.
Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (Eds.) (1993). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chee, S. B. P. (2010). Space and fluidity: Student learning in supervision in social work field placements in Hong
Kong. PhD Thesis, The University of Queensland, Australia.
Doel, M., & Shardlow, S. M. (2005). Modern social work practice: Teaching and learning in practice settings (3rd
ed.). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: The Farmer Press.
Etherington, K. (2004). Becoming a reflexive researcher: Using our selves in research. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Fazey, J. A., & Marton, F. (2002). Understanding the space of experiential variation. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 3(3), 234–250.
Gardiner, D. (1989). The anatomy of supervision: Developing learning and professional competence for social work
practice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Gould, N. (2000). Becoming a learning organization: A social work example. Social Work Education, 19(6),
585–596.
Hair, H. J., & O’Donoghue, K. (2009). Culturally relevant, socially just social work supervision: Becoming
visible through a social constructionist lens. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 18(1),
70–88
Hart, G. M. (1982). The process of clinical supervision. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Howe, D. (1989). Evaluating social work training and education. Issues in Social Work Education, 9(1), 3–20.
Humphries, B. (1988). Adult learning in social work education: Towards liberation or domestication? Crit-
ical Social Policy, 8(4), 4–21.
Irwin, J. (2006). Making the most of supervision. In A. O’Hara & Z. Weber (Eds.), Skills for human service
practice:Working with individuals, groups and communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jones, M. (2004). Supervision, learning and transformative practices. In N. Gould & M. Baldwin (Eds.),
Social work, critical reflection and learning organization. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Kadushin, A., & Harkness, D. (2014). Supervision in social work (5th ed.). New York, NY: Columbia Univer-
sity Press.
Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. (2004). Social work supervision: Contributing to innovative knowledge produc-
tion and open expertise. In N. Gould & M. Baldwin (Eds.), Social work, critical reflection and learning
organization. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Kember, D., Leung, D.Y. P., & McNaught, C. (2008). A workshop activity to demonstrate that approaches
to learning are influenced by the teaching and learning environment. Active Learning in Higher Education,
9(1), 43–56.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Lam, C.,Wong, H., & Leung,T. (2007). An unfinished reflexive journey: Social work students’ reflection on
their placement experiences. British Journal of Social Work, 37(1), 91–105.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lefevre, M. (2005). Facilitating practice learning and assessment: The influence of relationship. Social Work
Education, 24(5), 565–583.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning – 1: Outcome and process. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The
experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Scottish
Academic Press.
Mcalpine, L. (2004). Designing learning as well as teaching: A research-based model for instruction that
emphasizes learner practice. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 119–134.
Miller, J., Kovacs, P. J., Wright, L., Corcoran, J., & Rosenblum, A. (2005). Field education: Student and field
instructor perceptions of the learning process. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 131–145.
Mills, J. (2001). Self-construction through conversation and narrative in interviews. Educational Review,
53(2), 285–301.
Montegomery, T. (2008). Space matters: Experiences of managing static formal learning spaces. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 122–138.
241
Phyllis Chee
Moustakas, C. (1990). Heuristic Research. California: Sage.

Papell, C. P. (1996). Reflections on issues in social work education. In N. Gould & I.Taylor (Eds.), Reflective
learning for social work. England: Arena.
Parton, N. (2000). Some thoughts on the relationship between theory and practice in and for social work.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Rogers, G. (Ed.) (1995). Social work field education:Views and cisions. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
Rogers, G., & McDonald, L. (1992). Thinking critically: An approach to field instructor training. Journal of
Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment on student learning: How can the research literature practically
help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centred assessment
practices? Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 145–158.
Social Workers Registration Board. (n.d.). Principles, criteria and standards for recognising qualifications
in social work for registration or registered social workers, Hong Kong. Available at www.swrb.org.hk/
EngASP/criteria_e.asp.
Taylor, C., & White, S. (2005). Knowledge and reasoning in social work: Educating for human judgment.
Taylor, I. (1996). Reflective learning, social work education and practice in the 21st century. In N. Gould &
I. Taylor (Eds.), Reflective learning for social work. Aldershot: Arena.
Wells, G. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development,
50, 244–274.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
242
21
ITALIAN AND ENGLISH
PRACTICE EDUCATORS’
EXPERIENCES OF WORKING
WITH STRUGGLING OR FAILING
STUDENTS IN PRACTICE
PLACEMENTS
Introduction
Our attention was first drawn to the importance of robust assessment of social work students
much earlier in our career when, as practising social workers in England and Italy, we encoun-
tered practitioners whose professional conduct caused us concern. Then, as we became what is
known in England as practice educators, in Italy as ‘supervisori di tirocinio’, and elsewhere as field
instructors, we experienced at first hand the complexities and challenges inherent in assessing
students who were struggling with practice in their (field) placements (also known as the ‘practi-
cum’). Now employed in university settings as academic tutors, our focus has shifted. Our role is
to liaise between the university and placement supervisors, to ensure that due process occurs in
practice assessment, that university policies are followed, that students’ rights are upheld and that
emotional support is offered to both students and practice educators if there is any conflict or
difference of view on the students’ competence. There is also a further dimension: namely, our
responsibilities and duties towards service users, to ensure they are not subject to harm caused
by an incompetent practitioner who has inappropriately passed their placement.
As tutors we became increasingly aware that there could be a reluctance on the part of
practice educators to fail students on placement, which led to difficulties in ‘gatekeeping’ the
profession. We suspected that the concerns and struggles we had experienced and encountered
through our own roles were not isolated, but there was little existing knowledge on the issue.
To explore this further, we undertook a literature review and two related studies of the experi-
ences of practice educators and supervisori di tirocinio when working with struggling and/or
failing students on placement, one in England and the other Italy. As anticipated, the challenges
are widespread. This chapter explores three key themes which emerged through our literature
review: emotions and feelings, emotional processes and relational processes. Possible reasons are
considered for differences noted in participants’ discourses.
243
The existing literature

Five main themes can be identified in the literature as to why it may be difficult for practice
educators to fail students, and we noted that these issues are not just relevant to social work
education; rather, they are shared across a range of cognate professions with an assessed period
of practice in the field, for example nursing, occupational therapy, teaching and counselling
psychology. The first theme highlights concerns about practice educators’ understanding of,
and ability to utilise, any relevant framework for assessing the students’ practice in placement
appropriately and effectively (Walker et al., 1995; Hughes & Heycox, 1996). Associated with
this, evidence has suggested that practice educators do not always follow assessment procedures
correctly and are not necessarily timely in addressing concerns (Duffy, 2004; Kaslow et al., 2007).
Second, a fear of litigation is apparent, most notably in the North American context (Raymond,
2000; Royse, 2000; Urwin et al., 2006). Vacha-Hasse et al. (2004), for example, found that the
fear of litigation was an important reason why supervisors of counselling psychology students
found it difficult to fail weak students. There is, however, little evidence in England that the fear
of litigation influences decision making. Third, the literature suggests that the practice educator
role can result in ‘role strain or confusion’, making it difficult to bring together the two elements
of the role comfortably, namely the educator-enabler-nurturer aspect with the assessor function
(Cowburn et al., 2000;Vacha-Haase et al., 2004; Currer and Atherton, 2008). Indeed, the prac-
tice supervision literature documents this issue (Pritchard, 1995; Feasey, 2002). Shardlow and
Doel (1996), in the context of social work education, suggest that the lack of acknowledgement
of the assessor/managerial role in practice supervision may contribute to this reluctance to fail
students. Fourth, the challenges of defining minimum standards of practice and professional
conduct are heightened by competing understandings of “what is good enough social work”
(Lafrance et al., 2004; Skinner and Whyte, 2004).
The final theme, and the one which concerns us in this chapter, centres on the experience
of working with struggling or failing students, which the literature notes to be challenging
and emotionally difficult. Bogo et al. (2007), from the Canadian context, reported that practice
educators experienced difficult and conflicting emotions when having to fail a student. One
British study found that practice educators found the experience stressful (Basnett & Sheffield,
2010), and another that practice educators felt unsupported, isolated, frustrated, anxious, perse-
cuted and lost confidence when having to make difficult decisions about students (Schaub &
Dalrymple, 2011, 2013). Similar emotional responses have been noted in comparator professions;
for example, Samac’s (1995) study of a group of North American psychotherapy supervisors
working with failing students reported how they experienced a range of difficult emotions,
including guilt and anger. Gizara and Forrest’s (2004) study of American Counselling Psycholo-
gists starkly revealed that the experience for supervisors working with failing candidates was
“horrible . . . painful . . . very sad . . . a gut wrenching experience” (2004: 136). Particularly, we
were interested in exploring this aspect further, in the context of English and Italian practice
educators’ emotional experiences of working with struggling students.
The two related studies

This is not a traditional comparative study, as the Italian fieldwork commenced after that relating
to English practice educators’ experiences.The original English study aimed to explore reasons
why practice educators found it challenging to fail students in placement when required. In so
doing, it exposed the emotional unpleasantness of the task.This revealed itself most particularly
in practice educators’ feelings of anger and guilt, which in some cases impacted adversely on
244
Struggling or failing students
the assessment process. We were interested to see how far the findings revealed in the original
study might accord, or differ, from the experiences of practice educators in a country with
both a different assessment system and model of social work. As we have argued previously
(Finch & Poletti, 2013), there are distinct methodological advantages in undertaking compar-
ative European research in social work, as it allows researchers opportunities to develop new
insights and understanding of the phenomena under exploration. As Cooper et al. (1995) have
argued in the context of comparative research on child protection practices across Europe, such
approaches provide a unique opportunity to critically reflect upon our own distinct practices
and cultures. Comparative approaches therefore offer researchers the chance to explore local,
regional and universal representations of social work (Shardlow & Wallis, 2003; Kantowitz,
2005), and so our study aims at making explicit the cultures and practices surrounding practice
learning in two European countries. We aimed to highlight taken-for-granted assumptions
made in the original data analysis, to consider how far the culture and status of social work
might impact on the experience and to consider how far assessment systems might play a part
in the experience.
Both studies were qualitative in design, utilising in-depth interviews with 20 practice edu-
cators from England and six from Italy. The English participants were all qualified practice
educators. This means they have been required to undergo formal training within universities
to be able to undertake this role. The practice educators worked in a variety of social work
settings, both statutory and what is known in the UK as the voluntary sector, namely charities
and not-for-profit agencies with adults, children and families. Between them they worked with
ten universities across England. The Italian practice educators worked only in statutory settings
with adults, children and families in a North Italian region, and between them worked with
two universities. At the time the research was conducted in Italy, there were no formal qual-
ifications required by social workers to be practice educators, although some universities had
organised courses for their supervisori di tirocinio.The sample was purposive in that participants
selected had had experience of working with struggling or failing students. The participants
were recruited through our professional networks and contacts.
The data were analysed utilising the Voice Centred Relational (VCR) method largely associ-
ated with Brown and Gilligan (1992) and Maunther and Doucet (1998).This method advocates
four distinct ‘readings’ of the text. The first reading considers the story being told, including the
main protagonists, plots and subplots, the second focuses on constructs of ‘I’ and identity, the
third on relationships and the last on the contexts and structures. We then combined themes
which emerged from each reading into overarching themes. As with all research projects, con-
sideration was given to the usual ethical research requirements and good practice.
In undertaking this comparative work, we recognise that the two countries’ practices in
terms of the models of welfare (see Lorenz, 2006, for example) and social work practice and
education, whilst similar to some extent, also present with distinct differences, and so we explore
these further in the section below.
The English context

In the UK, social work is considered a profession, albeit a relatively new profession and one that
is not well respected within the UK (Cree, 2013). As such, the profession is often attacked by
politicians, media and the general public, particularly when a child dies at the hands of his or her
carers (Butler & Drakeford, 2011) and where social workers are the scapegoats for blame (Doug-
las, 1995). Indeed, it has been argued that social work in the UK is very much misunderstood by
the general public and is often seen as a failing profession (Finch & Schaub, 2015).
245
In terms of social work education, there have been a plethora of reforms over the last decade
in England, which all aimed at strengthening the profession and developing public trust and
confidence (Orme et al., 2009).The current degree in social work (formerly a diploma) was one
such development and was introduced in 2003 with more stringent requirements, such as an
increase in the number of assessed days in placement from 130 to 200, a curriculum informed
by the Department of Health, stricter entry procedures and fitness to practise criteria being
strengthened (DOH, 2002; Finch & Taylor, 2013).
This period of reform also saw ‘social worker’ becoming a protected title with state registra-
tion and CPD requirements, the setting up of regional care councils to regulate social work and
social work education, and the setting up of the College of Social Work as a professional body
for England (unfortunately now dissolved as it was unsuccessful in achieving the UK Govern-
ment’s aim of becoming self-funding).The most recent round of reforms saw the replacement of
a competency model of assessment in practice learning settings by a national Professional Capa-
bilities Framework – thus whilst there might be variations on the particular form requirements
of assessed work, students are assessed nationally on the same standards.
Social work students in England (including both undergraduates and postgraduates) thus
currently undertake two placements, usually 70 and 100 days, and are required to be assessed by
a registered social worker with specific qualifications: Stage 1, practice educators’ Professional
Standards to assess first placement students; Stage 2, practice educators’ Professional Standards
to assess final placement students and newly qualified social workers (College of Social Work,
2012). In terms of the assessment process itself, the accepted practice is that practice educators
make an assessment about the student’s capability in the form of a recommendation. The deci-
sion is then usually taken to pass or fail the student by a meeting usually referred to as a practice
assessment panel (Finch, 2014).
The Italian context

In Italy the welfare system is different to that in the UK and is characterised by the residual
role of the welfare state (Facchini, 2010). Indeed, Lorenz (1994) describes this as a rudimentary
(1994: 26) welfare system, with minimal legal rights to state welfare. The system instead pro-
motes the central function of the family in providing care and support (Nadini, 2003). Other
distinguishing features of the Italian welfare system can be identified in the territorial differences
in the provision of services (Fargion, 1997; Arlotti, 2009) and in the fragmentation of institu-
tional statutory responsibilities (Ferrario, 2001;Vandelli, 2005).
In terms of social work education, in the last 25 years, Italian universities have maintained
a crucial and central role in training generations of frontline professionals (Facchini & Tonon
Giraldo, 2010).The creation of the degree in social work in 1990 not only has given to the pro-
fession a formal and established academic recognition, but it has also offered graduates the pos-
sibility to continue their studies and obtain higher academic qualifications. Finally, social work,
similarly to the English context, has yet to be fully recognised as a profession and, comparatively,
is poorly paid (Campanini, 2009; Fargio, 2008;Villa, 2002).
Due to the changes that had taken place in Social Work Education in Italy, since 1998, every-
one who obtained a social work degree was required to pass a post-qualifying exam in order to
be state licensed (Fargio, 2008). Individual universities developed different placement require-
ments for their students in terms of duration and assessment criteria. At the time of the research,
the two main universities with which the practice educators interviewed worked required stu-
dents to have two different practice learning experiences of 300 hours each, which, based on a
7-hour day, equates to approximately 86 days in total (43 days per placement). As it can be seen,
246
this is significantly less than English practice learning requirements.The chapter now goes on to
document the findings from the related studies.
The findings
Feelings and emotions

It was significant to note the array of strong feelings that emerged in the narratives of the English
practice educators.These included guilt, anger, rage and shame. Practice educators were explicit,
for example, about the guilt they experienced when having to make difficult decisions about
students. Claire, like a number of practice educators, discussed feeling guilty; she stated:
. . . it was the first fail, I felt terribly guilty . . . I had sleepless nights, felt quite sick. . . . I felt
incredibly guilty.
This was also seen strongly in the narrative of Daisy, who, in a meeting with the tutor and
the student, was asked to make a recommendation. She stated:
and then the guilt really set in . . . the sacrifices she’s made . . . this is her livelihood, her career
and it’s all my fault . . . I felt like I am a rotten shit.
We noted that anger seemed to accompany the guilt, and this, again, was notable in the
English practice educators’ narratives. Anger was thus expressed at the student as well as the
university. Jenny, for example, was able to acknowledge her angry feelings about the student:
I was just very angry at times. . . . I was angry with the student.
Claire also commented that “I was really pissed off with him [the student].” The anger was seen
most starkly and uncompromisingly in the narrative of Daisy. It was concerning to note how
profane her account was and, indeed, how far her narrative differed from a professional discourse.
In recounting the story of the failing students, Daisy imagined a conversation with the student:
. . . and I did think, the next time you shout at me, I might actually shout back at you, because
who the fuck do you think you are?
Italian practice educators expressed themselves rather differently in relation to the emotional
climate. We saw decreased levels of emotionality and a more reflective stance. For example, for
Paola, the experience of failing a student was described in a thoughtful and respectful way:
I felt sorry, it wasn’t a pleasant situation, but at the end it was me who had to take the final
decision.
Although, as we go on to discuss later, Italian practice educators expressed anger towards the
university, their accounts were more measured than those of the English participants.
Emotional processes
Common emotional processes were apparent in both Italian and English practice educa-
tors’ narratives, particularly around what we term “internalising failure”. Participants seemed
247
to internalise the student’s failure as their own. Antonia, an Italian participant, for example,
commented:
For a long time, I wondered where I made the mistake with that student.
Lily, a very experienced English practice educator of not only social work students but
also nursing students, terminated a placement after a student made an extremely homophobic
comment:
I still feel I must have done something wrong with that one because I couldn’t enable him . . . to
see why his way of thinking was inappropriate in social work, never mind in society.
Lily did not seem to see her actions to terminate the placement in a positive way, that is as
evidence of appropriate gatekeeping practice; rather, she saw it as failure on her part. Terry, an
English practice educator, summed up this process in a stark and uncompromising way:
So I think for someone to fail . . . most of the time there has to be failure on both parts. . . . I would
say that 90% of the time if the student fails, there’s something wrong with the practice assessor.
This process of internalising students’ failure as their own may serve to impact on practice
educators’ ability to make a fail recommendation in respect of the student. This phenomenon
is seen in accounts from both countries, yet, as we will argue later, there seems to be particular
political pressures alongside a negative public image of social work in the UK that make this
more acute for English practice educators.
Relational processes
There were differences in how practice educators from each country discussed their relation-
ships with students and the university. As noted above, English practice educators appeared quite
angry about the experience of having a failing student, and this impacted on how students were
spoken about – more often than not, in unprofessional, blaming and disrespectful ways. For
example, Lily described a student in the following way:
. . . she was absolutely terrible, she was appalling, she was abysmal and no way should she ever
be near clients . . . there were a million difficulties with her . . . she was incredibly arrogant and
rude . . . she was also very aggressive.
Tim also described a student in a less than professional way:
. . . poisonous, he was venomous . . . he was a flipping nightmare.
Daisy, as we saw earlier, appeared particularly animated by the student and continued with a
non-professional discourse. Daisy made repeated comments about the student’s body size (the
student was significantly overweight), linking it to a lack of ability to withstand the physical and
mental demands the job would pose. Daisy went further in the extent to which she believed
both staff and service users would react adversely to the student:
248
. . . they’ll [service users] call you a fat bitch because you are fat . . . it will be their way of re-
leasing, hurting you.
I thought, you know what, you’re a sneaky cow.You’re just so self-obsessed, you are absorbed
in your own world and you’ve got issues with anger management.
These narratives contrasted significantly with the more sympathetic and respectful way in
which the Italian practice educators spoke about students. For example, Francesca, who had
extended a placement for a student who was experiencing difficulties adapting to the social
work role, commented:
She was young, I felt sorry for her, but I am sure she would learn from the situation.
Antonia, despite having worked with students where significant concerns had arisen, com-
mented on her continuing cordial relationships with them:
With a few students I am still in touch nowadays . . . they are now good practitioners.
It is important to note that not all English practice educators discussed students in such ways,
and indeed, a minority were able, like their Italian counterparts, to discuss the issues that had
arisen in a thoughtful, reflective and professional manner.
Both Italian and English practice educators’ narratives revealed, at times, difficult relationships
with the universities and the individual social work tutors they encountered.There was concern
that universities were not open to hearing concerns about students. Katie, for example, stated:
So I went and had a meeting at the university after things had broken down to discuss it . . . they
were only interested in what he [the student] had to say.
Practice educators from both countries spoke about their concerns that universities did not
like to fail students and they felt pressure from the university to pass the student, although they
could not identify how this pressure was revealed. One English participant, Susan, spoke of a “sur-
reptitious discouragement of failure”, and Lily felt that the university was not open to the possibility of
students failing in placement because of a need to “preserve its red brick status”. Martha commented
on her feelings that the tutor was not taking her concerns about the student seriously:
. . . we had such . . . difference of opinion that I really questioned my own judgement because
I thought . . . this is somebody who has, you know, 20 years of teaching . . . and I seem to be the
only one who thinks there is a problem . . . he doesn’t seem to think there is a problem with this
student. I must admit, I really felt the college did not want to fail this person.
Paola, an Italian practice educator, made similar comments:
I couldn’t understand the reason of their decision . . . perhaps failing a student doesn’t look good
on them.
Italian practice educators did not talk about the university or tutor in quite as hostile or
angry a way, but nonetheless a frustrated discourse emerged. Maria, for example, stated:
When things don’t go as they expect, sometimes you don’t understand what they [universities]
want from us.
249
However, Italian practice educators appeared to accept the universities’ ultimate role in the
decision-making process, which made relationships less hostile than their English counterparts.
Indeed, as Francesca stated:
Universities should make the final decision, they know the students better than us . . . we can
only judge what we have seen during the placement.
This contrasts significantly with some English practice educators who were angered when
the university did not uphold their recommendations. Peter, for example, stated:
I mean, when I did the report . . . I remember feeling, what the fuck . . . !!
Likewise, when Tim’s recommendation of a fail was overturned by the university on the
grounds that the student’s practice did not demonstrate “dangerous or risky” practice, he said:
I have to say that I didn’t feel the same. I thought the evidence was absolutely crystal clear . . . I
was really concerned.
Both English and Italian practice educators did however express concerns that universities
hid information about students – information that was important in terms of providing a good
learning experience. Paola, for example, was troubled that the university had not made available
information about previous concerns that had arisen about the student, although she was reflec-
tive in her response. She states:
. . . often they don’t tell us everything, or perhaps, they cannot disclose information because of
confidentiality.
There was particular concern about information about health or disability not being disclosed.
Katie, an English practice educator, whilst mindful about issues around confidentiality of HIV
status, felt it would have been important to have known the student had a positive status because
of the context of the agency in which the student was placed, an agency which supported people
living with HIV and AIDS. There was also concern raised by some English practice educators
that universities had not provided them with details of students’ disabilities. Emma, for example,
complained that the university had failed to inform her about the student’s needs around learning:
. . . the tutor at the midway, said, have you read the access report? It turned out she [the student]
was dyslexic.
Practice educators from both countries, therefore, revealed narratives that universities
appeared secretive, hid relevant and important information about students and did not want
students failed.
Reasons for the differences?

Some of the reasons for the differences in the findings may include the very different assessment
procedures and the clear (and accepted) ultimate decision-making power held by the Italian
university. This is not as clear or as straightforward in the English context, which appears to
sour further the relationships between practice educators and the universities, particularly when
practice educators’ recommendations (often felt by them to have the status of decisions) are
not upheld. We would also suggest the shorter placement in Italy may be significant. Lastly, the
250
culture of social work in each country also needs to be considered as a factor in promoting these
differential responses. Nonetheless, despite some significant differences between the two sites
under exploration, we can see some important similarities.
The practice learning site

The findings, whilst important in themselves in terms of the contribution to the relatively
limited but growing international interest in research and theorisation in practice learning,
may also contribute to a methodological point. Namely, that the practice learning site could be
conceptualised as a space which may reveal the tensions, dilemmas, challenges and culture of
social work in various countries. For example, the lack of importance given to the placement
component in Italy results in a less anxious decision-making process alongside clarity that the
university makes the final decision. Nonetheless, tensions are revealed which may reflect the
relative status of the academy versus social work practice. In England, the placement component,
which takes up half of a qualifying social work programme, appears to provoke anxiety. First
perhaps because of the larger role it occupies, but second, perhaps, in the way it reflects a wider
anxiety about the place and status of social work (Finch & Schaub, 2015) – that it is seen by the
Government, the media and the public as a failing profession. Practice educators may feel most
anxious about their role as gatekeepers of the profession when students are struggling or failing
in placement. Unsurprisingly, this was most acute for placements in children and family statu-
tory settings, where there is the most public condemnation of social worker competence. What
was also apparent in this comparative study was the battle for control of social work in the UK,
namely how the two components, academic learning and placement, sit rather uneasily together,
with the relative role and status of the gatekeepers (practice educators or academic tutors) set-
ting both players up for potential conflict. It is interesting to note, this battle explicitly continues
with a new postgraduate fast-track training scheme currently in operation (www.thefrontline.
org.uk) which limits learning within the university and instead relies on an immersion model,
that is ‘training’ which occurs primarily within child and family social work agencies.
Areas for further research

The comparison of these two related studies suggests three areas that would benefit from further
exploration. First, the research raises significant concerns about the quality of gatekeeping prac-
tice in placements in both countries, and it was interesting to note how a national assessment
framework in England does not appear to make it easier to fail a student when required. Second,
concerns emerged about the relationship between the field and the academy which would
benefit from further exploration, not least to test the hypothesis as to how far good relationships
improve decision making in respect of marginal or failing students. Third, the findings suggest
a need for cross-comparative international research into practice learning more generally, to
consider the best ways of assessing students as well as identifying effective ways of managing
challenging and painful emotional dynamics. Given the importance and centrality of practice
learning on many social work programmes across the world, we remain concerned at the com-
paratively limited research being carried out in this area.
Conclusion
Whilst there were clear differences in the levels of emotionality experienced by the practice edu-
cators from both England and Italy, nonetheless, some important and original themes emerged
from comparisons between the two. Most particularly, concerns emerged that universities may
251
hide negative information about students, that working with struggling or failing students can
be an emotional and fraught experience for practice educators, that relationships between prac-
tice educators and universities can be more conflictual than is functional, and that the expecta-
tions of the universities were not clearly understood by practice educators. The importance of
effective gatekeeping practice was revealed in the comparative analysis, and legitimate concerns
were raised in both countries that, for different reasons, practice educators may find it difficult
to fail, or may even not fail, students when required. Finally, the findings indicate a need for
practice educators who are cognisant of the emotional climate and can work confidently with
challenging and uncomfortable feelings that may emerge in teaching relationships, particularly
when a student is struggling or failing. The benefits of a psycho-social approach to the task of
practice education thus seems to be strongly indicated.
References
Arlotti, M. (2009). Il Sistema di spesa e finanziamento delle politiche sociali: assetti territoriali e mutamento.
In Y. Kazepov (a cura di), La dimensione sociale delle politiche sociali in Italia (pp. 129–147). Roma: Carocci.
Basnett, F., & Sheffield, D. (2010).The impact of social work student failure upon practice educators. English
Journal of Social Work, 40, 2119–2136.
Bogo, M., Regher, C., Power, R., & Regher, G. (2007). When values collide: Field instructors experiences
of providing feedback and evaluating competence. Journal of Social Work Education, 28(2), 178–190.
Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads:Women’s psychology and girl’s development. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Butler, I., & Drakeford, M. (2011). Scandal, welfare and public policy. In V. Cree (Ed.), Social work – A reader
(pp. 41–47). London: Routledge.
Campanini,A (2009). Scenari di Welfare e formazione al servizio sociale in un’Europa che cambia. Milano: Unicopli.
College of Social Work, The (2012). Practice educator professional standards and guidance. London: College of
Social Work. Available at www.collegeofsocialwork.org/uploadedFiles/TheCollege/_CollegeLibrary/
Reform_resources/Practice-EducatorProfessional(edref11).pdf [Accessed 2 February 2013].
Cooper, A., Hetherington, R., Baistow, K., Pitts, J., & Spriggs, A. (1995). Positive child protection – A view from
abroad. London: Russell House Publishing.
Cowburn, M., Nelson, P., & Williams, J. (2000). Assessment of social work students: Standpoint and strong
objectivity. Social Work Education, 19(6), 627–637.
Cree,V. (2013). Introduction. In V. Cree (Ed.), Becoming a social worker – Global narratives (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge.
Currer, C., & Atherton, K. (2008). Suitable to remain a student social worker? Decision making in relation
to termination of training. Social Work Education, 27(3), 279–292.
Department of Health (2002). Requirements for social work training. London: HMSO.
Douglas, T. (1995). Scapegoats:Transferring blame. London: Routledge.
Duffy, K. (2004). Failing students. London: Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Facchini (2010). Tra impegno e professione. Gli assistenti sociali come soggetti di welfare. Il Mulino: Bologna.
Facchini, C., & Tonon Giraldo, S. (2010). La formazione degli assistenti sociali: motivazioni, percorsi, valu-
tazioni. In C. Facchini (Ed.), Tra impegno e professione. Gli assistenti sociali come soggetti del welfare (pp. 167–
183). Il Mulino: Bologna.
Fargio, S. (2008). Reflections on social work’s identity – International themes in Italian practitioners rep-
resentation of social work. International Social Work, 51(2), 206–219.
Fargion, V. (1997). Geografia della cittadinanza sociale in Italia: Regioni e politiche assistenziali dagli anni
settanta agli anni novanta (Studi e ricerche), Il Mulino.
Feasey, D. (2002). Good practice in supervision with psychotherapists and counsellors. London: Whurr Publishers.
Ferrario, P. (2001). Politica dei servizi sociali: strutture, trasformazioni, legislazione. Carocci: Faber Editore.
Finch, J. (2010). Can’t fail, won’t fail – Why practice assessors find it difficult to fail social work students. A qualitative
study of practice assessors experience of assessing marginal or failing social work students. University of Sussex,
Professional Doctorate in Social Work.
Finch, J. (2014). “Running with the fox and hunting with the hounds”: Social work tutors’ experiences of
managing students failing in practice learning settings. English Journal of Social Work, 45(7), 2124–2141.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcu085.
252
Finch, J., & Poletti, I. (2013). ‘It’s been hell.’ Italian and English practice educators’ narratives of working with
struggling or failing social work students in practice learning settings. European Journal of Social Work,
17(1), 135–150. doi:10.1080/13691457.2013.800026.
Finch, J., & Schaub, J. (2015). Projective identification as an unconscious defence: Social work, practice
education and the fear of failure. In D. Armstrong & M. Rustin (Eds.), Social defences against anxiety:
Explorations in the paradigm (pp. 300–314). London: Karnac.
Finch, J., & Taylor, I. (2013). The emotional experience of assessing a struggling or failing social work
student in practice learning settings, special edition – Field education. Social Work Education, 32(2),
244–258. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2012.720250.
Gizara, S. S., & Forrest, L. (2004). Supervisors’ experiences of trainee impairment and incompetence at
APA-accredited internship sites. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(2), 131–140.
Hughes, L., & Heycox, K. (1996). Three perspectives on assessment in practice learning. In M. Doel &
S. Shardlow (Eds.), Social work in a changing world—An international perspective on practice learning
(pp. 85–102). Aldershot: Arena (Ashgate).
Kantowicz, E. (2005). Dilemmas in comparative research of education for social workers in Europe. Euro-
pean Journal of Social Work, 8(3), 297–309.
Kaslow, N.J., Forrest, L., Van Horne, B.A., Huprich, S.K., Pantesco, V.F., Grus, C.L., Miller, D.S.S., Mintz,
L.B., Schwartz-Mette, R., Rubin, N.J., Elman, N.S., Jacobs, S.C., Benton, S.A., Dollinger, S.J., Behnke,
S.H., Shealy, C.N., & Van Sickle, K. (2007). Recognizing, assessing, and intervening with problems of
professional competence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(5), 479–492.
Lafrance, J., Fray, E. & Herbert, M. (2004). ‘Gate-keeping for professional social work practice’, Social Work
Education, vol. 23, pp. 325–340.
Lorenz, W (1994). Social work in a changing Europe. London: Routledge.
Lorenz, W. (2006). Perspectives on European social work. Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Maunther, M., & Doucet, A. (1998). Reflections on a voice-centred relational method. In J. Ribbens, & R.
Edwards (Eds.), Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research (pp. 119–44). London: Sage.
Naldini, M. (2003). Risorse e limiti del welfare locale nei comuni di medie e piccole dimensioni. Sistema
di Previdenza, bimestrale di Informazione dell’Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale, 214, pp. 99–119.
Orme, J., MacIntyre, G., Green Lister, P., Cavanagh, K., Crisp, B., Hussein, S., Manthorpe, J., Moriarty, J.,
Sharpe, E., & Stevens, M. (2009). What (a) difference a degree makes: The evaluation of the new social
work degree in England. English Journal of Social Work, 39, 161–178.
PRITCHARD, J. (1995). Supervision or Practice Teaching for Students? IN PRITCHARD, J. (Ed.) Good
Practice in Supervision. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Raymond, G. T. (2000). Gatekeeping in field education. In P. Gibbs, & E. H. Blakely (Eds.), Gatekeeping in
BSW Programs. New York, NY: Colombia University Press.
ROYSE, P. (2000). The Ethics of Gatekeeping. IN GIBBS, P., BLAKELY, E.H (Ed.) Gatekeeping in BSW
Programs. New York, Colombia University Press.
Samec, J. R. (1995). Guilt, anger and shame: Failing the psychotherapy candidate’s clinical work. The Clinical
Supervisor, 13(2), 1–17.
Schaub, J., & Dalrymple, R. (2011). “She didn’t seem like a social worker”: Practice educators experiences and per-
ceptions of failing social work students on placements. London: Higher Education Academy.
Schaub, J., & Dalrymple, R. (2013). Silence and surveillance: New considerations in difficult social work
placements. Journal of Practice Teaching, 11(3), 79–97.
Shardlow, S., & Doel, M. (1996). Practice learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Shardlow, S., & Doel, M. (Eds.). (2002). Learning to practise social work: International approaches. London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Shardlow, S., & Wallis, J. (2003). Mapping comparative empirical studies of European social work. English
Skinner, K., & Whyte, B. (2004). Going beyond training: Theory and practice in managing learning. Social
URWIN, C.,VAN SOEST, D. & KRETZSCHMAR, J. A. (2006). Key Principles for Developing Gatekeeping
Standards for Working with Students with Problems. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 26 (1/2), pp.163-180.
Vacha-Haase, T., Davenport, D.S., & Kerewsky, S.D. (2004). Problematic students: Gatekeeping practices of
academic professional psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(2), 115–122.
Vandelli, L. (2005). Il sistema delle autonomie locali. Il Mulino: Bologna.
Villa, F. (2002). Dimensioni di Servizio Sociale.Vita e Pensiero: Milano.
Walker, J., McCarthy, P., Morgan, W. & Timms, N. (1995). In Pursuit of Quality: Improving Practice Teach-
ing in Social Work, Relate Centre for Family Studies, Newcastle Upon Tyne.
253
22
GROUP SUPERVISION IN SOCIAL
WORK FIELD EDUCATION
The perspective of supervisors
Social work student supervision in field education is central to processing the balance between
the clients’ needs, the agency’s requirements, and the student’s needs as a learner.The more prev-
alent form of supervision in social work education is the individual model, one student with
one supervisor (Cleak & Smith, 2012). This form of supervision is delivered through support
and guidance in a containing atmosphere tailored to the individual student’s specific needs and
abilities (e.g. Kadushin, 1992). Group supervision, which is a common practice in the education
of psychotherapists and other helping professions, is less prevalent as a sole form of supervision
in social work education (Ögren & Sundin, 2009). Still, over the years there has been a growing
tendency to offer group supervision in social work education solely or as a supplement to indi-
vidual supervision (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002; Bogo, Globerman, & Sussman, 2004).
Offering group supervision in social work field education is based on the assumption that it
provides students with additional skills (Arkin, Freund, & Saltman, 1999). Students participating
in group supervision gain new perspectives and insights on their own work by sharing their
peers’ experiences. Specifically, group supervision offers the potential of peer learning, and the
relationships developed between group members serve as the main learning instrument (Kadu-
shin, 1992; Tebb, Manning, & Klaumann, 1996; Bogo, Globerman, & Sussman, 2004). Moreover,
it may expedite professional growth and, contrary to individual supervision, the group setting
offers supervisees an opportunity for self-reflection in a less stressful environment (Bernard &
Goodyear, 1992; Kadushin, 1992; Geller, 1994). Potentially, group supervision offers exploration
of new and critical thinking about the experiences of its members in a containing and sup-
portive environment (Osvat, Marc, & Makai-Dimeny, 2014). Finally, it may also be less costly
(Bernard & Goodyear, 1992; Bogo, 2005; Bogo & McKnight, 2005).
The role of the supervisor in a group is different than in individual supervision. Group
supervision adds additional responsibility for the supervisor, to ensure participation and effective
learning of all group members. Therefore, the group supervisor has at least two major roles. At
the same time, the supervisor is a group leader who has to promote and enable active open-
ness and communication between the group members and to provide each member with the
necessary know-how to perform fieldwork (Tsui, 2005). This is a blend of what could be a
planned learning agenda but also spontaneous response to issues that the supervisees bring into
the group – with respect to their peers’ experiences or in the context of the planned agenda of
the supervisor. Kadushin and Harkness (2002) point out that alongside the advantages of group
254
Group supervision in field education
supervision (e.g. understanding that their problems are not singular, gaining knowledge from
others), its emphasis is on general aspects that may be relevant to all group members.
While the literature is relatively rich on conceptual models of group supervision (e.g. Arkin
et al., 1999), it lacks empirical evidence on its application, especially from the perspective of the
supervisors (Sussman, Bogo, & Globerman, 2007). The purpose of this chapter is to describe
the perceptions of supervisors who participated in implementing a pilot of group supervision at
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on several aspects of group supervision.
Background: field education in Israel

The Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare was the first academic school of
social work in Israel, established at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the late 1950s (Spiro,
2001). Field instruction in the BSW program is based on cognitive learning, taught mainly in
courses, combined with experiential learning in the field ( Jenkins & Sheafor, 1982; Sherer &
Peleg-Oren, 2001). Students are engaged in fieldwork training 2 and 2.5 days per week in the
second and third years, respectively, of the three-year BSW program. It is thus an important
component of their program. Fieldwork settings are organized in 13 learning centers. Each
learning center focuses on a particular practice area (e.g. child welfare, substance abuse, devel-
opmental disabilities) and is headed by a field advisor employed by the university, who is in
charge of all field instructors (i.e. supervisors) as well as responsible for the students’ educational
development.
The group supervision model

Typically, each field instructor provides two students with a 90-minute weekly individual super-
vision, based on verbatim process recording of the students’ meetings with the clients. Super-
visors are experienced social workers with an MSW degree and at least three years of clinical
experience. Most are employed by the agencies where students conduct their fieldwork, and are
financially compensated for their supervision by the university. In the academic year 2005–6,
the School initiated an experimental modality of supervision for second-year students, offering
group supervision as an alternative to individual supervision. The group supervision aimed to
enhance learning by sharing peer knowledge and experience and by exposure to a larger num-
ber of cases and styles of work. Budgetary issues were also considered.
To assess the effect of group supervision on students’ field learning during their course
of study, group supervision was pilot tested with a group of students in two learning centers.
Zeira & Schiff (2010) monitored this process and compared students’ experiences at three points
in time: before the pilot study began; at the end of the pilot year; and one year later. They found
that in most areas, and at all points in time, students receiving group supervision did not differ
from their colleagues who received traditional individual supervision. However, students in
group supervision, at all points in time, were less satisfied with various aspects of the supervision
they received.
The learning package of the new group supervision was different from the regular individual
supervision. It emphasized cognitive learning, conceptualizing the intervention process, self-
reflection, peer support, and mutual learning through analyzing cases of the group’s members.
Specifically, in contrast to individual supervision, students in group supervision had a smaller
caseload of clients; more time in class was dedicated to increasing their interpersonal and group
work skills; and instead of the weekly 90-minute individual supervision, they received two
weekly units of 90-minute supervision each in a small group (four to five students). Accordingly,
255
supervisors in this experimental mode had four to five supervisees. Additionally, the School pro-
vided all group supervisors a biweekly group meeting led by an expert in clinical supervision
and group work.These meetings provided the supervisors an opportunity to acquire new group
work skills and to discuss the challenges they were facing in group supervision.
The study
Five female supervisors – all with extensive experience as field instructors (one-on-one super-
vision) participated in this pilot study. They each recorded a biweekly structured open-ended
log in which they described (post hoc) the goals and content of the group sessions, as well as the
difficulties and strengths they encountered in each of the sessions.The logs were analyzed as part
of the ongoing monitoring process of testing group supervision in one academic year. Given the
structure of the logs, we used Strauss and Corbin (1990) constant comparison content analysis
to identify categories and themes. The analyses were conducted in three steps: first, a research
assistant and the first author identified the main themes, which were in the next step confirmed
by the second author, who was also familiar with the raw data. In the third step, the main themes
were presented and discussed in the school’s seminar with faculty that were involved in the pilot.
The remainder of the chapter will describe and discuss the perspective of the supervisors on the
group supervision.
Goals of the group meetings

The supervisors reported the goals for each meeting. The categories grouped into three general
themes – intrapersonal, interpersonal, and external.
Intrapersonal goals: a) self-reflection and especially how to deal with a client who brings up
strong emotional feelings in us as therapists (e.g. “how to deal in situations when both client and stu-
dent cope with sudden death of a close one”, “what does a suicidal patient make us feel?”, and “to identify
over-identification with clients. Which needs of the therapist does such a situation evoke?”); b) gender
issues (e.g. “client-therapist gender differences in therapy: their impact”); c) transference and coun-
tertransference (e.g. “dealing with a client who tells the therapist how to run the session”, “understand-
ing and coping with a client who asks the therapist personal questions”, and “discussing boundaries blurring
when the student over identifies with the client”).
Interpersonal goals: a) to set goals with the client (e.g. “giving examples of client’s goals”); b)
to establish a therapeutic relation with the clients (e.g. “what do students have to offer as
novice therapists?”; “bonding with the client as a vehicle to address the client’s problem”) ; c) to create a
therapeutic setting (e.g. “why is it important to hold to the 50-minute session”; “what happens when
we lose control in the session? When we feel the client invaded our personal space?”; “Is it OK to write
during the sessions?”); d) teamwork (e.g. “processing issues of teamwork in their field placement”); e)
to identify and cope with clients’ resistance (e.g. “discuss therapist/student feelings when clients
skip or cancel a session”); f) to cope with loss (e.g. “assist client to cope with the loss of an elderly
family member”); g) when getting stuck in treatment (e.g. “discussing how to handle ‘stuck’
points as reflected in the students’ verbatim case reports”); h) separation (e.g. “planned and unplanned
separation”; “addressing new problems that clients bring at the end of academic year”; “separation from the
supervision group and processing group achievement individually and as a learning group”).
Goals with an external focus: a) refining and redefining goals (e.g. “discuss how to set/reset
treatment goals”); b) to deal with external and internal realities (e.g. “should the therapist relate to
client’s external reality when the client prefers to relate only to his/her inner world?”); c) rules and regu-
lations (e.g. “explaining the law of community mental health rehabilitation, and types of available benefits
256
and services”); d) to explore group processes (e.g. “open the topic of how everyone feels in the group
and the work being done there”); e) ethical issues (e.g. “accepting a gift from the client’s family”); f)
evaluation (e.g. “evaluate clients’ achievements, and students’ strengths and weaknesses as therapists”).
Content of the sessions

The supervisors were asked to provide a brief description about the topics and content of the
sessions. We identified four themes, descriptions of which follow.
The role of the social worker: a) defining the role of the social worker and the role of the
trainee in social work (e.g. “balancing between instrumental and rights uptake, and more emotional
help”); b) fixing ruptures in therapy (e.g. “to discuss how to fix a mistake/rupture in treatment ses-
sions”); c) transference and countertransference (e.g. “handling situations such as when the student
feels that the client falls in love with her”; “discussing a situation in which a student shared with the group
thoughts and feelings about herself and how it affects her field training now with a client in the same situa-
tion”); d) involving other family members in therapy (e.g. “The student who treated a mental
health patient in a rehabilitation facility was not sure whether she should involve the mother in the rehabili-
tation plan and what could be her role in it”; e) pushing toward therapeutic achievements (e.g.
“debating whether to push toward concrete achievements in therapy or follow the client’s pace”; “how realistic
were the goals that have been set?”); f) ending therapeutic relationships (e.g. “how to respond to
questions such as ‘whether a student can visit the client once the academic year is over’ ”;“how to handle clients
who react with anger and aggression toward the end of the year”); g) generic versus specialized prac-
tice (e.g. “should treating the elderly be a specialization or part of treating individuals and families?”); and
h) student’s relationships with the organization/service (e.g.“students felt they received positive
feedback from the organization/service only at the end of academic year”; “how to provide balanced feedback
to the organization, addressing the positive and negative aspects of the ways the agency treated the students”).
Clients and their problems: a) clients with mental health problems (e.g. “the client looks
‘normal’ but is diagnosed as having paranoid schizophrenia. How much room should be given to this
diagnosis?”; “an old person with Alzheimer that refuses to move to a nursing home”; “working with a
long dying process”); b) clients who attribute their problems to the external reality (e.g. “a
mental health patient who attributes all his problems to his army service in the Former Soviet Union”); c)
clients with low verbal and emotional skills (e.g.“working with clients who are passive and can’t
express their emotions in individual and group treatment”); d) client’s rights versus the therapist’s
feelings (e.g. “discussion on a client’s right to tape all sessions while the student was not comfortable with
this request . . . what is the right balance between client’s rights and therapist uneasy feelings?”).
Students’ feelings about clients: a) fears and concerns during treatment sessions (e.g.
“everyone shared their fears in treatment sessions – of aggression, or when clients disclose obscure content”;
“how to deal with overwhelming feelings during treatment session”); b) feelings accompanied treat-
ment assessment (e.g. “feelings of failure when the organization changes the treatment plan because the
client didn’t make enough progress”;“feelings of satisfaction from clients’ progress in therapy”); c) personal
issues (e.g. “a pregnant student was not sure how much room she should give to her pregnancy during
treatment sessions”; “feeling difficulty to end the therapeutic relationships”).
Exploration of the students’ feelings – in the group: a) self-disclosure in the supervision group
(e.g. “is the group a ‘safe place’ to share personal difficulties and concerns?”; “Who is responsible to turn
the group to a ‘secured base’?”; “the students felt uncomfortable to disclose or to provide genuine feedback to
other group members”); b) cultural diversity in the supervision group (e.g. “the students shared
their feelings and thoughts regarding the only Arab student in the group”; “exploring how the only male
student felt in the supervision group”); c) friends or colleagues? (e.g. “difficulties to separate collegial
relationships and friendships group”).
257
Perceived strengths during group sessions

In addition to the difficulties, the supervisors reflected also on the strengths they found in the
group supervision meetings. Our analysis yielded two areas of strengths: one related to the merit
of group work as a form of supervision and the other to the positive outcomes of group super-
vision on the students.
The merit of group work: a) group support (e.g. “everyone felt at ease to participate in the group,
and everyone listened to the other”; “students did not feel any problem with each other. They all were ‘on
the same page’ with regard to writing their sessions’ reports; the students’ ability to share their experience
enriched the discussion”; Students feel comfort in raising topics in the group, and are ready to provide
advice and support”); b) self-disclosure as a strength (e.g. “students’ openness and readiness to get
into emotional thinking”; “despite the fact that it touched a sensitive area for this student, and she began
crying, the tears were natural to her, part of the group-work, and served a good example to other group
members”; “one of the students shared a personal issue, discussed a different experience she feels with a male
versus female clients”; “readiness to share and expose difficulties with the clients”; “More readiness for self-
disclosure. Both with regard to transference and counter-transference, as well as relate to topics raised by other
group-members”; “readiness to bring the therapeutic difficulties as they are, without covering anything”).
Positive outcomes of group supervision on the students: a) raising self-awareness (e.g. “readiness to
be self-critical and to admit having difficulties with clients”; “openness toward personal issues that affect us
as therapists”); b) skill development (e.g. “student’s readiness to self-reflect on the way s/he handles
the sessions with the clients, and the ability to refine and develop listening skills”; “listening to each other”;
“how to define treatment goals, how to define clients’ capabilities”); c) ending treatment (e.g. “students
were ready to learn how to end treatment sessions”; “they wanted to end their treatment in the most profes-
sional way”; “intuitively they begin summarizing the topics that were discussed during the academic year”).
Perceived difficulties during group sessions

The supervisors reflected on their difficulties in the group supervision sessions. We identified
three types: 1) difficulties concerned with students’ relationships within the group; 2) difficulties
related to the students’ relationships with their client; and 3) difficulties with implementing
solely group supervision.
Students’ relationships in the group: a) resistance of students during group supervision
(e.g. “resisting the feedback received from the group”; “students objected to all feedback or advice that was
provided to them”;“sometimes personal difficulties in the field training are replaced with overload of exams”;
“gaps between students’ academic and emotional levels”); b) difficulty to self-disclose (e.g. “students
felt unease to talk about their feelings and the talks are more intellectual”; “students were not ready to open
up”; “difficulty to discuss the vulnerability and sense of failure the student felt in the therapeutic relation-
ships with the client”; “a tendency toward intellectual discussion disguised emotional difficulty”).
Student’s relationships with their client: a) over/under identification with clients (e.g. “stu-
dents saying they never identify with anyone”); b) low self-awareness (e.g. “difficulty to self-reflect
on the tacit motives behind the students’ interventions, and the way they impact future relationships with
clients”; “with regards to separation from clients, they wanted to hear more and discuss less; maybe because
of their helplessness feelings on how to summarize the treatment and how to say goodbye”).
Group supervision model: a) the group model does not address students’ needs (e.g.
“time is so short and students have so many needs . . . I think they will benefit from individual supervi-
sion but the system does not accept it”; “not all members participated in the discussion, and I (supervisor)
had to encourage them to do so”); b) heterogeneity of students’ openness and level of self-
disclosure (e.g. “there is a gap between one student and the rest of the group in understanding of and
258
awareness to therapeutic process”;“difficulty to separate from the group and clients. Instead of discussing their
own difficulties, they turned it to a philosophical debate”); c) lack of group entity (e.g. “the supervisor
works hard to run the group and urge participants to talk”; “everyone is offended by the feedback from the
others”; “a topic is raised by one or two students but does not interest the rest of the group”).
Discussion
Research on group supervision in social work is rare, especially from supervisors’ perspectives
(Sussman, Bogo, & Globerman, 2007). Our study explored how instructors perceived group
supervision of students in their first year of field training. This was part of a pilot project we
conducted at the School of Social Work and Social Welfare at the Hebrew University of Jerusa-
lem, aiming to test whether group supervision can replace individual supervision in the students’
first year of field training. Qualitative analysis of the biweekly semi-structured open-ended logs
completed by supervisors was conducted. Several themes emerged. Before interpreting their
potential meanings, we would like to indicate the limitations of this study. First, only five super-
visors participated in this pilot study, and they completed the biweekly log only during one
year (of the two-year project). Second, the semi-structured log, which helped the supervisors to
focus on the main processes of supervision, might have somewhat limited the scope of reports
on their feelings and thoughts about the model. In-depth interviews of the supervisors and/or
video-taped observations of group sessions could have enriched our understanding of the feasi-
bility of this model. Third, due to ethical concerns, we did not collect data on the background
of the students. Given their random assignment to the pilot group, we have reasons to believe
their background did not differ from that of other students (Zeira & Schiff, 2014). Finally, due
to lack of funds we did not systematically record the supervision-of-supervision sessions. These
sessions could have shed more light on what supervisors thought and felt about their sessions
with the students.
Supervision has three main functions: educational, supportive, and executive/supervisory
(Lazar & Ben-Oz, 2012). Similar to other European countries (Karpetis, 2010, 2011), the edu-
cational function of supervision in Israel aims at exploring the way the internal world of the
supervisee affects his or her relationships with the clients. This aim was highly emphasized
among this study’s supervisors. Goals with an intra- and interpersonal focus were the dominant
theme, and dominant categories were self-reflection and transference and countertransference
(intrapersonal focus), and to establish therapeutic relationships and identifying and coping with
clients’ resistance (interpersonal focus). Working through transference and countertransference
was also repeatedly mentioned in the content of the sessions. Identifying transference and
countertransference in the therapy sessions and learning how to facilitate a trainee to use
countertransference in sessions with the client is a major dynamic in relational psychodynamic
supervision (Diener & Mesrie, 2014).
Assisting social work supervisees in learning how to use the “self ” in therapy as well as in
supervision sessions is a key element in psychodynamic supervision models (McTighe, 2011).
Indeed, categories of self-reflection or self-disclosure and self-awareness received high
attention among supervisors in our study in the goals and content of the sessions as well
as in the identified strengths and difficulties of the meetings. These findings also point to
the psychodynamic orientation of the supervisors. Thus, our findings suggest that supervi-
sors focused much more on the ‘psycho’ aspect of psycho-social interventions rather than
the ‘social’ aspect or on the person-in-environment orientation that includes policy issues,
ethnocentricity, poverty, deprivation, and political aspects. Furthermore, while social work
has many practice-theoretical approaches (Healy, 2014; Payne, 2014), the supervisors in our
259
study did not mention any discussions of theories of practice. Loyal to psychodynamic
approaches, as most social work practitioners in Israel are (Lawental, 2012), they facilitated
the development of the supervisee’s “self ” in relation to clients and sometimes interpreted
the theoretical discussions which evolved in the group as escapism from dealing with emo-
tional material.
Group supervision has many advantages, including the opportunity to share knowledge,
explore different perspectives, develop awareness of group dynamics, model new behaviors,
get and provide support, and acknowledge the universality of students’ feelings and concerns
(Sussman et al., 2007).Yet the supervisors’ reflections on group supervision in the present study,
similar to previous studies conducted in Sweden (Ögren & Sundin, 2009), focused on its more
challenging aspects. While group support was mentioned by the supervisors as a strength, both
the themes and the categories embedded in each theme could have easily been found in any
individual supervision session. Therefore, it may be that the supervisors might have perceived
the group supervision as an ‘individual supervision in group format’ (Ögren & Sundin, 2009:
132). Furthermore, students’ heterogeneity within the group is mentioned as a weakness rather
than a strength that enables explorations of different thoughts and perspectives. This could be
attributed to the pilot nature of their supervision and the consequent lack of knowledge on the
advantages of group supervision (Ögren & Sundin, 2009).
Initially, we thought that our data would reflect the process of learning during the aca-
demic year (Arkin, Freund, & Saltman, 1999). We therefore tried to analyze the data accord-
ing to timeframe: beginning, middle, and end of academic year. Interestingly, we found that
the same themes and categories of goals and content and even strengths and weakness were
repeated in the different periods. This had one exception: discussions about ending treatment.
While issues of goal settings, contract, and revising goals have been addressed only briefly, at
least in the supervisors’ logs, discussion about termination of treatment first showed in the
middle of the academic year and continued until the last group supervision session. Having to
end treatment because of academic-year constraints is a complex experience for the students
and involves negative feelings including lack of responsibility and guilt (Gelman, Fernandez,
Hausman, Miller, & Weiner, 2007). Supervision is crucial at this stage to guide and support
the students (Bogo, 2006; Gelman et al., 2007). Discussing termination of treatment includes
reviewing progress, consolidating gains, planning for next steps, and processing the emotional
bond (Bogo, 2006). Yet, supervisors in the current study focused on the students’ emotional
bond to clients and to some degree to the group, much more than on other dimensions
of treatment termination. This again was possibly the influence of the relational psychody-
namic orientation the supervisors hold that emphasizes the use of self and the quality of the
social worker’s relationships with the client rather than the assessment of goal achievements
(McTighe, 2011).
Overall, supervisors found that the group supervision model had positive outcomes. They
thought that the students increased their self-awareness, developed skills, and learned how to end
treatment. This perception is supported by our quantitative studies on students’ perspective of
the same pilot experiment of group supervision (Zeira & Schiff, 2010). We found that in most
areas, and at all points in time, students receiving group supervision did not differ from their
colleagues in the traditional individual supervision group in the perceived outcomes (Zeira &
Schiff, 2010). Yet – and again similar to students’ experiences – the supervisors were also less
satisfied with the model (Zeira & Schiff, 2007). Specifically, in the current study supervisors
mention the model of group supervision mostly in its more challenging aspect: that the group
model does not address the students’ needs, that the heterogeneity of group members is a barrier,
and that no group entity has been established.
260
Conclusions
While the perspective of the group supervisors in our study could be explained by the very
limited experience in group supervision versus their extensive experience in individual supervi-
sion, it could also be related to the beginning phase of the students in field training. Supervision
is sometimes compared to child development. The novice supervisee needs a significant adult
in a stable dyadic relationship to grow and move on from one developmental stage to the next.
Group supervision may therefore be more suitable for the more advanced years of study or a
later stage of professional development. Ray & Altekruse (2000) suggest combining individual
and group supervision so as to benefit from both modalities. Supervisors’ less enthusiastic atti-
tudes toward the group model may also be a result of weak organizational support by their col-
leagues and the school management, elements that are essential in reducing possible objections
to the change (Coch & French, 1948; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006).
Despite the growing evidence that group supervision has many advantages and can pro-
vide in-depth learning experiences as the present study and previous studies suggest (Ögren &
Sundin, 2009), our study suggests that the transferability of individual supervision to group
supervision is a challenging task. It demands training in group work, ongoing supervision of
supervision, and strong organizational support.
References
Arkin, N., Freund, A., & Saltman, I. (1999). A group supervision model for broadening multiple-method
skills of social work students. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 18(1), 49–58. doi:
10.1080/02615479911220051.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (1992). Fundamentals of clinical supervision. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Bogo, M. (2005). Field instruction in social work: A review of the research literature. The Clinical Supervisor,
24, 163–193.
Bogo, M. (2006). Social work practice: Concepts, processes, & interviewing. New York, NY: Columbia University
Press.
Bogo, M. (2010). Achieving competence in social work through field education.Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Bogo, M., Globerman, J., & Sussman, T. (2004). The field instructor as group worker: Managing trust and
competition in group supervision. Journal of Social Work Education, 40, 13–26.
Bogo, M., & McKnight, K. (2005). Clinical supervision in social work: A review of the research literature.
The Clinical Supervisor, 24, 49–67.
Bogo, M., Regehr, C., Logie, C., Katz, E., Mylopoulos, M., & Regehr, G. (2011). Adapting objective struc-
tured clinical examinations to assess social work students’ performance and reflections. Journal of Social
Work Education, 47(1), 5–18. doi: 18.10.5175/JSWE.2011.200900036.
Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (2005). Professions, competence and informal learning. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar.
Cleak, H., & Smith, D. (2012). Students satisfaction with models of field placement supervision. Australian
Social Work, 65(2), 243–258. doi: 10.1080/0312407X.2011.572981.
Coch, L., & French, J. R. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 4, 512–532.
CSWE. (2015). Education policy and accreditation standards (EPAS). Retrieved from www.cswe.org/File.
aspx?id=81660.
Diener, M. J., & Mesrie, V. (2014). Supervisory process from a supportive–expressive relational psychody-
namic approach. Psychotherapy, No Pagination Specified. doi: 10.1037/a0038085.
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector.
Public Administration Review, 66, 168–176.
Geller, C. (1994). Group supervision as a vehicle for teaching group work to students: Field instruction in
a senior center. The Clinical Supervision, 12, 199–214.
Gelman, C. R., Fernandez, P., Hausman, N., Miller, S., & Weiner, M. (2007). Challenging endings: First year
MSW interns’ experiences with forced termination and discussion points for supervisory guidance.
Clinical Social Work Journal, 35(2), 79–90. doi: 10.1007/s10615-007-0076-6.
261
Healy, K. (2014). Social work theories in context: Creating frameworks for practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Jenkins, L. E., & Sheafor, B.W. (1982). An overview of social work field instruction: Quality field instruction
in social work. In B. W. Sheafor & L. E. Jenkins (Eds.), Quality of field instruction in social work (pp. 3–20).
New York, NY: Longman.
Kadushin, A. (1992). What’s wrong, what’s right with social work supervision? The Clinical Supervisor, 10,
3–19.
Kadushin, A., & Harkness, D. (2002). Supervision in social work. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Karpetis, G. (2010). Field practice supervision of social work students: A psychodynamic view on the emo-
tional context of the process and the setting during the client assessment phase. European Journal of Social
Work, 13(4), 503–522. doi: 10.1080/13691451003603448.
Karpetis, G. (2011). A relational approach to the evaluation of the practice performance of social work
students in Greece: The supervisors’ perspective. British Journal of Social Work, 41(6), 1158–1175. doi:
10.1093/bjsw/bcr005.
Lawental, E. (2012). Clinical social work. In M. Hovav, E. Lawental, & J. Katan (Eds.), Social work in Israel
(pp. 115–144). Israel: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. (Hebrew).
Lazar, A., & Ben-Oz, M. (2012). Social work supervision. In M. Hovav, E. Lawental, & J. Katan (Eds.), Social
work in Israel (pp. 371–395). Israel: Hakibbutz Hameuchad (Hebrew).
Lu,Y.E., Ain, E., Chamorro, C., Chang, C., Feng, J.Y., Fong, R., Garcia, B., Hawkins, R.L., & Yue, M. (2011).
A new methodology for assessing social work practice: The adaptation of the objective structured
clinical evaluation (SW-OSCE). Social Work Education, 30(2), 170–185. doi:10.1080/02615479.2011.
540385.
McTighe, J. P. (2011).Teaching the use of self through the process of clinical supervision. Clinical Social Work
Journal, 39(3), 301–307. doi: 10.1007/s10615–010–0304–3.
Ögren, M.-L., & Sundin, E. C. (2009). Group supervision in psychotherapy. Main findings from a Swedish
research project on psychotherapy supervision in a group format. British Journal of Guidance & Counsel-
ling, 37(2), 129–139. doi: 10.1080/03069880902728614.
Osvat, C., Marc, C., & Makai-Dimeny, J. (2014). Group supervision in social work: A model of intervention
for practitioners. Revista de Asistenţ Social, 8, 17–26.
Payne, M. (2014). Modern social work theory (4th ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ray, D., & Altekruse, M. (2000). Effectiveness of group supervision versus combined group and individual
supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40, 19–30.
Sherer, M., & Peleg-Oren, N. (2001). Analysis of tasks and activities of Israeli social work students in the
field work training program. Society and Welfare, 21, 443–466 (Hebrew).
Spiro, S. E. (2001). Social work education in Israel: Trends and issues. Social Work Education, 20, 89–99.
Sussman,T., Bogo, M., & Globerman, J. (2007). Field instructor perceptions in group supervision: Establish-
ing trust through managing group dynamics. The Clinical Supervisor, 26, 61–80.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
education in England. British Journal of Social Work, 44, 1402–1418. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bct077.
Tebb, S., Manning, D. W., & Klaumann, T. K. (1996). A renaissance of group supervision in practicum. Clin-
ical Supervision, 14, 39–51.
Tsui, M. (2005). Social work supervision: Contexts and concepts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zeira, A., & Schiff, M. (2007). Description and assessment of experimental field training model for 2nd year (first
year in field training) BSW students. Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew University Paul Baerwald School of Social
Work and Social Welfare (Hebrew).
Zeira, A., & Schiff, M. (2010). Testing group supervision in fieldwork training for social work students.
Research on Social Work Practice, 20(4), 427–434. doi: 10.1177/1049731509332882.
Zeira, A., & Schiff, M. (2014). Field education: A comparison of students’ and novice social workers’ per-
spectives. British Journal of Social Work, 44, 1950–1966. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bct038.
262
SECTION 5
New directions in
learning and teaching
23
USING SIMULATION IN
TEACHING AND ASSESSING
SOCIAL WORK COMPETENCE
Use of simulation is emerging in social work education as a critical tool in the teaching and
assessment of social work competence and as a method to strengthen the link between class-
room and field education. This chapter will discuss the use of simulation in teaching and assess-
ing social work competence. Competence is first defined within the context of the Council
on Social Work Education, Educational Policy, United States (CSWE, 2015). This conceptual-
ization of competence as holistic guides the way in which simulation is used both in teaching
and in assessing students’ competence. Simulation is defined and considered with respect to
the empirical support for this pedagogical and assessment approach in social work. Finally, key
issues are examined with implications for social work educators who are interested in using
this method.
Conceptualizing competence
Social work education in the United States only recently adopted a competence model to guide
accreditation of social work programs. Unlike competence-based regulatory frameworks in
other countries, such as the United Kingdom (Taylor and Bogo, 2014), prior educational policy
in the United States described the substantive content that programs were expected to deliver
and the required structure of the program, including the amount of time students must devote
to field education (called practice learning in UK countries). In 2008 the Educational Policy
and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) changed dramatically to embrace a competence-based edu-
cation (CBE) framework for accrediting schools of social work. Competencies were defined as
“measurable practice behaviors that are comprised of knowledge, values, and skills” (CSWE,
2008: 4). Every seven years, the Commission on Educational Policy of CSWE is charged with
preparing new or revised policy. After an extensive period of review and consultation, the Com-
mission developed an expanded perspective, labeled as holistic competence, which informed
the most recent Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (CSWE, 2015). This iteration
“recognizes a holistic view of competence; that is, the demonstration of competence is informed
by knowledge, values, skills, and cognitive and affective processes that include the social work-
er’s critical thinking, affective reactions, and exercise of judgment in regard to unique practice
situations . . . is multi-dimensional and composed of interrelated competencies” (CSWE, 2015:
265
2). This new perspective is consistent with scholarship and research in social work and related
health and human service professions, particularly as it addresses the critique of existing com-
petence models that result in endless lists of discrete, concrete behaviors (Frank et al., 2010).
These former models do not capture the essence of social work practice, which is complex
and involves situations that require more than technical or instrumental responses (Skinner &
Whyte, 2004;Wilson & Kelley, 2010). Such models do not include attention to the way practice
issues are framed, knowledge is used, judgments are formed, and values are taken into account
(Kelly & Horder, 2001). Surprisingly, the long-standing importance of use of self in social work
(Brandell, 2004; Larrison & Korr, 2013) was also absent.This crucial concept recognizes that the
way in which practitioners think and feel about situations they confront in practice powerfully
affect their reactions, assessments, and ultimately their interventions. The importance of these
additional components is supported by research on competence conducted with 20 professions
(Cheetham and Chivers, 2005) and also in social work (Bogo, 2010; Bogo et al., 2013; Bogo
et al., 2014; Bogo et al., 2006).
As we have stated elsewhere (Bogo et al., 2014), practitioners use a range of skills to enact
complex practices; for example, interviewing and communication skills are used to build rela-
tionships, conduct assessments, and carry out interventions.These practices and skills demonstrate
the way in which practitioners draw upon knowledge frameworks to guide them. Knowledge
consists of conceptual and empirical information as well as one’s own personal and professional
assumptions (also referred to as tacit or implicit knowledge). Through reflection and critical
thinking, social workers can analyze their perceptions, the way in which they judge situations,
and the decisions they make. Consistent with contemporary neuroscience principles, affective,
emotional, subjective reactions are integral to these cognitive processes (Damasio, 2005). “Thus,
professional judgment is based on the links between a practitioner’s thoughts and feelings and
the reflective and critical thinking she or he brings to the judgments and decisions made.There-
fore, competence involves awareness of our emotional states, feelings, and reactions and the use
of reflection and self-regulation to understand, manage, and work productively in practice”
(Bogo et al., 2014: 10). Professional context affects all practice situations, contributing values,
standards, and a code of ethics. So too, the mandate and policies of the employing organization
as well as community characteristics contribute to local interpretations of competence. This
conceptualization of holistic competence is presented in Figure 23.1.
This view of competence guides our work in developing the use of simulation in teaching
and in assessing generic and specialized aspects of social work practice.Well-designed simulation
experiences with pedagogically sound reflection and debriefing activities appear to integrate
these various dimensions of competence effectively. Current structural arrangements in US
schools generally separate the teaching of theory and practice skill development. Knowledge
and information (including practice theory) is primarily taught in university classes, and prac-
tice skill development and assessment is the focus of teaching in the field. While integrative
and field seminars aim to bridge these two worlds, practice is generally discussed rather than
demonstrated (Dalton, 2012). With the growing fiscal crisis in social work and health organi-
zations, there are fewer field educators who can voluntarily devote time to student education
and assisting learners to integrate theory, learn practice skills, and reflect on use of self in the
context of organization mandates (Bogo, 2010; Hunter, Moen, & Raskin, 2015). Field placement
responsibilities for students also vary from site to site, creating the possibility that not all students
are developing the range of requisite skills necessary for entry-level practice. Schools are urged
to develop strategies to bridge classroom and field in order to become better partners with field
agencies and to take greater responsibility for teaching and assessing practice competence in the
academy.
266
Using simulation in teaching and assessing
ORGANIZATION AND COMMUNITY CONTEXT
Skills Self-regulation
Emotions, reflection,
self-awareness
Complex Practice Behavior
Knowledge Judgment
Generic and specialist Assumptions, critical thinking,
Theoretical and empirical decision making
PROFESSIONAL CONTEXT−VALUES
Figure 23.1 A model of holistic competence in social work

Reprinted with permission of the Council on Social Work Education from Bogo, Rawlings, Katz, & Logie (2014).
Using simulation in assessment and teaching: OSCE adapted for social work. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social
Work Education.
Simulation and OSCE defined

Simulation has long been used in social work education as a strategy for skill development,
often in the form of role play using fellow students, instructors, or actors to portray a case
situation. Simulation can be defined as a method “to replace or amplify real experiences with
guided experiences, often immersive in nature, that evoke or replicate substantial aspects of the
real world in a fully safe, instructive and interactive fashion” (Gaba, 2007: 136). Simulation in
the helping professions may involve the use of mannequins, digital avatars, or humans. For this
discussion, simulation will refer to use of humans enacting a client role, otherwise known as
human simulation.
Simulation however has rarely been used in social work for direct assessment of student
competence (Logie, Bogo, Regehr, & Regehr, 2013). Objective Structured Clinical Examina-
tions (OSCE) provide such a method. Developed in medicine (Harden, Stevenson, Downie, &
Wilson, 1975) and now used in most health professions (for examples see Cant, McKenna, &
Cooper, 2013; Sturpe, 2010), the OSCE consists of a live clinical examination where all students
engage in one (or more) interviews for a specific length of time with an actor trained to portray
a client situation in a consistent and standardized manner. Interviews are observed by a trained
rater who assesses students’ performance using a rating scale. The structure and content of the
examination is uniform for all students (Bogo et al., 2014).
Why use simulation in schools of social work

Well-trained actors enacting well-designed scenarios provide students with opportunities to
practice and develop their skills in situations that do not place clients at risk.This form of teach-
ing allows students to develop skill in enacting complex practice behaviors in a controlled and
267
safe setting. When coupled with the teaching of conceptual frameworks, empirical information,
and practice principles, students can more readily integrate theory and practice. For example,
engaging diversity in practice or assessment of risk of suicide or child maltreatment are com-
plex practices that can be demonstrated and discussed in relation to multiple dimensions in a
controlled and safe environment. Moreover, a recent critical appraisal of 14 studies using sim-
ulation found high student and classroom instructor satisfaction, perceiving this as a beneficial
educational approach for skill development and application of social work knowledge (Logie
et al., 2013).
The use of simulation can address many concerns related to assessing competence. With
increasing public scrutiny of higher education, institutions of higher learning are demanding
that educational programs demonstrate and ensure that graduating students have gained the
knowledge and skills promised by the program. Further, professional programs such as social
work must take responsibility for ensuring graduating students have attained minimum com-
petence necessary for entry-level professional practice. Social workers practice with vulnerable,
high-risk populations, frequently those without advocates. It is critical therefore for social work
educators to accept their role and responsibility in preparing students ready to enter practice.
Professional accrediting bodies are also seeking program accountability and demanding that
educational programs assess and evaluate student attainment of program outcomes as part of
the accreditation process. The newly revised Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards
(CSWE, 2015) requires at least part of this assessment to include direct assessment of student
competence in actual or simulated settings (p. 14).
Historically, to determine competence social work educators have relied primarily on evalu-
ation of student performance in field education, classroom assignments, and student self-report
of their abilities (Crisp & Lister, 2002). Each of these methods has limitations. Research has
found that field evaluation scores tend to be inflated, and confounded by the dynamics of the
field instructor and student relationship (Bogo, Regehr, Power, & Regehr, 2007; Maidment,
2000; Sowbel, 2011). As much of the work provided by social workers occurs in confidential
settings, field instructors often have not had the opportunity to directly observe the student;
rather they rely on students’ self-report about their actions in client sessions as evidence of per-
formance. As well, field evaluations are dependent on the nature of the setting, the complexity of
the client population, and the interpretations of dimensions of competence made by individual
field instructors. In the OSCE all students experience the same problem, population, and level
of difficulty, creating a fair and reliable testing situation. Direct observation of practice by an
independent rater also minimizes bias, making assessment more uniform.
Classroom assignments also have limitations, as practice coursework typically involves writ-
ing assignments, with students reporting either what they believe they did or what they would
do in a given situation, reflecting what they know but not what they can actually do in practice.
Finally, student ability to accurately self-report has been called into question based on numerous
studies; students often overestimate or underestimate their actual abilities (Eva & Regehr, 2005).
In a recent study in social work, student self-report of their skill did not correlate with ratings of
independent raters in a simulated situation interviewing a standardized client (Rawlings, 2012).
The OSCE adapted for social work was designed to capture the multiple interrelated dimen-
sions of the holistic competence model discussed above (Bogo et al., 2014). This involved stu-
dents conducting a 15-minute interview with a simulated client followed immediately by a
reflective activity where students responded to a series of questions aimed at eliciting their
understanding of the scenario, their reflections on their use of knowledge and cognitive and
affective processing. This method yields rich data which serves numerous purposes. This data
can be used to provide each student with specific feedback in formative and/or summative
268
evaluations of practice. It also allows course instructors to examine the outcomes of their teach-
ing and, based on student performance, determine in which areas they have been successful. As
such, this data can be used to inform continuous curriculum development and change through
targeting areas where student performance and competence was not at the desired level. For
example, in an analysis of post-interview reflections, Katz, Tufford, Bogo, and Regehr (2014)
found that many students described levels of anxiety that interfered with their ability to stay
attuned to the simulated client. Based on these findings the course instructors developed new
teaching strategies for emotional regulation which students could use in the practice class and
subsequently when engaging with clients in the field.
Designing a simulation
The specific steps for designing simulations for teaching and assessing students are described
in journal articles (for example, Miller, 2004; Mooradian, 2008; Rogers & Welch, 2009) and a
recent text (Bogo et al., 2014). To summarize, there are four iterative phases that can usefully be
followed. The first phase involves articulating competencies to focus on in teaching and in assess-
ment. These competencies will be related to accreditation frameworks, goals of the particular
social work program, or even specific courses. Specific courses may define expected outcomes
as learning objectives, which in turn can be used as starting points for articulating the specific
competencies.
Once competency areas are selected, observable behavioral indicators, or practice behaviors
or skills, need to be developed which consist of a more specific description of what needs to be
learned. These indicators are also important for assessment as they define the evidence needed
for students to demonstrate their ability in the competency area. These practice behaviors serve
as the basis for the measurement instrument to be developed. The challenge is to avoid overly
general or overly atomistic descriptions but rather to find midrange behaviors for assessment,
allowing the instrument to incorporate nuances in student performance while still capturing the
competency. As one delineates these practice behaviors, consideration must be given to whether
these behaviors can be observed in a time-limited simulation. (An example of such a tool can be
found in Bogo et al., 2014: 135–138).
The second stage includes mapping competencies to case content. As one is articulating compe-
tencies for teaching and for assessment, beginning conceptualization of a basic case scenario(s)
begins. Mapping competencies to practice behaviors, then to scenario content, and then to
client factors develops an outline to guide the description of the specific case scenario. It is
helpful to have a basic scenario and presenting problem in mind as one builds this conceptual
map. Mapping helps develop the issues that need to be present in the case in order for the
student to have the necessary content to demonstrate the competency. Case content should be
related to client factors, agency setting, role of social worker, and type of service. To strengthen
authenticity and validity of the scenario, it is useful to consult with practitioners who specialize
in a particular field.
The goal of the next stage is to design a simulation scenario that allows a consistent presentation
of the case by the actor each time. Using the conceptual map, designing the scenario involves
constructing the history and background of the case, intersecting dimensions of diversity, pre-
senting problem, emotional state of the client, verbatim statements for the actor, social worker
goals, and instructions for students. It is important to note the scenario provides the critical
information for an actor to play the role in a standardized fashion. Actors however must also be
able to skillfully improvise using the basic information based on each student’s performance. It is
impossible to write or prepare the actors in all the possible ways a student may engage with them.
269
If using simulation in assessment, it is necessary to develop or adapt rating scales. The scale
must be consistent with the competencies identified in the first phase. Hence the iterative nature
of the process – as one develops rating scales based on considering what needs to be present
in students’ behavior, competencies may be changed, expanded, or further defined. Since social
work practice is complex, and assessment involves not only if a student did something but
how they did it, we recommend using a three- to five-point global rating scale for assessment.
Descriptors for each point on the scale can describe a low, low-middle, middle, middle-high, or
high range of competence.
Consistent with our view of holistic competence, post-interview reflection questions can
be developed to assess competencies related to student cognitive abilities such as self-reflection,
emotional regulation, knowledge, or critical thinking. These important dimensions of holistic
competence may not be readily assessed by observation. They can be demonstrated by students
through written or verbal responses to post-interview reflective questions developed to assess
these aspects of holistic competence. Rating scales following the previously described recom-
mendations can be similarly developed to assess student responses. Again, this follows an iterative
process, with reflective questions that prompt the student to discuss the particular competence
leading to clarification of scale items for assessment of that competence.
Current issues in use of simulation
Towards an empirical base

The use of simulation in teaching and in assessment in social work has begun to stimulate edu-
cators to conduct research on this educational approach. The results of this expanding body of
empirical evidence suggest that the method holds promise for social work. Logie and colleagues
(2013) conducted a critical review of 17 studies on the use of standardized clients in both class-
room instruction and assessment. While the need for stronger research designs was identified,
consistent findings were that the approach was well received.
Researchers are developing and testing reliable and valid scales that others can use in study-
ing a range of educational interventions. Bogo, Regehr, Logie, and colleagues (2011) developed
and tested a five-scenario OSCE with two rating scales: a performance measure and a scale to
measure students’ reflections on their cognitive and affective processing. The tools had prom-
ising reliability and demonstrated construct validity. Rawlings and Johnson (2011) tested and
confirmed the reliability of this performance measure and examined the inter-rater reliability
of instructors using the scale. Another example of a potentially useful tool is described by Lu
et al. (2011). This scale assesses students’ clinical competence and cultural sensitivity after taking
a Master’s level clinical course that integrated practice with diversity. The rating scale was tested
and demonstrated high internal consistency.
With standardized tools with sound psychometric properties there is the possibility to more
accurately assess educational outcomes and also to compare the outcomes of various educational
interventions. For example, Rawlings (2012) used performance in a one-scenario OSCE at the
beginning and end of an undergraduate program to compare students’ performance as well as
the relationship between practice skill and self-efficacy. Rawlings & Johnson (2012) also exam-
ined the relationship between student performance on the scale and on their field evaluations.
Bogo et al. (2012) studied student performance in a one-scenario OSCE followed by a reflective
exercise and also compared student performance and reflections to scores in field performance.
These studies suggest that carefully constructed OSCE measures have the potential to assist in
determining student readiness for field education, and to identify students at risk. For students
270
whose performance in the OSCE is marginal, remediation or additional support in field learn-
ing can be offered.
The literature also includes studies on using standardized clients to assess the outcomes of
training for specialized practice, such as with army civilian social workers involved in learning
to assess intimate partner violence (Forgey, Badger, Glibert, & Hansen, 2013). A recent scoping
review of the use of simulation in training child welfare workers to assess child maltreatment
provides a critical analysis of work completed and areas for future research (Bogo, Shlonsky,
Lee, & Serbinski, 2014).
Elsewhere, two of the editors of this Handbook have argued for the importance of social
work pedagogic research as a specialized, respected, and supported subdiscipline of scholarship
in social work (Bogo, 2012; Robbins, Pomeroy, Thyer, Mason, & Taylor, 2013). To advance our
effectiveness as educators, it is imperative that social work produce cumulative knowledge about
teaching and learning based on continuous in-depth programs of research. Such programs of
education research and scholarship have increasingly been accepted in medicine, nursing, and
other related professions. While gaining recognition in social work in the United Kingdom,
there is no available information to suggest this to be the case in US schools. It is rare for fac-
ulty members in research-intensive universities to gain recognition for research on education,
especially in the absence of funding for large studies. With growing interest in and knowledge
about simulation in social work, it is hoped that national and international social work education
organizations identify and advocate for creating an empirical base for our work.
Challenges in teaching with simulation

When teaching with simulation, both instructors and students will be involved in the public
display of their practice behavior. This can be challenging and anxiety-producing for both. This
method requires instructors who have had former or recent practice experiences which they
can draw upon to demonstrate and discuss the way in which their behavior shows theory in
action. Our studies have found that many beginning students rely more on their personal expe-
riences and implicit knowledge than the professional knowledge taught in foundation courses
to guide and analyze their practice (Bogo et al., 2013; Katz et al., 2014). Simulation provides an
excellent bridge to link concepts and practice, provided that instructors can clearly and consist-
ently articulate and draw such links through both illustrating concepts in action and analyzing
interviewing behavior through the lens of concepts being taught.
At Annual Program Meetings (APM) of US Schools of Social Work, concerns have been
raised about the preparation of the next generation of social work educators. Doctoral programs
tend to focus on preparing for roles in research and scholarship and increasingly admit students
with little or no practice experience. Upon graduation these new academics are ill equipped
for teaching roles and in the absence of a history of practice cannot be expected to teach in
the manner described above. Similarly, experienced social work faculty members are at risk of
becoming distant from current practice models if not actively engaged in ongoing social work
practice activities. To address this lack of faculty members with current or recent experience,
schools are engaging clinical or adjunct faculty, who may or may not be equipped to engage in
empirical assessment of clinical skill, or be full participants in program curriculum development
and accountability, furthering the disconnect between the academy, social work practice, and
field education.
Using simulation typically involves students engaging a simulated client while others in the
class are observing and the instructor or other expert is providing coaching or feedback. Stu-
dents may engage the client as a team, where they coach each other, or may rotate in and out of
271
the scenario as they take turns with the client. Critical to effective learning in these situations
is the creation of a safe and productive learning environment (Bogo et al., 2014). Engaging in
simulation requires a high level of risk by the students, and correspondingly high support is
needed from the instructor. A productive emotional climate can be fostered by providing clear
positive feedback, empathic support regarding the nature of the task, and accurate feedback for
improvement that is tied to a competence framework and is not personal. Students also need to
be coached on how to provide feedback to each other; feedback that is helpful and constructive,
rather than overly critical.
Effective debriefing most often occurs immediately after the simulation, beginning by having
the student who conducted the interview share her experiences, self-identifying where she felt
confident and where she felt she needed assistance or feedback. Other students also provide their
observations. This allows students to develop their ability to be self-reflective of their practice,
and to gain skills in emotional regulation as they manage their personal reactions to feedback.
In classroom simulation, students learn from not only participating, but also by observing their
peers. While this is invaluable learning, it is important that at some point the instructor demon-
strate either in person or via video recording preferred practice behaviors, thus modeling the
competency under discussion.
Regarding preparing for an OSCE, we have observed that prior to the interview students
often report feeling anxiety. After the examination, however, they report feeling as if the experi-
ence portrayed actual practice, and that they feel better prepared for actual social work practice,
especially if they are proceeding into field learning. Educators note that optimal anxiety is a
stimulus for learning (Shulman, 2005). This has been borne out in our experience. Students
apply themselves more in the classroom in preparation for the OSCE, knowing their perfor-
mance will impact their grade for the course. Students take seriously the role play and simulation
experiences, and practice outside the classroom with peers to enhance their skills prior to the
exam. Instructors can design additional assignments, such as student review of a video copy
of the performance for student reflection and analysis, or debrief the class regarding observed
themes in student performance after the OSCE is complete to further student development and
learning.
Resourcing assessment in social work education

Simulation offers valuable opportunities for students and assessment data for program improve-
ment.Yet, it requires a commitment of resources to implement effectively. Research, time, and
creative funding are needed to further develop the reliability and validity of this method for
use in social work. While social work in the United States has embraced a competence-based
education model, it still lacks, as a profession, tools for the effective assessment of holistic com-
petence. Larger programs with more resources that can be applied to researching the develop-
ment and effectiveness of simulation are called upon to provide leadership in producing this
kind of pedagogical research. Accrediting bodies must also commit to creating incentives and
opportunities for research in the use of simulation or other means of assessing holistic compe-
tence. Gaining “buy-in” from administrators and colleagues through the promotion of research
opportunities, work release, and grant opportunities is critical. And finally, social work edu-
cators themselves need to be challenged to research and publish the work that they are doing
in this area. As noted earlier, social work, unlike other professions, has not always supported
pedagogic research, yet this kind of support is critical to advancing a true competence-based
model of education.
272
Conclusions
Holistic competence offers a conceptualization of competence that aligns with the complex
practice of social work. Simulation provides a model of preparing students for practice that
bridges the classroom and field education, allowing students the opportunity for holistic com-
petence development and the linkage of theory and practice, in ways not always possible in
field education alone.The challenge is now for social work programs to conduct research, equip
instructors, and provide resources for using simulation in teaching and assessment.
References
Bogo, M. (2010). Achieving competence in social work through field education.Toronto, ON: University of Toronto
Press.
Bogo, M. (2012). Editorial: Cultivating scholarship and research in social work pedagogy. Social Work Edu-
cation, 31(4), 403–405. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2012.678767.
Bogo, M., Katz, E., Regehr, C., Logie, C., Mylopoulos, M., & Tufford, L. (2013). Toward understanding
meta-competence: An analysis of students’ reflections on their simulated interviews. Social Work Educa-
tion 32(2), 259–273. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2012.738662.
Bogo, M., Rawlings, M., Katz, E., & Logie, C. (2014). Using simulation in assessment and teaching: OSCE
adapted for social work. Alexandria,VI: Council on Social Work Education.
Bogo, M., Regehr, C., Katz, E., Logie, C., Tufford, L., & Litvack, A. (2012). Evaluating the use of an objec-
tive structured clinical examination (OSCE) adapted for social work. Research in Social Work Practice.,
22(4), 428–436. doi: 1049731512437557.
Bogo, M., Regehr, C., Logie, C., Katz, E., Mylopoulos, M., & Regehr, G. (2011). Adapting objective struc-
tured clinical examinations to assess social work students’ performance and reflections. Journal of Social
Work Education (47)1, 5-18. doi: 18. 10.5175/JSWE.2011.200900036.
Bogo, M., Regehr, C., Power, R., & Regehr, G. (2007). When values collide: Providing feedback and eval-
uating competence in social work. The Clinical Supervisor, 26(1/2), 99–117.
Bogo, M., Regehr, C., Woodford, M., Hughes, J., Power, R., & Regehr, G. (2006). Beyond competencies:
Field instructors’ descriptions of student performance. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(3), 579–593.
Bogo, M., Shlonsky, A., Lee, B., & Serbinski, S. (2014). Acting like it matters: A scoping review of simulation
in child welfare training. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 8(1), 1–24. doi:10.1080/15548732.2013.818610.
Brandell, J. R. (2004). Psychodynamic social work. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Cant, R., McKenna, L., & Cooper, S. (2013). Assessing preregistration nursing students’ clinical compe-
tence: A systematic review of objective measures. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 19(2), 163–176.
Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (2005). Professions, Competence and Informal Learning. Cheltenham, England: Edward
Elgar.
Crisp, B. R., & Lister, P. G. (2002). Assessment methods in social work education: A review of the literature.
CSWE. (2015). Education Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS). Retrieved from http://www.cswe.
org/File.aspx?id=81660.
Dalton, B. (2012). “You make them do what?” A national survey on field seminar assignments. Advances in
Social Work, 13(3), 618–632.
Damasio, A. (2005). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2005). Self-assessment in the health professions: A reformulation and research
agenda. Academic Medicine, 80(10suppl), S46–S54.
Forgey, M. A., Badger, L., Glibert, T., & Hansen, J. (2013). Using standarized clients to train social
workers in intimate partner violence assessment. Journal of Social Work Education, 49, 292–306. doi:
10.1080/10437797.2013.768482.
Frank, J. R., Mungroo, R., Ahmad, Y., Wang, M., Rossi, S., & Horsley, T. (2010). Toward a definition of
competency-based education in medicine: A systematic review of published definitions. Medical Teacher,
32(8), 631–637.
Gaba, D. M. (2007). The future vision of simulaton in healthcare. Simulation in Healthcare, 2, 126–135. doi:
10.1097/01.SIH.0000258411.38212.32.
273
Harden, R. M., Stevenson, M., Downie, W. W., & Wilson, G. M. (1975). Assessment of clinical competence
using objective structured examination. British Medical Journal, 1(5955), 447–451.
Hunter, C. A., Moen, J. K., & Raskin, M. S. (Eds.) (2015). Social work field directors: Foundations for excellence.
Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books, Inc.
Katz, E., Tufford, L., Bogo, M., & Regehr, C. (2014). Illuminating students’ pre-practicum conceptual and
emotional states: Implications for field education.. Journal of Teaching in Social Work., 34, 96–108.
Kelly, J., & Horder, W. (2001). The how and why: Competences and holistic practice. Social Work Education,
20(6), 689–699.
Larrison, T. E., & Korr, W. S. (2013). Does social work have a signature pedagogy? Journal of Social Work
Education, 49(2), 194–206.
Logie, C., Bogo, M., Regehr, C., & Regehr, G. (2013). A critical appraisal of the use of standard-
ized client simulations in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 49(1), 66–80. doi:
10.1080/10437797.2013.755377.
Lu, Y. E., Ain, E., Chamorro, C., Chang, C., Feng, J. Y., Fong, R., Garcia, B., Hawkins, R. L., & Yue, M.
(2011). A new methodology for assessing social work practice: The adaptation of the objective struc-
tured clinical evaluation (SW-OSCE). Social Work Education, 30(2), 170–185. doi:10.1080/02615479.
2011.540385.
Maidment, J. (2000). Methods used to teach social work students in the field: A research report from New
Zealand. Social Work Education, 19(2), 145–154.
Miller, M. (2004). Implementing standardized client education in a combined BSW and MSW program.
Mooradian, J. K. (2008). Using simulated sessions to enhance clinical social work education. Journal of Social
Work Education, 44, 21–35.
Rawlings, M. (2012). Assessing BSW student direct practice skill using standardized clients and self-efficacy
theory. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(3), 553–576.
Rawlings, M., & Johnson, B. (2011). Reliability and validity of the OSCE for social work practice performance rating
scale. Paper presented at the Council on Social Work Education Annual Program Meeting, Atlanta, GA.
Rawlings, M., & Johnson, B. (2012, November). Predictive validity of student OSCE scores on field internship
performance. Poster Presented at the Council on Social Work Education Annual Program Meeting,Wash-
ington, DC.
Robbins, S. P., Pomeroy, E. C.,Thyer, B. A., Mason, S. E., & Taylor, I. (2013). From the editor-scholarship for
the 21st Century. Journal of Social Work Education, 49(3), 361–367.
Rogers, A., & Welch, B. (2009). Using standardized clients in the classroom: An evaluation of a training
module to teach active listening skills to social work students. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29,
153–168.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the profession. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
Skinner, K., & Whyte, B. (2004). Going beyond training: Theory and practice in managing learning. Social
Sowbel, L. R. (2011). Field note – Gatekeeping in field performance: Is grade inflation a given? Journal of
Social Work Education, 47, 367–377.
Sturpe, D. A. (2010). Objective structured clinical examinations in doctor of pharmacy programs in the
United States. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8), 148–157.
education? British Journal of Social Work, 44(6), 1402–1418.
Wilson, G. M., & Kelley, B. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of social work education: Preparing students
for practice learning. British Journal of Social Work, 23, 1–19.
274
24
POLITICAL CONFLICT AND
Jim Campbell, Joe Duffy and Mark Simpson
Introduction
In an increasingly uncertain world, where political conflicts affect many populations, there is
growing interest in the role of social work in these contexts (Ramon, 2008).The content of two
recent special issues of leading journals, focusing on social work and political change (Spalek &
McDonald, 2012) and social work and armed conflict (Ramon & Zavirsek, 2012), indicates the
need to explore the complexity of roles that social workers play in these difficult and sometimes
dangerous situations across all continents. It is an appropriate moment, therefore, to take stock
of the literature and practice and policy debates that inform our understanding of this field of
work.This can help us distil our ideas and turn our focus towards the importance of using social
work education to address consequences of political conflict.
The chapter begins with a discussion about some of the difficulties in defining political
conflict and social work, revealing the contested and value-laden nature of these ideas and
practices. It then reviews the knowledge base drawn from selected literature to develop three
key themes: theorising social work and political conflict, the impact of political conflict on
social work practice, and the types of social work interventions that are used in situations
of political conflict. The second part of the chapter then focuses on social work education
and political conflict, using a case study drawn from Northern Ireland, to debate how these
themes can be dealt with in the classroom. The chapter then concludes with an appeal for
more innovative, less risk averse pedagogies that create space for educational and practice
development.
Difficulties with definitions

When we embark on a discussion about the relationships between social work and political
conflict, we are inevitably confronted with problems of meaning. Political conflict can take
many forms, including the catastrophic, global nature of the conflagration as currently witnessed
in Syria, Iraq and north Africa, to the many ‘low level’, often hidden political disputes that con-
tinuously occur and that are often ignored by or unknown to the media and academics. Where
political conflict is unresolved, then, many types of violence, including death, physical and psy-
chological trauma, as well as a host of associated social and economic problems, become apparent.
These are manifest in large-scale political conflicts that lead to the widespread displacement of
275
Jim Campbell et al.
populations and degradation of life chances for generations of families and children (UNHCR,
2014). The human, social, economic and political consequences of the movement of millions of
individuals and families from the Middle East and Mediterranean to Europe in the last few years
will have left a legacy that many societies and social workers will have to deal with for decades
to come. The less visible consequences of political conflict can be insidious and damaging; they
include the use of torture, rape and imprisonment as instruments of oppression, as well as the
generalised abuses of civil and religious liberties (Amnesty, 2014).
These sets of coalescing tragedies are not made easier for social workers and other helping
professionals by the political circumstances in which they practice. Social workers need to be
careful about how they interpret and internalise the many narratives that exist about the causes
of, and solutions to, political conflict. The more dominant of these involve the construction of
typologies that become embedded in everyday usage by politicians and other opinion-formers.
The concept of ‘terrorism’ helps illustrate this point. During the period of decolonialisation that
followed the Second World War, counter-insurgency theories were used by Western govern-
ments to construct views about the immorality of those who opposed the State, whilst often
obscuring its often nefarious activities. Such ideas have been reworked and renovated to accom-
modate the violence against and by the State that followed the bombing of the World Trade
Center in 2001. Political conflicts have diverse causes and consequences, some of which can be
subject to inter-country or regional comparison. For example, some social scientists have, over
a period, focused on comparisons and contrasts between sites of long-standing conflict, such
as Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine and South Africa (Kriesberg, 1993; Guelke, 1994). More
recent conflicts in the Middle East and Africa are also subject to such discussion (Dalacoura,
2012). A number of variables are examined in such analyses, including historical events and pol-
itics often associated with colonial and neocolonial processes, socio-economic conditions, social
divisions and the use of power by the State and those who challenge this power.
Just as there are uncertainties and disputes about how we define political conflict, the con-
stituencies that represent the profession of social work are in continuous debate about what
constitutes social work policy, practice, education and research. Of note is the tendency to view
the profession and its roles through particular lenses that privilege Western, Anglo-American
ideas and practices. Thus much of the literature on the subject of this chapter is drawn from
research carried out by academics in Israel and Northern Ireland, Europe and more recently in
the USA. Conversely, we rarely hear or read about different types of social workers and their
response to political conflict, for example in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Latin America. This
may indeed demonstrate the predominance of English as the medium that shapes many of our
ideas on politics, social work and social work education. The fact that this chapter is written in
English and draws upon only literature written in English may well be an example of this ten-
dency towards cultural colonialism. Perhaps in response to this history, the most recent Global
Definition of the Social Work Profession has identified the need for alternative, hidden voices
and histories to be heard and a call for concerted efforts to address social injustice at regional,
national and international levels:

for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social
sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledge, social work engages people and struc-
tures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing.
(International Federation of Social Work [IFSW], 2014)
276
Political conflict and education
This global definition is significant in the context of this chapter on social work and politi-
cal conflict. It encourages a critical understanding of the factors that create social injustice that
many clients experience in situations of political conflict whilst also affirming social work’s
commitment to social and political change. These themes are now explored below.
Theorising the role of social work in political conflict

Despite the accumulating evidence about the nature and intensity of political conflict in all its
forms, we seem to be less clear what the role of social work has been in these situations, partly
because the profession is sometimes not recognised in regions of conflict, or there tends to be a
lack of agreement about what counts as social work within and between conflicts. The Global
Definition’s attempt to capture a broad and inclusive definition is at one level helpful because
it allows some comparison about the activities of practitioners across conflicts, but at another
level brings concerns that we are not comparing like with like.This may be viewed as the almost
necessary consequence of carrying out such comparisons.
Nonetheless, a number of social work academics and writers have, in the last few decades,
begun to articulate theories that help us understand aspects of policy practice and education in
these contexts. Some attempt to explain how social divisions between social workers and clients
are the product of socio-economic inequalities that emerge and are defined by specific historical
processes. Thus the concepts of sectarianism (discrimination on the grounds of religion) and
religious difference have been used to analyse the origins of political conflict and the response
of social work organisations and practitioners in Northern Ireland (Campbell & Healey, 1999)
and Israel (Shamai & Boehm, 2001; Ramon, 2004; Zoabi & Savaya, 2012). In these societies
both social workers and their clients appear to be ‘trapped’ in identities shaped by the past and
reproduced in everyday life and practice.The notion of a ‘shared traumatic reality’ (Tosone et al.,
2010; Baum, 2012) helps capture this complicated set of relationships.
Another approach is to locate social work ‘within and between’ the State and civil society,
a space that is at once risky and dangerous at times of political conflict, but also potentially
dynamic and liberating for the social worker and those they seek to help. Thus Pinkerton and
Campbell (2002) and Houston (2008), using different theoretical underpinnings, argue that
social work needed to rediscover or create novel ideas about social justice to challenge discrimi-
nation in Northern Ireland. Guru (2010, 2012) pursued a similar argument in her critique of the
anti-terror laws and political conflict that followed the London and Glasgow bombings of 2006.
Others seek new forms of practice that can supersede older paradigms thought to be too closely
associated with the damaging effects of political divisions of the past. For example, a number of
African authors appeal for roles for the profession that are more orientated to political action
and community development in South Africa (Hölscher & Bozalek, 2012), Rwanda (Kreitzer &
Jou, 2010) and Zimbabwe (Mupedziswa, 1996). A similar point is made by Stubbs and Maglajlić
(2012) in their analysis of social work organisations that were introduced to Bosnia Herzogovina
that followed the conflict in Yugoslavia. This sense of understanding the ‘political’ in the social
work role is also translated into settings where populations have been displaced because of polit-
ical conflict. Thus an emerging body of knowledge has arisen about the needs of people who
are seeking asylum or refugee status, and the social work response, for example in France (Tasse,
2001), Jordan (Al-Makhamreh et al., 2012), Iraq (Harding & Libal, 2012), the UK (Cemlyn &
Nye, 2012), the former Yugoslavia (Doná, 2002) and Ireland (Christie, 2006).
These ideas tend to situate the practice of social work in a necessary critique of the role
of the State in the context of national and global politics, human rights discourses and argu-
ments for improved skills and modes of intervention. We argue in subsequent sections that this
277
Jim Campbell et al.
analytical, systemic approach to understanding political conflict is crucial for approaches to

social work education in this field.
The impact of political conflict on social work practice

Given the complexity of living and working in societies experiencing political conflict, it is
hardly surprising to learn that practitioners face many problems in carrying out their roles,
confirmed by research on this topic (Nuttman-Shwartz & Dekel, 2009). It is often the case that
social workers have grown up with conflict and share similar difficulties with their clients, or
need to deal with clients who do not fit with their identities and political views. These anxiety-
provoking encounters may be compounded by difficulties that social workers face in absorbing
the profoundly emotional content of client stories about how they have suffered (Ron & Sha-
mai, 2011).
At times these sets of circumstances contribute to what has become known as vicarious or
secondary trauma. Gibson, McGrath, & Reid (1989) found that the majority of social workers
in their Northern Irish study reported that the violence of the conflict had adversely affected
family lives. Three studies carried out in Israel (Cohen, Gagin, & Peled-Avram, 2006; Lev-
Wiesel et al., 2009; Shamai & Ron, 2008) reported variable levels of trauma amongst social
workers, and those social workers who dealt with the needs of clients traumatised following the
bombing of the World Trade Center were found to have experienced a variety of psychological
difficulties (Adams et al., 2008; Tosone et al., 2010).
Although much of the literature is couched in this problematic, negative impact of thera-
peutic encounters with clients, more recent contributions to the debates about the impact of
political conflict highlight the potential for posttraumatic growth. This can occur where practi-
tioners have a good enough reservoir of coping mechanisms, sufficient systems of support and
supervision, and where their actions and attitudes are positively viewed by the individuals and
communities who receive their services. An early example of this concept, applied to social
work practice, was a study of Arab and Jewish Israeli social workers (Baum & Ramon, 2010).
The authors describe how the Jewish – although not Arab – social workers increased skills,
knowledge and team cohesion and improved professional identity as a result of the protective
circumstances described above.
The evidence base for social work practice is less strong than other professionals involved in
helping clients traumatised by political conflict, for example clinical psychologists and psychi-
atrists.Yet a growing range of approaches have been noted in the literature, reflecting the more
holistic knowledge base that social workers tend to use with clients. Thus an early Northern
Irish study by Campbell and McCrystal (2005) described the variety of interventions (as well as
impediments to practice) used by mental health social workers during the history of the con-
flict. A number of authors have explored the efficacy of community-based interventions with
different client groups in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Africa (Lindsay, 2007; Grodofsky, 2011;
Doucet & Denov, 2012; Ochen, 2012), and others have explored the efficacy of various thera-
peutic interventions (Itzhaky & Dekel, 2005; Nuttman-Shwartz, 2015).
There seems little doubt that when social workers become involved in helping those who
have suffered in situations of political conflict they often experience their own vulnerabilities
because of the obvious and sometimes more subtle risks to health and well-being.The literature
suggests that some of these risks can be mitigated by external factors through professional super-
vision, community support and managing intrapsychic mechanisms. It has also been argued that,
in a range of circumstances, social workers can apply their knowledge and skills to good effect,
278
particularly when these systems of support are in place. As we will argue below, social work edu-
cation and training has a particularly important part to play in preparing qualifying and qualified
social workers for the complexity of these tasks.
Approaches to social work education

In this second part of the chapter we now wish to focus on the experiences of educators, stu-
dents and practitioners in using pedagogic approaches to deal with the consequences of political
conflict. As implied in the sections above, there are many complex and emotionally charged
issues facing the profession in these contexts; it is hardly surprising therefore that the creation of
safe spaces for learning is challenging and inherently risky, but not without rewards. Smyth and
Campbell (1996) describe how nascent attempts to discuss the impact of sectarianism on the
lives of Northern Irish students was fraught with anxiety and characterised by silence and dis-
trust between Protestants and Catholics. In the different settings of Israel and Palestine, a similar
phenomenon has been reported. Baum (2007) found that Jewish and Arab students expressed
fear when working together, perhaps reflecting wider concerns between qualified social workers
from these communities (Ramon, 2004).
Despite the potential difficulties in this form of social work education, often mirroring the
political conflicts in the societies in which students and educators live and hope to practice,
there is some evidence of room for optimism. Nuttman-Shwartz and Dekel (2009) reported on
a training programme that was used to explore approaches to theory and knowledge to capture
the notion of ‘shared realities’ between Jewish and Arab students. Soumpasi (2003) describes how
other strategies were used to create spaces for discussion in a training programme in Kosovo.
Laird (2004) found that by exposing Ghanaian students to the facts of ethnic conflict, there was
some reduction in negative stereotyping between groups. The use of carefully designed pro-
grammes that create safe spaces have also been highlighted by Moshe Grodofsky (2011) in her
work with Palestinians and Israelis following the conflict in Gaza and Israel. Duffy et al. (2013)
also reported the findings from an international project and made particular recommendations
for the implementation of a social work curriculum on political conflict.
Social work education and political conflict:

a case study from a Northern Ireland background
So far we have sought to explain and analyse the complex relationships between societies expe-
riencing political conflict and the role that social work can play in either reproducing or alle-
viating the problems that clients experience. As we alluded to above, it is important to avoid
excessive generalisation between these societies and the often varying roles that social workers
play in them. Nonetheless there appear to be tenuous common themes across political conflicts
that can inform important issues of social work education and training. Educators and students
should be critically aware of various – often competing – histories of the conflict, and the
position they and their communities play in these narratives. These analytical qualities are also
required to interrogate social work’s place within and sometimes against the State. But the cog-
nitive has to run parallel with the affective part of learning about such sensitive and potentially
destructive ideas. This is why educators need to attend to their and their students’ psychosocial
needs, in terms of challenges in working in the classroom, work placement and eventually
employment. These principles are now discussed in the context of one social work education
programme in Northern Ireland.
279
Jim Campbell et al.
The social work education and training programme

The programme now described and discussed has been taking place in Queen’s University
Belfast, involving around 120 undergraduate social work students over the last six years. It seeks
to prepare students to work in the divided society of Northern Ireland (often euphemistically
described as the ‘Troubles’) where, in a forty-year period, the conflict has left nearly 4,000
people dead and many thousands psychologically and physically traumatised (Fay et al., 1999).
The twin processes associated with a peace building and a devolved political assembly have
created some opportunities for change, but the legacy of the past and ongoing low-level vio-
lence remain to be dealt with. The project we now describe has a particular focus on the role of
victims and survivors of the conflict as educators alongside conventional social work academics.
The reforms to social work education introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2002
(DOH, 2002), and in Northern Ireland the following year (DHSSPS, 2003), presented dis-
tinct opportunities to meaningfully incorporate user knowledge in the social work curriculum.
Service users and carers would therefore have a pivotal role in the education of social work
students, a mandatory curriculum development unique to the UK (Anghel and Ramon, 2009).
An important early decision was to construct practice guidance that would be used to assist
educators in ensuring this type of involvement was both genuine and non-tokenistic and that
service users and carers would be supported in these endeavours (Duffy, 2006).
The project was informed by curriculum guidance published by the Northern Ireland
Social Care Council (NISCC, 2003), the regulatory body for social work which stated that stu-
dents should be afforded opportunities to learn about the distinct nature of Northern Ireland’s
troubled past. Referring to this as the Northern Ireland Context, NISCC stipulated that students
needed to be equipped with particular knowledge as to how individuals and communities in
Northern Ireland had been affected by the prolonged milieu of violence and political conflict.
It has been argued (Duffy, 2006) that advancing our understanding of the effects of the con-
flict upon individuals and communities, as well as empowering service users who had suffered
because of the conflict, can be achieved through carefully constructed opportunities using an
experiential learning approach. In this case service users and carers (or the more commonly
used terminology in this context, victims and survivors) with experience of Northern Ireland’s
‘Troubles’ would also be directly involved in teaching students about the impact of bereave-
ment, injury and trauma. This would involve sharing personal narratives with students as a basis
for open discussion and exploration of these highly emotive and challenging issues, referred to
in the literature as a ‘pedagogy of discomfort’ (Boler, 1999; Boler & Zembylas, 2003; Coulter
et al., 2013).
Teaching students about the impact of conflict

The teaching is delivered through a partnership between university teachers and WAVE, an
NGO offering care and support to those bereaved, injured and traumatised as a result of the
‘Troubles’. The project has been subject to regular evaluations to ascertain students’ acquisition
of knowledge across key teaching and learning domains. The teaching occurs over a two-week
period and consists of a series of both lectures and small group seminars/tutorials. The lectures
address key areas of the ‘Troubles’, such as history, policy development and the impact of sectar-
ianism on social work practice. The tutorials, which take place in the afternoon, have more of
an application focus and introduce the students to a case study/vignette where they are tasked
to reflect on key aspects of knowledge, skills and values required to inform their response to
meeting the needs of individuals and families who have been psychologically and physically
280
traumatised as a result of the conflict. Importantly, the case study used in the tutorial was devel-
oped in close collaboration with WAVE members, thereby mirroring the type of ‘community
of practice’ approach referred to by Wenger (1998). Given the sensitive nature of this type of
uncomfortable pedagogy, it is vitally important that both the students and educators are carefully
prepared and supported. A contract is therefore agreed with the students, stressing the impor-
tance of addressing this type of teaching in line with social work values and principles, particu-
larly emphasising the need to respect the views of others as well as issues around confidentiality.
The contract also highlights the sources of support available to any student experiencing distress
as a result of the teaching. It is also crucial that the teaching partnership team is fully prepared, so
they meet before the tutorial sessions where approaches to managing the tutorials are discussed.
This is also an important opportunity to sound out how everybody is feeling ahead of the after-
noon discussions. Following the tutorials, the team then meets again to review the process and
also importantly to support each other in the aftermath of disclosing personal stories.
The tutorial process

Of two-hour duration, the tutorials are jointly facilitated by a university teacher and WAVE
member who will have had personal experience of either bereavement, injury or trauma. It is
commenced with an icebreaker exercise – the Name Game – whereby all of the participants are
invited to share aspects of their personal biography by talking about the origins of their name.
This is a technique commonly used in family therapy (Byng-Hall, 1998) as a way of gently eas-
ing participants in to talking about subject matter which is potentially challenging and difficult
on an emotional level. When this exercise is concluded, the WAVE member is then invited to
share their personal story with the students. Following this, the students are then encouraged to
ask questions or seek clarification as a way of introducing them to the case study.The first ques-
tion in the case study requires the students to reflect on the emotional impact of their exposure
to this type of material. This in turn is a helpful way to then gauge how the students are also
responding to the personal narrative they have witnessed from the WAVE member.
Evaluating the programme

The project has been evaluated at the end of each year’s teaching over a six-year period using a
questionnaire to capture data on student demographics, levels of satisfaction with teaching and
how learning affected understanding of Troubles-related experiences. In addition, we have also
surveyed the views of the teaching teams and practice teachers/field instructors working with
the students when on placement (Coulter et al., 2013; Duffy, 2012; Campbell et al., 2013). The
key findings from these key perspectives are summarized in Table 24.1.
From the perspective of the students, the evaluation findings indicated that they were largely
positive in their endorsement of this type of teaching approach, yet they were also aware of the
challenges associated with this. On the positive side, they felt this teaching prepared them for
the reality of the types of situations they may encounter in a society that was still affected by
sectarianism. Broadly, the students also acknowledged the importance of having awareness of the
ongoing need to be responsive to the issues faced by victims and survivors of Northern Ireland’s
conflict. The discomforting and intense nature of this pedagogical approach was also recognised
by the students, as well as the importance of approaching this type of learning with care and
sensitivity for everybody involved.
The evaluation findings from the partnership teams involved in delivering this teaching also
raised a mixture of both positive views as well as areas for consideration.The academic staff who
281
Jim Campbell et al.
Table 24.1 Key findings from the project evaluation
Students were:
Keen to develop skills in dealing with clients who had suffered because of sectarianism and other forms
of trauma associated with the conflict
Appreciative of the need for the delicate handling of difficult, sensitive issues in small group teaching
Enabled to discuss how views and attitudes associated with the conflict were translated within and
between generations
Service user educators:
Expressed some anxiety in managing these delicate, emotionally charged encounters
Wanted to be reassured that, in telling their stories, confidentiality would be maintained
Felt affirmed that their contributions would help social work students become better social workers in
dealing with the legacy of the conflict
Practice teachers:
Generally found the students to be thinking and acting reflexively about the impact of the conflict on
clients and services
However, felt the willingness of social work agencies to challenge sectarianism and the impact of
conflict to be variable
were leading the teaching dyads expressed some degree of anxiety about the impact of sharing
highly emotional narrative on both the service user (victim and survivor trainer) and on the
students witnessing this. The challenges involved in handling the aftermath of this experiential-
based testimony were also recognised amidst an acute awareness on the part of the academic of
the need to ensure the service user’s safety whilst violence still remains a feature of the wider
societal milieu.Well-thought-out ground rules, particularly in regard to confidentiality, offered a
reassurance to the victims and survivors in sharing their personal experiences with the students.
This enabled them to be more engaged with students and convinced that the powerful stories
they were sharing had the potential to change attitudes and develop skills for the future.
Some of the dilemmas experienced in the classroom were reflected in the views of practice
teachers/field instructors when they were supervising student practice. The practice teachers
tended to view students as being both reflexive and reflective about the impact of sectarianism
and how this interfaced with social work values. This was particularly evident in supervision
sessions between students and practice teachers. The ongoing challenges around openly engag-
ing on potentially divisive issues in the practice setting was still, however, also noted, with some
students evidencing a sense of reluctance by some agencies to engage in this type of open and
reflective dialogue.
Reflections
The range of evaluation data we have gathered since commencing this innovative pedagogy
indicates how this type of experience-based/service user knowledge can meaningfully con-
tribute to the development of students’ self-awareness, thereby assisting them to recognise and
more deeply engage with threshold concepts in the curriculum (Meyer & Land, 2005). And
yet we need continually to reflect upon the impediments that, historically, have faced academ-
ics in these contexts (Smyth & Campbell, 1996; Pinkerton & Campbell, 2002). In disclosing
narratives about identities, albeit in the relatively safe context of the classroom, academics share
the same types of fears about the past and its disclosure as students, victims and survivors. It
282
is never possible to predict with certainty the emotional and psychological impact upon the
listener when unexpected, often traumatic accounts are revealed. A concern for the well-being
of the students, many of whom have no recollection of the most violent period of the cur-
rent Troubles, is that we, older academics and victims and survivors of the conflict, might be
imposing our concerns about legacy issues at a time when younger citizens are more likely to
embrace the peace process and look to the future, rather than the past. There are also the issues
of potentially exposing service users to risk and danger in a society which is still struggling to
achieve the stability envisioned in the peace accord of 1998. These potential difficulties indicate
the need for careful thought and attention to process issues. They reinforce the need for strong
and transparent guidelines, trust in the learning processes and peer support. Adopting an ethic of
care approach can helpfully guide educators in embarking on these curricular approaches where
these risks, tensions and possible dangers can be openly discussed, acknowledged and responded
to (Hugman, 2005; Ward & Gahagan, 2012).Yet the boundaries have to be pushed forward, and
risks taken in order that changes in attitude, thought and behaviour take place across all partic-
ipating groups. Nuttman-Shwartz and Dekel (2009) stress the need to particularly support and
protect social work students by preparing them for the trauma-related work they may encounter
in conflict situations. In creating space to address these contested histories and lived experiences,
we can, therefore, assist students in realising the significance of the context of political conflict
to their and their families’ lives and their future role as professional social workers.
Discussion and conclusion

In concluding this chapter, we wish to draw upon our understanding of the particular and
nuanced nature of our experiences of living and working during the Northern Irish conflict. In
doing so, we hope we have been able to locate these ideas in a wider international context, where
so many individuals, families and communities face layers of disadvantage, discrimination and
life-threatening events.There seems little doubt that these traumas will build into a legacy for the
future in which social workers must have a part to play. As we have indicated, there are no simple
solutions, nor universal tool kits that can be adjusted to fit the needs of all victims and survivors
locally or internationally. Our belief is that thoughtful but well-managed risk-taking educational
approaches have a crucial part to play in dealing with the legacy of the past and building a profes-
sion that is more willing to challenge the causes and consequences of political conflict.
References
Adams, R.E., Figley, C.R., & Boscarino, J.A. (2008).The compassion fatigue scale: Its use with social work-
ers following urban disaster. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(3), 238–250.
Al-Makhamreh, S., Hasna, F., Hundt, G. L., Al-Smairan, M., & Alzaroo, S. (2012). Localising social work:
Lessons learnt from a community based intervention amongst the Bedouin in Jordan. Social Work Edu-
cation, 31(8), 962–972.
Amnesty, (2014). Annual report. Available at www.amnesty.ie/annualreport2014.
Anghel, R., & Ramon, S. (2009). Service user and carer involvement in social work education: Lessons from
an English case study. European Journal of Social Work, 12(2), 185–199.
Baum, N. (2007). Social work practice in conflict-ridden areas: Cultural sensitivity is not enough. British
Baum, N. (2012). ‘Emergency routine’: The experience of professionals in a shared traumatic reality of
war. British Journal of Social Work, 42(3), 424–442.
Baum, N., & Ramon, S. (2010). Professional growth in turbulent times: An impact of political violence on
social work practice in Israel. Journal of Social Work, 10(2), 139–156.
Boler, M. (1999). Feeling power: Emotions and education. New York and London: Routledge.
283
Jim Campbell et al.
Boler, M., & Zembylas. M. (2003). Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of understanding differ-
ence. In P. Trifonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social change (pp. 110–136). New
York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Byng-Hall, J. (1998). Rewriting family scripts – Improvisation and systems change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Campbell, J., Duffy, J., Traynor, C., Reilly, I., & Pinkerton, J. (2013). Social work education and political
conflict: Preparing students to address the needs of victims and survivors of the Troubles in Northern
Ireland. European Journal of Social Work, 16(4), 506–520.
Campbell, J., & Healey, A. (1999). ‘Whatever you say, say something’:The education, training and practice of
mental health social workers in Northern Ireland. Social Work Education, 18(4), 389–400.
Campbell, J., & McCrystal, P. (2005). Mental health social work and the troubles in Northern Ireland:
A study of practitioner experiences. Journal of Social Work, 5(2), 173–190.
Cemlyn, S.J., & Nye, M. (2012). Asylum seeker young people: Social work value conflicts in negotiating age
assessment in the UK. International Social Work, 55(5), 675–688.
Christie, A. (2006). From racial to racist state: Questions for social professionals. Irish Journal of Applied Social
Studies, 7(2), 4.
Cohen, M., Gagin, R., & Peled-Avram, M. (2006). Multiple terrorist attacks: Compassion fatigue in Israeli
social workers. Traumatology, 12(4), 293.
Coulter, S., Campbell, J., Duffy, J., & Reilly, I. (2013). Enabling social work students to deal with the conse-
quences of political conflict: Engaging with victim/survivor service users and a ‘Pedagogy of Discom-
fort’. Social Work Education, 32(4), 439–452.
Dalacoura, K. (2012). The 2011 uprisings in the Arab Middle East: Political change and geopolitical impli-
cations. International Affairs, 88(1), 63–79.
DHSSPS (2003). Northern Ireland framework specification for the degree in social work. Belfast: Department of
Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
DOH (2002). Requirements for social work training. London: Department of Health.
Doná, G. (2002). Refugees’ wellbeing in countries of resettlement. Social Work in Europe, 9(1), 41–48.
Doucet, D., & Denov, M. (2012).The power of sweet words: Local forms of intervention with war-affected
women in rural Sierra Leone. International Social Work, 55(5), 612–628.
Duffy, J. (2006). Participating and learning – Citizen involvement in social work education in a Northern Ireland con-
text. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE). Available at www.scie.org.uk/publications/
misc/citizeninvolvement.pdf.
Duffy, J.,Ramon, S.,Guru, S.,Cemlyn, S.,Lindsay, J., & Nuttman-Shwartz, O. (2013). Developing a social
work curriculum on political conflict – Findings from an IASSW funded project. European Journal of
Social Work. 16(5), 689–707.
Fay, M. T., Morrissey, M., Morrissey, M., & Smyth, M. (1999). Northern Ireland’s troubles: The human costs.
London: Pluto Press.
Gibson, F., McGrath, A., & Reid, N. (1989). Occupational stress in social work. British Journal of Social Work,
19(1), 1–18.
Grodofsky, M. M. (2011). Reflections on the role of a social worker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Reflec-
tions: Narratives of Professional Helping, 17(4), 6–13.
Guelke, A. (1994). The peace process in South Africa, Israel and Northern Ireland: A farewell to arms?. Irish
Studies in International Affairs, 1, 93–106.
Guru, S. (2010). Social work and the ‘War on Terror’. British Journal of Social Work, 40(1), 272–289.
Guru, S. (2012). Under siege: Families of counter-terrorism. British Journal of Social Work, 42(6), 1151–1173.
Harding, S., & Libal, K. (2012). Iraqi refugees and the humanitarian costs of the Iraq war: What role for
social work?. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(1), 94–104.
Hölscher, D., & Bozalek,V. G. (2012). Encountering the other across the divides: Re-grounding social jus-
tice as a guiding principle for social work with refugees and other vulnerable groups. British Journal of
Social Work, 42(6), 1093–1112.
Houston, S. (2008). Transcending ethnoreligious identities in Northern Ireland: Social work’s role in the
struggle for recognition. Australian Social Work, 61(1), 25–41.
Hugman, R. (2005). New approaches in ethics for the caring profession. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
IFSW (2014). Available at http://ifsw.org/get-involved/global-definition-of-social-work/
Itzhaky, H., & Dekel, R. (2005). Helping victims of terrorism: What makes social work effective? Social
work, 50(4), 335–343.
Kreitzer, L. M., & Jou, M. K. (2010). Social work with victims of genocide: The Alternatives to Violence
Project (AVP) in Rwanda. International Social Work, 53(1), 73–86.
Kriesberg, L. (1993). Intractable conflicts. Peace Review, 5(4), 417–421.
284
Laird, S.E. (2004). Inter-ethnic conflict: A role for social work in sub-Saharan Africa. Social Work Educa-
tion, 23(6), 693–709.
Lev-Wiesel, R., Goldblatt, H., Eisikovits, Z., & Admi, H. (2009). Growth in the shadow of war: The case of
social workers and nurses working in a shared war reality. British Journal of Social Work, 39(6), 1154–1174.
Lindsay, J. (2007). The impact of the 2nd Intifada: An exploration of the experiences of Palestinian psycho-
social counselors and social workers. Illness, Crisis & Loss, 15(2), 137–153.
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2), Epistemological
considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388.
Mupedziswa, R. (1996). The challenge of economic development in an African developing country: Social
work in Zimbabwe. International Social Work, 39(1), 41–54.
NISCC. (2003). Practice learning requirements for the degree in social work. Belfast: NISCC.
Nuttman-Shwartz, O. (2015). Research in a shared traumatic reality: Researchers in a disaster context.
Journal of Loss and Trauma. doi: 10.1080/15325024.2015.1084856.
Nuttman-Shwartz, O., & Dekel, R. (2009). Challenges for students working in a shared traumatic reality.
Ochen, E. A. (2012). Protecting and meeting rights of children during conflict? Reflections on the activities
of three indigenous social work agencies in Northern Uganda. British Journal of Social Work.
Pinkerton, J. R., & Campbell, J. (2002). Social work and social justice in Northern Ireland: Towards a new
occupational space. British Journal of Social Work, 32(6), 723–737.
Ramon, S. (2004).The impact of the 2nd Intifada on Israeli Arab and Jewish social workers. European Journal
Ramon, S. (Ed.) (2008). Social work in the context of political conflict. Birmingham:Venture Press.
Ramon, S., & Zavirsek, D. (Eds.) (2012). Armed conflict. International Social Work, 55(5), 609–611.
Ron, P., & Shamai, M. (2011). Assessing the impact of ongoing national terror: Social workers in Israel. Social
Work Research, 35(1), 36–45.
Shamai, M., & Boehm, A. (2001). Politically oriented social work intervention. International Social Work,
44(3), 343–360.
Shamai, M., & Ron, P. (2008). Helping direct and indirect victims of national terror: Experiences of Israeli
social workers. Qualitative Health Research, 19(1), 42–54.
Smyth, M., & Campbell, J. (1996). Social work, sectarianism and anti-sectarian practice in Northern Ireland.
Soumpasi, N. (2003). Pilot project in Kosovo: Training the trainers on tolerance: A social work perspective.
Social Work in Europe, 10(1), 32–37.
Spalek, B., & McDonald, L. Z. (Eds.) (2012). Social work and political contexts: Engagement and negotia-
tion. British Journal of Social Work, 42(6).
Stubbs, P., & Maglajlić, R. A. (2012). Negotiating the transnational politics of social work in post-
conflict and transition contexts: Reflections from south-east Europe. British Journal of Social Work, 42(6),
1174–1191.
Tasse, A. (2001). Social work education with migrants and refugees in France. Social Work in Europe, 8(3),
3–12.
Tosone, C., Bettmann, J.E., Minami, T., & Jasperson, R.A. (2010). New York City social workers after
9/11: Their attachment, resiliency, and compassion fatigue. International Journal of Emergency Mental
Health, 12(2), 103.
UNHCR (2014). Global trends: World at war. Available at http://unhcr.org/556725e69.html.
Ward, L., & Gahagan, B. (2012). Involving older people in research: Empowering engagement? In M.
Barnes, & P. Cotterell (Eds.), Critical perspectives on user involvement (pp. 181–189). Bristol:The Policy Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Zoabi, K., & Savaya, R. (2012). Cultural intervention strategies employed by Arab Social workers in Israel:
Identification and conceptualisation. British Journal of Social Work, 42(2), 245–264.
285
25
SERVICE USER AND CARER
ASSESSMENT OF SOCIAL
WORK STUDENTS
Ann Anka
Introduction
The focus of this chapter is service user and carer involvement in social work student assess-
ments and, more specifically, on their involvement in assessing formative and summative assign-
ments on qualifying and post-qualifying social work programmes. The International Federation
of Social Work (IFSW, 2015) Global Standards for the Education and Training of the Social Work
Profession stipulates that providers of social work education should aspire to involve service users
in planning and delivery of social work educational programmes (3.3; 3.12). The IFSW (2015)
standards suggest institutions should “respect the rights and interests of service users and their partici-
pation in all aspects of delivery of programmes” (1.4). Although the concept of service user and carer
involvement in social work education is well established in the UK, and emerging in Australia
(Australian Association of Social Workers, 2015) and some Scandinavian countries (Askheim,
2011; Kvarnström et al., 2012; Kvarnström, Hedberg & Cedersund, 2013; Angelin, 2015), it has
not been adopted in the North American social work education literature (Council on Social
Work Education, 2013), nor is it an accreditation requirement for providers of social work edu-
cation. Similarly, in Europe, providers of social work education in countries such as Germany,
France, Italy, Slovenia and Russia are not required by policy or legislation to involve service
users and carers in social work education, including student assessments (Zaviršek & Videmšek,
2009; Larskaia-Smirnova & Rasell, 2014; Cabiati, 2015).This concurs with reported social work
education programmes in Africa. Kreitzer’s (2012) text, Social Work in Africa: Exploring Cultur-
ally Relevant Education and Practice in Ghana, does not make any reference to service user and
carer involvement in social work education, including the assessments of students. Engelbrecht,
Pullen-Sansfaçon and Spolander (2010) also reported that service users and carers are not
involved in social work students’ field education assessments in South Africa.
Lalayants, Doel and Kachkachishvili (2014) argue that trainee social workers should be able
to understand and respond to global forces and social problems faced by the most vulnerable.
Drawing from collaborative, comparative research, which examined students’ perceptions of
methods that make teaching international social work successful, the authors concluded that
although differences in preference of teaching methods exist, social work education needs to be
more experiential and practice-based. Internationalisation of social problems makes it important
to learn from people with first-hand experience of using social work services.
286
Service user and carer assessment
This chapter makes the case for service user and carer involvement in social work students’
assessments. It brings together the different ways in which service users and carers have been
involved in social work student assessments at pre-qualifying and post-qualifying (Continuing
Professional Development [CPD]) programmes in the UK. It focuses on the following: what
shapes service user and carer involvement in social work student assessments; where service
user and carer involvement in social work students’ assessment takes place; and the challenges of
involvement. It also looks at what service users and carers look for when assessing social work
students and provides some suggestions on how to set up service user and carer involvement
in student assessment initiatives. The chapter begins by clarifying key terms and providing an
overview of the policy and legislative context for service user and carer involvement in social
work education, including the assessments of students in England.
Clarifying terms
The terms “service user” and “carer” are difficult to define because they mean different things
to different people (McLaughlin, 2009; Fox, 2011; Beresford, 2013; Brannan et al., 2014). In the
UK policy and professional social work literature, service users are defined by their relation to,
or access to, health and social care services including care and support (Beresford, 2013; Depart-
ment of Health [DoH], 2014a). The literature from service users contrasts with the definitions
from the professional discourse. Beresford (2013) points out that most service users dislike the
professional definition assigned to them: “People define themselves not in terms of services or practi-
tioners, but rather in terms of their lives and their overall identity” (p. 189). Citizens as Trainers Group
(2004) refers to service users as “citizens”. Other terms include “expert by experience” (Fox,
2011).
The discourse of “informal carers” presents its own definitional challenges. Like “service
user”, the term “carer” is also contested because it means different things to different people.
Using a modified definition of “carers” by the Council for Wales, Taylor, Braye, and Cheng,
(2009: viii) encapsulate the different identities in which carers may view themselves:
. . . people who support family members or friends who need care, help or support. [. . .] Some
carers do not see themselves as carers, but see themselves primarily as a parent, child, wife or hus-
band, partner, friend or neighbour.
As well as being socially constructed as providers of care from both professional and carers’
discourses, carers are identified as users of social work services through implementation of a
number of policies and legislation. In England, the White Paper, Caring for Our Future: Reforming
Care and Support (DoH, 2012), and the Care Act 2014 (both policy and legislative frameworks
used in adult social care) define carers in relation to their role both as providers of care and as
recipients of publically funded care and support.
Furthermore, debates exist about what service user involvement and/or participation entails.
Different languages are used, depending on the context. Service user and carer involvement is
described as “citizen engagement” or “service user or carer participation”, “user engagements”,
“stakeholder consultation” and “participation”. Barnes and Cotterell (2012: xxii) point out that
“the language of involvement is wide ranging, confusing and at times seemingly contradictory.” Chambers
and Hickey (2012: 3) cite Morrow et al. (2012: 19), who say that the “language is developing rapidly
in this field and different terms are used to mean different things in different research and healthcare contexts,
and internationally.”
287
Ann Anka
This chapter adopts Taylor, Braye and Cheng’s (2009) definition of carer. The terms “service
user” and “carer” are used to refer to people with lived experiences of using both health and
social care services or care and support, who bring lay perspectives of their experiences to the
teaching, learning and assessment of social work students. The term “service user” (rather than
client or other related terms) is used here because it is the term predominantly used in the UK
policy and practice and related literature.
It is also important to briefly clarify what is meant by “assessment” and its purpose. Citing
Harlen (1994), Broadfoot (2007: 4) defines assessment as “the process of firstly gathering evidence
and secondly interpreting that evidence in the light of some defined criterion in order to form a judge-
ment”. In relation to purpose, Nicholls (2001: 52) suggests assessment should be “primarily
concerned with providing guidance and feedback to the learner”. Assessment in this sense is therefore
used as a mechanism to aid and clarify learning. It informs as well as enables students to make
their own judgements about their learning. In the UK, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA),
an independent body responsible for safeguarding standards which supports improvement of
quality for students in higher education, stipulates that assessment should give “students the
opportunity to demonstrate achievement of the relevant programme learning outcomes” (QAA, 2014:
34). The involvement of service users and carers in social work students’ assessments aims to
equip students with the knowledge, expertise, skills and values needed to work with service
users and carers in professional practice beyond the classroom and beyond graduation. In
other words, to support students “to cope with the unknown and build their capacity to learn when
the props of a course – curriculum, assignment, teacher, academic resources – are withdrawn” (Boud,
2014: 26).
Two distinctive forms of assessment are used in UK social work education: formative and
summative assessments (Taylor, 1997). Shute (2007: 1) defines formative feedback as “information
communicated to the learner that is intended to modify the learner’s thinking or behaviour for the purpose
of improving learning”. Broadfoot (2007: 7) suggests summative assessment “is for ‘checking up’ or
summing up what an individual learner has achieved” at the end of a course or a programme. Assess-
ment is therefore also used to award grades and for certification of achievements (Boud, 2014).
In professional education such as social work, assessment has a gatekeeping role by ensuring that
educational and professional standards are maintained, as well as preventing unsuitable candidates
from entering the profession (Finch & Taylor, 2013).
Policy background: what shaped service user and carer involvement

in social work students’ assessment in England?
The involvement of service users and carers in all aspects of social work education is mandatory
in the UK (DoH, 2002). Service users and carers are involved in the selection of prospective stu-
dents onto social work degree programmes. They are involved in teaching, assessment, research,
evaluation and monitoring of programmes. It is worth noting that regulation of social work
education is devolved to the four countries of the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern
Ireland). The focus here is on social work education in England. However, some references are
made to the wider UK context.
The current structure of social work education in England consists of undergraduate Bache-
lor of Arts (BA), postgraduate Master’s and doctorate degree. Newly qualified social workers can
participate in CPD programme of study, previously known as Post-qualifying Award in Social
Work, although this is not mandatory. Alongside these are two graduate-level programmes: Step
Up to Social Work and a proposed Frontline programme aimed at attracting “high quality”
graduates into the profession.
288
The requirement to involve service users and carers in social work education in England
was initiated under Part IV, Sections 63 to 66 of the Care Standards Act 2000, when the BA
degree was established in 2003 (DoH, 2002). At the time of writing in 2015, the policy and stat-
utory duties for service user and carer involvement in social work education, including student
assessments, are provided under Section 213 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. This Act
of Parliament provided for the regulation of social work education by the Health and Care Pro-
fessions Council (HCPC) (Health and Care Professions Council, 2012a, 2012b), following the
abolition of the General Social Care Council in July 2012. The HCPC has since developed a
standard of proficiency for social workers, alongside separate standards for conduct, performance
and ethics, which sets out what social workers in England must know, understand and be able to do
after completing a social work degree (Health and Care Professions Council, 2012a, 2012b). Like
its predecessors, the HCPC emphasises the involvement of service users and carers in social work
students’ “feedback and assessments” (Health and Care Professions Council, 2014, 3.17). The DH’s
(2014a, 2015) knowledge and skills statement for social workers in both adult and children and
families services also makes service user and carer involvement in CPD student assessments a
key policy requirement.
As well as policies and legislation, a number of contemporary thinkers and perspectives
support the involvement of service users and carers in social work students’ assessments. Tradi-
tionally, in the UK, the most common way in which social workers met service users and carers
was at the point of crisis, when they needed some sort of support, and social workers viewed
as “experts” defined and provided that support (Beresford & Branfield, 2012). Beresford (2013)
asserts that dissatisfaction with the profession among people who use social work services and
the general public, together with the push for public accountability, led to the involvement of
service users and carers in social work education. Their involvement in students’ assessments is
based on the assumption that it would facilitate a change in power relations between profession-
als, academics and students (DoH, 2002). It is asserted that such participation would give service
users a voice and the opportunity to shape the conduct and practice of future social workers
and thus lead to changes in the power relationship. It also assumed that involving people who
use social work services and care and support would change the behaviour of would-be social
workers. Such contemporary thinking is underpinned by notions of inclusion, empowerment
and accountability (Braye, 2000; Beresford, 2013). Molyneux and Irvine (2004) suggest ser-
vice user and carer involvement is based on an understanding of oppression and the desire to
counterbalance it through participative and empowerment processes. Beresford (2013) suggests
service user and carer involvement is concerned with citizenship, democracy, inclusion, respect,
non-discrimination, self-determination and empowerment.
Higher education institution (HEI) providers of social work education programmes are
accountable for involving service users and carers in social work students’ assessments (Health
and Care Professions Council, 2014). In order to make their involvement in social work edu-
cation (including student assessments) possible, at the time of writing in 2015 the UK Gov-
ernment pays HEIs a block funding of £7,400 per course, each academic year. This funding is
administrated by the National Health Service Business Service Authority, rather than by service
user and carer organisations (DH, 2014b). The funding is relatively small and goes towards
setting up infrastructure support systems, such as the appointment of service user and carer
participation coordinators to manage involvement initiatives at universities. Most HEIs provide
further funding for paying service users and carers for their participation in social work educa-
tion, including student assessments. Although service user and carer involvement in social work
education is well established in policy and practice, their involvement in student assessments is
underdeveloped, under-researched and under-theorised (Anka, 2013).
289
Ann Anka
Where does service user and carer involvement in social work

students’ assessment take place and how have they been
involved in students’ assessments?
In the UK, the limited studies available tell us that service users and carers are involved in stu-
dent assessments by means of providing formative and summative feedback on assignments or in
developing criteria for assessment (Edwards, 2003; Bailey, 2005; Elliot et al., 2005; Advocacy in
Action et al., 2006a; 2006b; Crisp, Green Lister & Dutton, 2006; Moss et al., 2010; Skilton, 2011;
Duffy, Das & Davidson, 2013; Skoura-Kirk et al., 2013). Most service user and carer involvement
in social work student assessments takes place at HEI premises and field education settings with
different service user groups. The nature of involvement in student assessment varies. At HEI
premises, it predominantly consists of providing formative assessment feedback on students’
role-play activities (Moss et al., 2010; Skilton, 2011; Duffy, Das & Davidson, 2013) and assessing
fitness to practice portfolios (Bailey, 2005; Advocacy in Action et al., 2006a, 2006b; Moss et al.,
2007). Involvement at practice learning placement (field education) settings mainly consists of
students obtaining service user and carer feedback for their summative field education portfolio
assessment. One innovative study reported on involving carers in assessing students’ reflective
practice reports, after they had spent a period of time with service users and their carers in their
home (Gee, Ager & Haddow, 2009).
The discussions so far have focused on service user and carer involvement in social work stu-
dent assessments. It is worth mentioning that there are reported innovative practices of involving
service users and carers in allied professional education settings. One example is reported by
Munro et al. (2012) from nursing education. Munro and colleagues reported on an initiative
which required students to research and produce an information leaflet for patients newly diag-
nosed with inflammatory bowel disease. Students’ work was assessed by service users and carers,
who provided feedback and awarded grades. For research reporting on other initiatives in allied
professional education (see Stickley et al., 2010; Dearnley et al., 2011; Debyser et al., 2011;
Reinders et al., 2011; Stickley et al., 2011; Muir & Laxton, 2012; Stacey, Stickley & Rush, 2012;
Webster et al., 2012).
What do service users and carers look for when assessing

social work students?
At the time of writing in 2015, there was no single national criterion for service users and carers
to judge social work students’ academic and field education assignments in the UK. However,
the HCPC standards of proficiency, along with the standards for conduct, performance and eth-
ics (Health and Care Professions Council, 2012a, 2012b) and the College of Social Work Profes-
sional Capabilities Framework (TCSW) are available in England. A consultation was underway
at the time of writing, following the abolition of TCSW in June 2015, to develop new knowl-
edge and skill statement exams for social workers in adult services and children and families
(DH, 2014c, 2015). In helping us to understand what informs the judgements made by service
users and carers when assessing social work students’ formative and summative assignments, it is
important to understand what they looked for.
Informal discussions and research with service users and carers suggest they expect students
to demonstrate the following qualities:
• Professionalism, good timekeeping, reliability and honesty

• Effective communication skills, such as listening, empathy and kindness
290
• Ability to support service users and carers

• Intelligence
• Structured empathy
• Values such as respect, trust and confidentiality
Service users and carers indicate they expect all social work students to be able to demon-
strate these qualities and attributes, regardless of their level of qualifications or achievement
within a given social work programme (Anka, 2013). Although different levels of expectations
exist within the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree – Awarding Bodies
(QAA, 2014), progression differences in expectations are not viewed as important by service
users and carers (Anka, 2013). A consultation with service users in prisons undertaken by User
Voice (a service user organisation in England) suggested most service users would like to work
with social workers who are able to communicate (The College of Social Work with User Voice,
2010). They also prefer to work with social workers who understand their personal histories
and listen to them. This concurs with research undertaken with palliative care service users and
carers by Beresford, Adshead and Croft (2007).
Challenges of service user and carer involvement in

social work students’ assessments
In field education, settings such as palliative care appear to do better at involving service users
and carers in social work student assessments than settings such as child protection social work,
where there is the threat to remove a child when there are child safeguarding concerns. It is
asserted that some service users may fail a student as an expression of their dissatisfaction with
the system (Anka & Taylor, 2016). There are also challenges for students placed in adult safe-
guarding and teams that work with involuntary service users. The limited research available
tells us that most service user and carer involvement in student assessments has consisted of
working with groups who have verbal communication, rather than those without.Very little is
known about the involvement of younger people, those from minority groups and older people
in social work student assessments (Smith et al., 2012). In comparison to service user involve-
ment, carer involvement in student assessments is less reported (Taylor, Braye & Cheng, 2009).
Involvement of service users and carers in student assessments at CPD level is weak (Wallcraft,
Fleischmann & Schofield, 2012).
Limited evaluative research studies exist on service user and carer involvement in social
work students’ assessments (Skilton, 2011; Duffy, Das & Davidson, 2013). Irvine, Molyneux and
Gillman (2015: 141) suggest that “any impact is not confined to students alone but presents challenges
to educators and pedagogic approaches.” Focusing on the UK, Robinson and Webber (2013: 939)
reported there is “a dearth of outcome-focused research on service user and carer involvement in social work
education”. The limited studies available in the UK and Europe have focused on the impact of
service user involvement on current and future practice of social work students (Irvine, Moly-
neux & Gillman, 2015); challenges, barriers and benefits (Chambers & Hickey, 2012; Farrow &
Fillingham, 2012); engaging with involuntary service users (Smith et al., 2012); and reasons why
service users and carers participate in social work education and how they define their contribu-
tions (Schön, 2015). Although focusing more generally on social work education, Schön (2015)
offers a very comprehensive literature review on service user and carer involvement. Irvine,
Molyneux and Gillman’s (2015) study with social work students in the north-east of England
reported they perceived service user involvement in social work education as overwhelmingly
positive and believed it should be taken forward in practice.
291
Ann Anka
Academic literature and research on higher education students’ assessments tells us that for
feedback to be effective in aiding learning, it has to be formulated and delivered in a way that is
understood by the learner, and invites the learner to actively engage with the feedback and make
his or her own judgements about the assessment (Sadler, 2010; Boud, 2014). Among others,
the lack of skills to deliver assessment feedback, confidence in making failed assessment deci-
sions and recommendations by service users and carers have been highlighted as a challenge in
their involvement in social work student assessments (Anka & Taylor, 2016). The limited
research available tells us that provision of training increases service users and carers’ confidence
and ability to provide assessment feedback (Skilton, 2011; Webster et al., 2012; Skoura-Kirk
et al., 2013). However, research also tells us that HEI assessment policies and regulations do not
permit service users and carers to make final assessment decisions on student summative assess-
ments. Crisp, Green Lister and Dutton (2006) concur with Skilton (2011) and Skoura-Kirk
et al. (2013), who all reported that HEI assessment regulations do not allow service users and
carers the power to allocate final marks on student assessments. Crisp et al.’s (2006) review of
the literature found that although service users and carers were involved in student assessments
at classroom level, they were excluded from assessment appeal processes beyond the classroom.
In addition, HEI-wide assessment policies, practices and regulations excluded service user and
carer assessors from participating as members of examination boards or acting as external exam-
iners. At the time of writing, most service user and carer involvement in social work students’
assessments took place at HEI settings. This structure has been shown to exclude those who
find travelling to HEI premises difficult. Service users and carers have also reported difficulty
and frustration when navigating through HEI assessment culture and structures (Skoura-Kirk
et al., 2013).
Ways forward: some suggestions on how service users and carers

could be involved in social work students’ assessments
Service user and carer involvement in social work student assessments could be strengthened by
involving them in the design of academic modules, where they could contribute to the devel-
opment of learning outcomes and assessments.The significance of such involvement will ensure
that the criteria used for assessing students are in line with the learning outcomes of modules
and programmes. Such involvement will help to develop service users and carers’ confidence
when judging whether learning outcomes they have contributed to are met by students. Such
an approach will also increase accountability, fairness and transparency when working with ser-
vice users, carers and students. It will help students know what service users and carers look for
when assessing their work.
How to initiate service user and carer involvement

in assessment within social work programmes
The following suggestions describe how HEIs could initiate service user and carer involvement
in social work students’ assessments:
• Work with service user and carer organisations to recruit potential assessors;
• Appoint a service user or carer coordinator to oversee the day-to-day management of and
support for service user and carer involvement initiatives;
• Allocate funding to pay service users and carer assessors for their contribution to student
assessments. It is helpful to explore how such payments may impact on income tax payment
292
or other welfare benefits claims;

• Provide orientation training for service users, carer assessors and social work academics
about protocols, including a jargon buster, and expectations. For service users and carers,
knowledge about the social work programme, including professional body requirements
and expectations, will be relevant;
• Involve service users and carers in the design and teaching of modules. This will feed into
the development of a protocol or tool for assessing students;
• Involve service users and carers in developing assessment protocols – this should explore
the following:
a) What is being assessed?
b) When does it need to be assessed?
c) Why is it assessed? (These could be linked to practice or academic work and stream-
lined to what service users and carers expect social work students to demonstrate as
good or best practice when working with them);
• Invite service users and carers to articulate how to measure any expected outcome from
students (for example, we know what is meant by kindness, but how do we measure it?);
• Develop a mentoring or “buddy” system for newly recruited service users and carers –
create the opportunity for more confident service users and carers to support newly
recruited ones;
• Offer the opportunity and time for reflection and debriefing after each session;
• Provide training for service user and carer assessors on developing and giving feedback
(they should also be involved in developing such training programmes);
• Evaluate the process of involvement through formal and informal measures (including key
stakeholders in the evaluation) and update service users and carers about the evaluation
processes and outcomes;
• Appreciation – hold an end-of-year party for service users and carers;
• Involve service users and carers in students’ graduation ceremonies – service users and car-
ers could be awarded at such ceremonies as an appreciation for their involvement;
• Adopt structural empathy by ensuring that assessments and meetings are not scheduled
early in the morning or in rooms where access is not conducive to service users and carers’
needs;
• Support service user and carer assessors and give them power, authority and autonomy to
make decisions;
• Have regular meetings – at least once a month – to review the process and the well-being
of service users and carer assessors;
• Set up a web page for service user and carer involvement to provide information about
what the group does, its activities and its contributions to the social work programme,
including any other collaborative work undertaken with partner employers. With their
permission, include brief profiles of service users and carers, similar to those of social work
academics on HEI websites;
• Provide an office space with tea and coffee facilities where service users and carers could
sit; and
• Provide access to and use of HEI library resources.
Moving with the times, social work student assessments could be set up on blogs, discussion
forums or Twitter feeds. Social media could offer an opportunity to assess social work students’
values on different topics and perspectives. Service users and carers could be involved, along with
lecturers, in setting up social work student assessments within these forums, either reviewing or
293
Ann Anka
assessing field education or the academic work of students. Using such mediums could enable
those unable to travel to formal HEI settings to contribute to students’ assessments. Training
could be offered to use such forums. In field education, direct observation of practice provides
a useful opportunity to work with service users and carers to contribute to social work student
assessments. Students and their practice educators (field educators) could work with service
users and carers to design ways of obtaining service user and carer feedback.Where service users
and carers have speech impairments, pictograms could be used to obtain formative feedback
about students’ practice. Students could use the opportunity to explore with service users what
the pictogram means to them after obtaining the feedback. Practice educators (field educators)
could observe students’ interaction with service users and give them formative feedback on how
to communicate effectively with people with speech impairments. Although there are potential
limitations with these suggested ways of involving service users and carers in students’ assess-
ments, there are potential benefits in learning from as well as supporting each other in practice.
Conclusion
This chapter has focused on service user and carer involvement in social work student assess-
ments in the UK. It discussed the policy and legal context of service user and carer involvement
in social work education in England, and where their involvement in students’ assessment takes
place. It also looked at what service users and carers look for when assessing students and the
challenges of involvement and offered some practical suggestions on how HEIs could initiate
their involvement in student assessments. As well as giving service users and carers a voice, their
inclusion in student assessments provides a unique opportunity to explore new ways of assessing
students. Whilst there is a need to acknowledge the localised context of social work in different
countries as well as the status of the profession, service user and carer involvement in students’
assessments is beneficial, it brings a different perspective to students’ assessments, and it could be
adopted in other countries.
References
Advocacy in Action with Charles, M., Clarke, H., & Evans, H. (2006a). Assessing fitness to practise and
managing work-based placement. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 25(4), 373–384. doi:
10.1080/02615470600593584.
Advocacy in Action with Staff & Students from the University of Nottingham (2006b). Making it our own
ball game: Learning and assessment in social work education. Social Work Education: The International
Journal, 25(4), 332–346. doi: 10.1080/02615470600593519.
Angelin, A. (2015). Service user integration into social work education: Lessons learned from Nordic par-
ticipatory action projects. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 12(1), 124–138. doi:10.1080/154337
14.2014.960248.
Anka, A. (2013). Assessment as the site of power: An interrogation of the involvement of ‘others’ in the assessments of
social work students. Thesis submitted for the Doctorate in Social Work, University of Sussex. Available at
http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ [Accessed 03 August 2015].
Anka, A., & Taylor, I. (2016). Assessment as the site of power: A Bourdieusian interrogation of service user
and carer involvement in the assessments of social work students. Social Work Education:The International
Journal. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2015.1129397.
Askheim, O. P. (2011). Meeting face to face creates new insights: Recruiting persons with user experiences
as students in an educational programme in social work. Social Work Education: The International Journal,
31(5), 557–569. doi:10.1080/02615479.2011.590972.
Australian Association of Social Workers (2015). Australian Social Work Education and Accreditation Standards
(ASWEAS). ASWEAS 2012 V1.4 Revised January 2015. Canberra: Australian Association of Social
Workers.
294
Bailey, D. (2005). Using an action research approach to involving service users in the assessment of profes-
sional competence. European Journal of Social Work, 8(2), 165–179. doi:10.1080/13691450500085240.
Barnes, M., & Cotterell, P. (2012). From margin to mainstream. In M. Barnes, & P. Cotterell (Eds.), Critical
perspectives on user involvement. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Beresford, P. (2013). Interprofessional and interagency working: Service users, carers and different profes-
sional groups. In B. Littlechild, & R. Smith (Eds.), A handbook for interprofessional practice in the human
services: Learning to work together. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
Beresford, P., Adshead, L., & Croft, S. (2007). Palliative care, social work and service users: Making life possible.
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Beresford, P., & Branfield, F. (2012). Building solidarity, ensuring diversity: Lessons from service users and
disabled people’s movements. In M. Barnes, & P. Cotterell (Eds.), Critical perspectives on user involvement.
Bristol: The Policy Press.
Boud, D. J. (2014). Shifting views of assessment: From secret teachers’ business to sustaining learning. In C.
Kreber, C. Anderson, N. Entwhistle, & J. McArthur (Eds.), Advances and innovations in University assess-
ment and feedback. Edinburgh: University Press.
Brannan, J., Cromar, D., Gardner, S., Junner, M., Morrison, S., & William, R. (2014). The voice of service
users and carers. In J. Lishman, C.Yuill, J. Brannan, & A. Gibson (Eds.), Social work: An introduction. Lon-
don: Sage.
Braye, S. (2000). Participation and involvement in social care. An overview. In H. Kemshall, & R. Littlechild
(Eds.), User involvement and participation in social care. Research Informing Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Broadfoot, P. (2007). An introduction to assessment. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Cabiati, E. (2015). Teaching and learning: An exchange of knowledge in the university among students,
service users, and professors. European Journal of Social Work, doi: 10.1080/13691457.2015.1024615.
Available at www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?AllField=Teaching+and+learning%3A+an+ex-
change+of+knowledge+in+the+university+among+students%2C+service+users%2C+and+profes-
sors&=Search [Accessed 03 August 2015].
Chambers, M., & Hickey, G. (2012). Service user involvement in the design and delivery of education and training
programmes leading to registration with the Health Professions Council. London: Kingston University and
St George’s, University of London.
Citizens as Trainers Group, Young Independent People Presenting Educational Entertainment, Rimmer,
A., & Harwood, K. (2004). Citizen participation in the education and training of social workers, Social
Work Education:The International Journal, 23(3), 309–323. doi: 10.1080/0261547042000224056.
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) (2013). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Available at
www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=41861 [Accessed 02 June 2015].
Crisp, B. R., Green Lister, P., & Dutton, K. (2006). Not just social work academics: The involvement
of others in the assessment of social work students. Social Work Education, 25(7), 723–734. doi:
10.1080/02615470600905952.
Dearnley, C., Coulby, C., Rhodes, C., Taylor J., & Coates, C. (2011). Service users and carers: Preparing to
be involved in work-based practice assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(2),
213–222. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2011.564020.
Debyser, B., Grypdonck M. H. F., Defloor, T., & Verhaeghe, S. L. (2011). Involvement of inpatient mental
health clients in the practical training and assessment of mental health nursing students: Can it benefit
clients and students. Nurse Education Today, 31, 198–203.
Department of Health (2002). Requirement for the social work training. London: DOH.
Department of Health (2012). Caring for our future: Reforming care and support. London: HM Government.
Department of Health (2014a). Care and support statutory guidance issued under the Care Act 2014, Department
of Health. London: DoH.
Department of Health (2014b). Reforming the education support grant the government response to the consultation.
London: HMSO.
Department of Health (2014c). Knowledge and skills statement for child and family social work. London: DoH.
Department of Health (2015). Knowledge and skills statement for social workers in adult services. London: DoH.
Duffy, J., Das, C., & Davidson, G. (2013). Service user and carer involvement in role-plays to
assess readiness for practice. Social Work Education – The International Journal, 32(1), 39–54. doi:
10.1080/02615479.2011.639066.
Edwards, C. (2003).The involvement of service users in the assessment of Diploma in Social Work students
on practice placements. Social Work Education, 22(4), 341–349. doi: 10.1080/02615470309138.
295
Ann Anka
Elliot, T., Frazer, T., Garrard, D., Hickinbotham, J., Horton, V., Mann, J., Soper, S., Tuner, J., Tuner, M., &
Whiteford,A. (2005). Practice learning and assessment on BSc (Hons) social work:‘Service User Conversa-
tions’. Social Work Education:The International Journal, 24(4), 451–466. doi: 10.1080/02615470500097009.
Engelbrecht, L., Pullen-Sansfaçon, A., & Spolander, G. (2010). Service user involvement in social work
education: A juxtaposition of practices in England and South Africa. The Social Work Practitioner-
Researcher, 22(2), 154–170 Available at www.google.co.uk/#q=Service+user+involvement+in+
social+work+education:+A+juxtaposition+of+practices+in+England+and+South+Africa [Accessed
03 August 2015].
Farrow, K., & Fillingham, J. (2012). Promises and pitfalls: Involving service users and carers in social work
manager education. Social Work Education, 31(7), 835–847. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2011.608124.
Finch, J., & Taylor, I. (2013). Failure to fail? Practice educators’ Emotional experiences of assess-
ing failing social work students. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 32(2), 244–258. doi:
10.1080/02615479.2012.720250.
Fox, J. (2011). ‘The view from inside’: Understanding service user involvement in health and social care
education. Disability & Society, 26(2), 169–177. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2011.544057.
Gee, M., Ager, W., & Haddow, A. (2009). The caring experience: Learning about community care through
spending 24 hours with people who use services and family carers. Social Work Education: The Interna-
tional Journal, 28(7), 691–706. doi: 10.1080/02615470802404200.
Harlen, W. (Ed.) (1994). Enhancing quality in assessment. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Health and Care Professions Council (2012a). Service user involvement in the design and delivery of education and
training programmes leading to registration with the HPC. London: HCPC.
Health and Care Professions Council (2012b). Standards of proficiency: Social workers in England. London:
HCPC.
Health and Care Professions Council (2014). Service user and carer standard and guidance (SET 3.17).
Available at http://hpc-uk.org/Assets/documents/10004167SUCstandardwebsiteinformation.pdf
[Accessed 03 August 2015].
International Federation of Social Workers (2015). Global standards for the education and training of
the social work profession. Available at http://ifsw.org/policies/global-standards/] [Accessed 03
August 2015]
Irvine, J., Molyneux, J., & Gillman, M. (2015). ‘Providing a link with the real world’: Learning from the stu-
dent experience of service user and carer involvement in social work education. Social Work Education:
The International Journal, 34(2), 138–150. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2014.957178.
Kreitzer, L. (2012). Social work in Africa: Exploring culturally relevant education and practice in Ghana. Canada:
University of Calgary Press.
Kvarnström, S., Hedberg, B., & Cedersund, E. (2013). The dual faces of service user participation: Impli-
cations for empowerment processes in interprofessional practice. Journal of Social Work, 13(3), 287–307.
doi: 10.1177/1468017311433234.
Kvarnström, S., Willumsen, E., Andersson-Gare, B., & Hedberg, B. (2012). How service users perceive the
concept of participation, specifically in interprofessional practice. British Journal of Social Work, 42(1),
129–146. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcr049.
Lalayants, M., Doel, M., & Kachkachishvili, L. (2014). Pedagogy of international social work: A com-
parative study in the USA, UK, and Georgia. European Journal of Social Work, 17(4), 455–474. doi:
10.1080/13691457.2013.812958.
Larskaia-Smirnova, E., & Rasell, M. (2014). Integrating practice into Russian social work educa-
tion: Institutional logics and curriculum regulation. International Social Work, 57(3), 222–234. doi:
10.1177/0020872813519660.
McLaughlin, H. (2009). What’s in a Name: ‘Client’, ‘Patient’, ‘Customer’, ‘Consumer’, ‘Expert by Experi-
ence’, ‘Service User’ – What’s Next? British Journal of Social Work, 39(6), 1101–1117. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/
bcm155.
Molyneux, J., & Irvine, J. (2004). Service user and carer involvement in social work training:
A long and winding road?, Social Work Education: The International Journal, 23(3), 293–308. doi:
10.1080/0261547042000224047.
Morrow, E., Boaz, A., Brearley, S., & Ross, F. (2012). Handbook of SUI in nursing and healthcare research. Chich-
ester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Moss, B., Boath, E., Lewis, E., & Sullivan, W. (2010). Upskilling the skills lab: Developing leadership
skills with service users and carers. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 29(3), 230–243. doi:
10.1080/02615470902913167.
296
Moss, B. R., Dunkerly, M., Price, B., Sullivan, W., Reynolds, M., & Yates, B. (2007). Skills laboratories and
the new social work degree: One small step towards best practice? Service users and carers’ perspectives.
Social Work Education:The International Journal, 26(7), 708–722. doi: 10.1080/02615470601129925.
Muir, D., & Laxton, J. C. (2012). Experts by experience: The views of service user educators providing
feedback on medical students’ work based assessments. Nurse Education Today, 32, 146–150.
Munro, J., Whyte, F., Stewart, J., & Letters, A. (2012). Patients assessing students’ assignments; Making the
patient experience real. Nurse Education Today, 32, 139–145.
Nicholls, G. (2001). Professional development in higher education: New dimensions and directions. Oxon: Routledge.
QAA. (2014). Higher Education Review: First Year Findings 2013–14. London: QAA.
Reinders, M. E., Blankenstein, A. H., E Van Der Horst, M., Knol, D. L., Schoonheim, P. L., & Van Marwijk,
H. W. J. (2011). Does patient feedback improve the consultation skills of general practice trainees?
A controlled trial. Medical Education, 44, 156–164. doi 10.111/j.1365–2923.2009.03569.x.
Robinson, K., & Webber, M. (2013). Models and effectiveness of service user and carer involvement in
social work education: A literature review. British Journal of Social Work, 43(5), 925–944. doi: 10.1093/
bjsw/bcs025.
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. doi: 10.1080/02602930903541015.
Schön, U. (2015). User and carer involvement in social work education: Reasons for participation. Scandi-
navian Journal of Disability Research. doi: 10.1080/15017419.2015.1063539. Available at http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/15017419.2015.1063539 [Accessed 04/08/2015].
Shute,V. J. (2007). Focus on formative feedback. New Jersey: ETS.
Skilton, C. J. (2011). Involving experts by experience in assessing students’ readiness to practise: The value
of experiential learning in student reflection and preparation for practice. Social Work Education: The
International Journal, 30(3), 299–311. doi:10.1080/02615479.2010.482982.
Skoura-Kirk, E., Backhouse, B., Bennison, G., Cecil, B., Keeler, J., Talbot, D., & Watch, L. (2013). Mark my
words! Service user and care involvement in academic assessment. Social Work Education:The International
Journal, 32(5), 560–575 doi: 10.1080/02615479.2012.690388.
Smith, M., Gallagher, M., Wosu, H., Stewart, J., Cree, V. E., Hunter, S., & Evans, S. (2012). Engaging with
involuntary service Users in social work: Findings from a knowledge exchange project. British Journal of
Social Work, 42(8), 1460–1477. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcr162.
Stacey, G., Stickley, T., & Rush, B. (2012). Service user involvement in the assessment of student nurses:
A note of caution. Nurse Education Today, 32, 482–484.
Stickley, T., Stacey, G., Pollock, K., Smith, A., Betinis, J., & Fairbank, S. (2010). The practice assessment of
student nurses by people who use mental health services. Nurse Education Today, 30, 20–25.
Stickley, T., Stacey, G., Pollock, K., Smith, A., Betinis, J., & Fairbank, S. (2011). Developing a service user
designed tool for the assessment of student mental health nurses in practice: A collaborative process.
Nurse Education Today, 31, 102–106.
Taylor, I. (1997). Developing learning in Professional Education: Partnerships for practice. Buckingham: The Soci-
ety for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Taylor, I., Braye, S., & Cheng, A. (2009). Carers as Partners (CaPs) in social work education. London: SCIE.
The College of Social Work with User Voice (2010). Does social work care? A user voice consultation for the
college of social work supported by the centre for innovation in health management. University of Leeds. London:
TCSW.
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2014). The frameworks for higher education qualifications
of UK degree-awarding bodies. QAA: Gloucester.
Wallcraft, J., Fleischmann, P., & Schofield, P. (2012). The involvement of users and carers in social work education:
A practice benchmarking study. London: SCIE.
Webster, B. J., Goodhand, K., Haith, M., & Unwin, R. (2012). The development of service users in the
provision of verbal feedback to student nurses in a clinical simulation environment. Nurse Education
Today, 32, 133–138.
Zaviršek, D., & Videmšek, P. (2009). Service users Involvement in Research and Teaching: Is there a place
for it in Eastern European Social Work. Ljetopis socijalnog rada, 16(2), 207–222. Available at www.
google.co.uk/#q=Service+users+Involvement+in+Research+and+Teaching:+Is+there+a+place+-
for+it+in+Eastern+European+Social+Work [Accessed 25/04/2015].
297
26
SUITABILITY, GATEKEEPING AND
Cath Holmström
Introduction
This chapter examines the crucial but complex issue of “suitability” for social work. The term
“suitability” is used here for convenience, and includes notions of “gatekeeping”, whilst recog-
nizing the controversial nature of terminology. Although written from within the United King-
dom (UK), and specifically within England,1 the issues considered are of international concern:
If the extent and range of articles on gatekeeping are an indication, gatekeeping

remains a significant concern for social work programs across the globe.
(Elpers & FitzGerald, 2013: 287)
Within this chapter the importance of regarding the assessment of suitability as a contin-
uous process is emphasized. Within parts of the UK, the processes of reform and review over
recent years have concentrated a particularly intense spotlight upon initial selection processes
(Moriarty & Manthorpe, 2013; Holmström, 2014). For reasons examined later in this chapter,
social work educators need to ensure that the assessment of suitability, alongside opportunities
to develop professionalism and appropriate behaviours, is extended beyond the initial gates to
the profession.
It is apparent that such concerns are not social work specific (Cliffordson, 2006; David &
Lee-Wolf, 2010). Indeed, within the professions, adherence to codes of practice or eth-
ics (“Codes”), often with associated expectations for students or trainees, is the norm. The
same Codes usually contain references to the individual practitioner’s responsibility to the
profession and the reputation of the profession as a whole as well as to their clients, and
place responsibilities to act accordingly both inside and outside of formal work roles and
relationships (NASW, 2008; David & Lee-Wolf, 2010; Health and Care Professions Council
[HCPC], 2012; Furness, 2015). Such codes may form the basis for decision-making in respect
of student-professionals.
A significant focus within suitability literature is upon the challenges for social work educa-
tors (Grady, 2009; Elpers & FitzGerald, 2013). Challenges or even reluctance to exercise gate-
keeping functions may be due to a range of factors. These include the fear of legal or other
disputes, dissatisfaction with measures of suitability (Lafrance et al., 2004), uncertainty about
procedures and, perhaps, a belief that such roles conflict with a professional commitment to
the transformational processes of education and learning and also with social work values and a
298
Suitability, gatekeeping and education
commitment to supporting and enabling changes in people’s lives (Younes, 1998; Gibbons et al.,
2007; Bradley, 2012).
However, perhaps some of this hesitancy or reluctance, if it does indeed exist (Manthorpe
et al., 2010), would be lessened if the language used to describe such processes was less about
“guarding the gates” and focused more upon the assessment of suitability being a positive aspect
of our role:
It is essential for the profession to face the reality of screening out unsuitable candi-
dates evenly, directly, and courageously, despite the predictable discomfort caused by
occasionally thwarting intrinsic social work values. As in all arenas of social work practice,
there will be uncertainty in imperfect processes, and those processes will be facilitated
by imperfect faculty members in imperfect systems.
(Sowbel, 2012: 44, emphasis added)
It is in fact our privilege to select the candidates, so far as we can best judge, who will become,
through the processes of professional education, the very best professionals. Within our own
professional experiences we have drawn upon a range of skills to conduct complex assessments.
Such skills transfer well – albeit with no guaranteed outcomes, as is also the case in practice –
into professional education contexts.
This chapter begins with a review of key themes in respect of pre-entry decisions about
suitability before examining the issues relevant when making decisions about progression within,
and graduation from, pre-registration social work programmes. Implications for curricula and
student learning are examined, alongside a discussion about developing more of a focus upon
the personal (or inner) qualities and character of the applicant and student as an important pro-
fessional focus.
Assessing suitability prior to entry to professional training

Overreliance upon assessing suitability prior to entry to professional training is problematic
because of the fallible nature of selection processes and the difficulty articulating precisely what
makes one suitable or not. In addition, suitability is not a static or fixed state, and it is possible
that an applicant assessed as suitable prior to entry may become less suitable due to the impact
of life events or experiences and/or additional pressures. However, literature on “failing to fail”
(Finch & Taylor, 2013) highlights the challenges and obstacles associated with ending a student’s
training once admitted. Therefore, it is prudent to exercise professional skill and diligence in
selecting the very “best” applicants and excluding those who are in our professional judgment
unsuitable, or perhaps more accurately in many cases, unready for the demands of professional
training and practice. It is important to remember when considering these issues that in many
countries there has been a significant expansion of Higher Education, often with great attention
being given to “widening access”2 (Dillon, 2007; Ross, 2010). It is beyond the scope of this text
to examine the “success” of such policies, but it is crucial to recognize the potential conflicts
between widening access and gatekeeping activities, perhaps particularly so where this creates a
sense of entitlement to enter the course of one’s choice.
Selection standards and criteria

Whilst the nature of social work varies to an extent from one country to another, the Interna-
tional Federation of Social Workers’ (IFSW) Global Standards are important to acknowledge,
299
Cath Holmström
as they sit alongside national and institution-specific criteria. They require, entirely reasonably
it seems, that selection practices reflect the “aspiration toward equity with regard to the demo-
graphic profile of the institution’s locality” (1.3) and that a social work programme provides a
“clear articulation of its admission criteria and procedures” (6.1) (IFSW, 2012). The notions of
representativeness and transparency of expectations underpin many of the tensions identified
within relevant literature.
It may not be controversial to suggest that usually educators wish, and are often mandated,
to assess overall suitability during as rigorous selection process as possible, especially given the
multiple costs to all parties where things ‘go wrong’. However, problems with definition and
conceptualization often lead to operational challenges (Holmström and Taylor, 2008a). Indeed,
as Gibbons et al. (2007) note, there is a long history of attempts to identify factors that are
predictive of success in training, without much success so far (Tam, Coleman & Boey, 2012),
perhaps because of the small-scale nature of most studies. It is also important to remember that
in some contexts, social work courses were not the first choice for their students, and in these
and other contexts, there may sometimes be a less active selection process than in others, making
the emphasis upon ongoing assessment of suitability even more critical.
One aspect of the selection or gatekeeping process that is perhaps currently under-explored
is that of preadmission motivation, information and guidance:
The influence of the image and status of social work as a profession and the range of
factors motivating applicants to apply for social work programs is an important field
of investigation.
(Manktelow & Lewis, 2005: 835)
Furness (2007) examined self-reported motivations of applicants invited to attend an inter-

view. In this study only 6% reported that their own negative life experiences had been moti-
vating factors, and this may be lower than expected but perhaps serves as a reminder that
understanding what drives applicants to particular routes or professions and how they self-
assess and align themselves with how we represent our profession and courses is worthy of fur-
ther exploration.
Another challenge when identifying pre-course requirements is that we need to decide what
can and cannot be developed through the “transformational” nature of professional education
(Bradley, 2012). Although the degree to which values are affected by the educational process has
been questioned (Lafrance, Gray & Herbert, 2004), anecdotal experiences of social work edu-
cators suggest that students can make significant personal and professional progress in terms of
development. However, the degree of positive indicators of readiness or suitability required at
this point is difficult to quantify and may well vary according to the particular context of social
work and the length of training. It probably does not matter whether this is about defining aca-
demic or non-academic criteria, as for professional suitability purposes, all are surely classifiable
as course requirements.
Prior academic attainment may be a somewhat standardized and relatively easy to compare
requirement for professional training, and is often seen as a proxy for intellectual capacity – a
key element of social work decision-making and judgment – such an emphasis is not uncon-
troversial. The time elapsed since last period of study may lead to increasing or decreasing per-
formance depending upon a range of variables. Furthermore, although several studies (Pelech
et al., 1998; Holmström & Taylor, 2008b) have identified prior educational attainment as the
only reasonably reliable indicator of achievement on postgraduate (PG) social work courses,
little is known about the correlation between this and achievement on undergraduate (UG)
300
programmes. In addition, the focus upon prior academic achievement “and the form of intelli-
gence measured by these types of tests continue to overshadow and ultimately deny the admis-
sion of individuals who may have a lower GPA, but potentially much greater intrapersonal and
interpersonal intelligence” (Lafrance et al., 2004: 336).
However, given the complexities of much social work practice and the need to make com-
plex decisions where there may be competing needs and rights, it is likely that in fact a blend
of both intellectual and personal skills are required. Indeed, it is somewhat puzzling that these
are seen as “either/or” approaches when we could embrace the two in debates about suitability
for professional training:
[. . .] such a polarized approach risks underplaying the significance of characteristics

such as sound judgement and wisdom that are surely dependent upon both intellectual
strength and moral character.
(Holmström, 2014: 352)
Prior “relevant” experience has sometimes been regarded as something of a proxy for moti-
vation and capacity for social work training. In the UK, at least, experience has historically been
regarded as the “gold standard” requirement – seemingly over and above academic qualifications –
perhaps fuelling the perception that social work was a low status course. It is interesting, there-
fore, to note that existing research literature shows no clear positive relationship between length
of prior experience per se and performance during training (Holmström and Taylor, 2008a;
Pelech et al., 1998).
Maturity is often, along with “life experience”, referred to as a necessary attribute prior to
commencing social work training. However, given that research shows no association between
age and performance during social work training, we should be clear that maturity is not to
be conflated with chronological age (Lafrance et al., 2004; Holmström & Taylor, 2008b). Other
qualities or characteristics identified as necessary for social work include a range of factors
such as emotional capability, perhaps best explained by Lafrance et al. (2004: 330) as a “sense
of comfort with one’s emotional life and that of others”. Rather than assuming this will be
entirely present pre-entry, they go on to suggest that “In spite of the personal difficulties that
students might bring to the profession, many respondents stated that students who were open
to self-reflection and willing to examine their beliefs, values and attitudes in the light of new
experiences, could still be considered as suited for the profession” (p. 331). Therefore, self-
awareness and openness to feedback and learning are also key when considering suitability for
social work, it seems. Recent areas of concern, within the UK at least, relate to the “resilience” of
trainees and practitioners and their ability to manage stress and take care of their own emotional
well-being, often within somewhat challenging employment and practice contexts (McFadden,
Campbell & Taylor, 2013). Positive character traits such as honesty, kindness and empathy are
often cited as relevant by those who use social work services, and contemporary practitioners
and educators may add virtues such as courage and bravery to this list, although such inner
qualities and their desirability may be somewhat context-specific (Holmström, 2014). Assessing
these more positively and pro-actively, rather than merely through confirmation of an absence of
negative evidence, may require further consideration.
Tools and testing

Professional gatekeeping literature highlights difficulties with the validity of various selection
tools (Holmström and Taylor, 2008a). Whilst interviews in particular have significant potential
301
Cath Holmström
to be somewhat flawed, there are ways in which validity can be increased (Cliffordson, 2006;
Holmström and Taylor, 2008a) whilst at the same time drawing upon information from a range
of sources to improve overall validity. Shaw (1977), writing some time ago, observed that some
research indicated that interviews did not alter the outcome that paper selection would have
produced but importantly notes that this says nothing about validity of either selection method.
Assessed group activities are also utilized in some selection processes, either in addition to
or instead of individual interviews. Indeed, these seem relevant given social work is largely a
relational and cooperative activity in which communication, persuasion and team working skills
are required. Within the context of selection for teacher training, Byrnes, Kiger and Shechtman
(2003) report finding that the overall assessment score given by assessors in respect of applicants
taking part in a group task was the only predictive factor of later success on the course, more
so than previous academic grades.This may offer some hope to those selecting social work students
but unable or unwilling to invest in other selection tools.
Although psychometric testing has received somewhat mixed reviews within occupational
psychology and professional gatekeeping literature, some attempts have been made to examine
the predictive potential of such tests within professional education (Ferguson et al., 2000; Man-
ktelow & Lewis, 2005). At present, differences that studies have shown between those rejected
and those offered places (Manktelow & Lewis, 2005) and those successful and unsuccessful in
pre-placement study (Ferguson et al., 2000) have been very small and could also be explained
by other factors, as the authors recognize. Such tools are perhaps attractive in our attempts to
introduce more certainty, validity and transparency to our processes, but will require signif-
icantly more work before being suitable for routine use. In addition, such tools are arguably
most reliable when combined with opportunities for reflection and discussion with applicants,
as this process rather than the results by themselves may be relevant for social work education in
particular, given the importance of reflection and self-knowledge.Writing from within the Aus-
tralian context, where interviews are not routinely used, Gibbons et al. (2007: 218) argue that
“social work’s concern about the legitimacy of psychometric testing, and beliefs that everyone
can learn and change, need to be considered as barriers to change in themselves,” and this is a
further area ripe for larger-scale and comparative analysis, assuming we can decide upon what is
required and how this is best measured by any one particular instrument.
Discussions within this chapter so far have highlighted that initial assessment of suitability
for professional training in terms of “readiness” is necessary but not sufficient in order to fulfil
the gatekeeping requirements of the profession. It is also invariably flawed and partial and will
necessarily be context-dependent. Key challenges for educators to progress include defining
requirements to enable applicants to align themselves more appropriately where they possess the
required self-awareness levels, and for assessors to use professional expertise and skill to interview
or otherwise assess to the best of their abilities given particular resources and other constraints
without seeing this as an end in itself. Balancing widening access and “quality” agendas requires
somewhat complex assessments of “potential” and the taking of calculated risks in such initial
decisions. Where universities are unable or unwilling to invest in such an intensive pre-course
assessment process, the need for rigorous and frequent assessment points during training is obvi-
ously even more important.
Although the marketization of Higher Education in many contexts may provide an added
layer of complexity, it is important to remember that entry to professional courses is not a right
or entitlement (Lafrance et al., 2004; Elpers & FitzGerald, 2013). This means that in many con-
texts, social work programmes can be confident in setting entry requirements that include refer-
ences to personal qualities and expected standards of conduct, as well as academic criteria, under
the heading of course requirements rather than being concerned with a distinction between
302
academic and non-academic factors and the fairness issues associated with this somewhat arti-
ficial distinction. Such a confident approach may help to avoid a more reductionist strategy in
which applicants with the correct qualifications, testimonials and an absence of negative indica-
tors are deemed “suitable” in a rather passive manner.
Developing and assessing personal and professional suitability

In this part of the chapter, the emphasis upon assessing suitability throughout training is revis-
ited. However, simply designing-in multiple assessment (and exit) points throughout profes-
sional training is unlikely to be sufficient without further attention to the content and process
of learning and providing opportunities that bring to the surface and develop aspects of personal
and professional suitability. Although literature often refers to professional suitability (Bradley,
2012), in reality we are usually concerned with personal suitability for professional practice. It is
this focus upon the personal (qualities, attributes or behaviours) that sometimes causes disquiet
in terms of the feasibility, appropriateness and legitimacy of such inquiries. It is crucial that pro-
gression and qualification criteria are closely aligned to professional requirements in ways that
can be fairly, openly and appropriately assessed. It is hard, to say the least, to remove or uphold
the removal of a student on suitability grounds where criteria and expectations are not clear. In
many countries, public law requirements include the reasonableness of decisions in terms of the
content of processes and adherence to fair procedures. In general, procedures employed need to
respect basic principles of natural justice such that the student is aware of the allegations against
him or her and has an opportunity to respond to allegations and that any hearings are conducted
fairly, especially when the outcome of processes may be to end a student’s training prematurely.
It is important to remember that suitability may be impaired on a permanent basis or a more
temporary one depending upon the issue and context. For example, a student may be tempo-
rarily unready/unsuitable for practice as a result of personal experiences that affect the student’s
ability to perform the professional role. Or, a serious criminal conviction may mean that this
cannot be remedied in the foreseeable future, especially where the student’s understanding and
response to this is not indicative of having learned from the experience. Part of the challenge
for educators here, as with admissions decisions, is the terminology of attaching an “unsuitable”
label to an individual. Whilst this may appear appropriate when it relates to conduct, it is per-
haps more challenging when the concern arises from a health or other personal situation, or
perhaps more significantly, how the student does or does not manage these issues rather than the
ill health itself. Such issues, along with prior social services involvement and disability-related
concerns, especially mental health needs (David & Lee-Wolf, 2010), require sensitive approaches,
but also clarity regarding standards, expectations and what is not acceptable remain important.
As with admissions debates, faculty may experience tension between the increasingly
rights-focused and consumerist orientation of students and higher education where increasing
emphasis is placed upon “satisfaction” with students’ experiences. Of course, in contexts where
there is no additional “hurdle” or assessment once graduated (such as licensing examinations)
and before commencing social work practice, assessment of suitability during and at the end of
the course is critical in order to uphold the standards of professional practice.
Assessment: standards and thresholds

Although there are profession-specific standards relevant to decision-making in this arena, it is
important to remember that universities usually have codified expectations that apply to the
whole student body – for example, ensuring that one’s behaviour does not bring the university
303
Cath Holmström
into disrepute – and this may be appropriate to draw upon, especially where profession-specific
processes do not fit the particular situation for any reason. Profession-specific requirements are
often found in regulatory body Codes or Standards, which may directly or indirectly apply to
students. Importantly, whilst transparency of expectations is required for processes to be just
and reasonable, as Elpers and FitzGerald (2013) note, there is no need for such codes or their
translations into documents within student handbooks or similar to provide an exhaustive list of
requirements; indicative examples will suffice.
In terms of international standards, the IFSW (2012) states that universities are expected to:
[Take] appropriate action in relation to those social work students and professional staff
who fail to comply with the code of ethics, either through an established regulatory
social work body, established procedures of the educational institution, and/or through
legal mechanisms.
Within England, the HCPC (2012: 7), as the relevant regulatory body, states that “programmes
must have processes for dealing with concerns about a student’s behaviour.” Despite interna-
tional and national regulatory expectations, it is perhaps not surprising, given the emphasis
placed upon the sovereignty of each institution, that details of profession-specific processes
and procedures vary significantly (Currer, 2009). Within the UK much of this variation seems
to stem from whether processes are course- or faculty-level in their design. Whilst multi-
profession applicability may provide consistency and ease of management from a university
perspective, anecdotal information suggests that social work tutors struggle to make these “fit”
social work-specific situations in many cases.
The standards referred to above clearly indicate that knowledge and skills are not the only
requirements for successful completion of professional training. Writing from within a North
American context, Elpers and FitzGerald (2013) highlight the importance of attempting to
redefine criteria that have traditionally been referred to as non-academic (values, maintaining
health, maintaining boundaries, appropriate conduct out of work) as accepted statements of
expectations included in student handbooks or other readily available sources. The need to
interpret professional codes for the classroom and placement contexts so that there is a fit
between course expectations and professional practice is clear, and yet we also need to balance
this with the need to allow for development and learning too, which is one of the challenging
elements of the role: How much of what (characteristic or quality) is needed at what point in
the educational process, or has the identified problem in a situation become an insurmountable
difficulty?
The centrality of field education or placements

The importance of placement learning and assessment within social work education is indisput-
able: “social work education identifies the field practicum as the signature pedagogy and heart of
social work education” (Elpers & FitzGerald, 2013: 290). However, given both concerns about
the ability and confidence of placement-based assessors in failing students when this is needed,
and the ethical issues entailed in sending students thought to be unsuitable out onto placement
in order for this to be evidenced in that more “professional” context further focus upon readi-
ness or suitability for progression to placement is important. This is certainly challenging when
placements commence close to the start of a programme, but placing a disproportionate burden
of suitability assessments within a context where students engage in fiduciary relationships with
people at very vulnerable times is a cause for concern.
304
As Elpers and FitzGerald (2013) note, admission to a programme should not equate to a
right to enter the first (or subsequent) field placements, despite concerns about the contract that
institutions have with students once admitted. Given the fallibility of initial selection methods
and the fact that suitability status can change, a review of someone’s suitability or readiness to
commence field placement and therefore direct practice with service users provides another
and potentially key gatekeeping opportunity. Within England, assessment of readiness for direct
practice prior to commencing the first placement became a more formalized process following
recent reviews and reforms. As O’Connor, Cecil and Boudioni (2009) note, there are many
different ways in which universities have attempted to meet this expectation, with some courses
embedding these within modules and others attempting to have these requirements as sitting
outside any particular module, which may cause some practical challenges regarding progression
and qualification. These include creative pedagogic design and assessments based upon “virtual
placements”, as well as forms of assessment using role play with service users or actors (Gibbons
et al., 2007) combined with assessments of learning, ability to respond to feedback and initial
reflective skills. It seems that students place significance upon the process of “becoming, identify-
ing and conducting themselves as professional workers” (O’Connor et al., 2009: 446). Although
variation will exist between the balance of positive and absence of negative approaches taken,
this does provide another formal assessment point and rite of passage at least, despite Gibbons
et al.’s findings that predictive qualities of such assessments were limited.
Pedagogy and curriculum issues

As previously suggested, ensuring the suitability or fitness for practice of our graduating students
requires more than simply designing ongoing and multiple varied assessment and progression
points. Curriculum design and delivery has much to contribute both in terms of content and
process elements. Indeed, Seipel, Johnson, and Walton (2011) highlight the extent to which
employers in the world of business recognize that simply addressing the cognitive and intel-
lectual elements in business school will not fully prepare students for the realities of work or
community participation. The ability to relate to people and communicate effectively is key, as
well as a growing emphasis upon values and character. This is presumably even more critical in
a profession whereby our reliance upon such matters is even more fundamental.
In terms of curriculum content, there are some specific issues that may assist in supporting
the development of professional and personal suitability. First, students need guidance as to the
nature of professional expectations and the impact upon their “free” time, and importantly in
the current context, guidance about social networking is key. Educators cannot safely assume
that these issues are obvious or solutions apparent, especially when many students will not have
experienced the social work profession directly. Active consideration of professional boundaries,
professional identity and regulation is key in order to ensure informed engagement on the part
of students.
Second, learning about the professional value base and the ethical, moral and political nature
of social work practice (Gray & Gibbons, 2007), perhaps from the perspectives of practitioners
and also service users and carers, is important. Students may benefit from examining issues and
dilemmas from a range of perspectives and understanding that there is often no clear “right”
way forward in many situations. Preston-Shoot (2011) identifies the importance of students
developing “ethical literacy” and being supported in this process. This is especially important
given that, as he notes, Codes presume a “benign organisational operating environment” (2011:
180) and hold individuals responsible for their conduct even when those employed by large
organizations are not entirely autonomous. The separation of regulatory and inspectorial duties,
305
Cath Holmström
within the UK at least, complicates some situations in which practitioners’ failings are argued to
be the result of systemic failures whereby employers have been in breach of their duties towards
staff. It is especially important in such contexts that students are supported to develop their own
internal “moral compasses”.
Arguably even more important than the curriculum content issues highlighted above is
ensuring that due consideration is given to the question of how curricula and assessments are
designed and implemented, as well as developing a course environment that is encouraging of
early disclosure where students experience difficulties in meeting course expectations. Within
some contexts, as in the USA, there is a regulatory requirement that the “implicit” curriculum
is addressed as well as the content issues. However, generally the issue of process and ensuring
this is explicitly articulated rather than being “hidden” or “implicit” and given as much con
sideration as the content of our teaching is an area for further development. This is particularly
so given the relatively recent emphasis upon and interest in “character” development within
professional education (Clark, 2006; Holmström, 2014; Furness, 2015). Indeed, designing a pro-
cess curriculum that embeds pedagogic approaches, such as problem- or enquiry-based learning,
debates and the use of critical incidents, can aid learning and development beyond formalized
knowledge, and this is particularly important within social work education (O’Connor et al.,
2009; Thompson and West, 2013; Holmström, 2014).
If we accept that, at least to a degree, many positive qualities and characteristics can be
learned and developed – albeit perhaps needing a longer period than is possible within profes-
sional training, then considering how students are socialized into professional values and ways
of “being” becomes important. The content of Codes is not in itself sufficient; role modelling
by social work educators in the field and in university also becomes important, especially when
modelling difficult issues such as apologizing for errors or modelling managing difficult emo-
tions (Holmström, 2014).
Finding space and time within what is usually a packed timetable may enable students to
work through experiences and examine values and learning, drawing upon reflective skills
and abilities. Particularly important is the development of the capacity to manage uncertainty
and ambiguity, as well as “not knowing” (Cornish, 2011). Being able to hold back from judg
ment and be, with uncertainty, within a reflective space without regarding uncertainty or not
knowing as so negative that it becomes draining, may assist in developing the confidence
required in dealing with such fundamental practice issues wherein errors of judgment may be
made and suitability questioned. Indeed,
For students to appreciate the complexity of moral issues, it is necessary for them to be
able to accept and deal with uncertainty and ambiguity, and the absence of cookbook
solutions [. . .]
(Gray & Gibbons, 2007: 224)
Concluding comments
The nature of social work practice, whereby professionals and students often work alone with
individuals who are at their most vulnerable, justifies an ongoing focus upon suitability. Whilst
some may challenge the focusing of regulatory lenses into the private and inner lives of pro-
fessionals (McLaughlin, 2007), others argue convincingly that this is the price social workers
pay for the privilege of working so closely with those in need (Clark, 2006). In addition, whilst
some may doubt the validity and wisdom of time and energy spent struggling with these issues,
taking US figures alone, “[i]f only one unsuited person graduates per programme per year, in
306
10 years, nearly 6490 unsuited social workers might be unleashed on an unsuspecting public”
(Sowbel, 2012: 370).
Whilst significant concerns regarding terminology remain, it is important in our work with
students to attempt to distinguish between those unsuitable and those currently unready to hold
such a professional role with all it entails, as different exit or “pause” routes may be appropriate.
The fallibility of selection tools and processes, as well as the fluctuating nature of personal/
professional suitability, means that educators need to adopt a whole curriculum perspective and
certainly should not seek to leave suitability-related assessments to field or placement colleagues.
So long as processes are fair in terms of content and their implementation, it is clear from
case law on both sides of the Atlantic (Gibbons et al., 2007) that courts will generally be slow to
intervene where decisions have been framed in terms of, or based upon, professional judgment.
As in professional practice, we should therefore be more confident perhaps in owning this criti-
cal role of assessing suitability for professional training and qualification.Whilst the consumerist
context in which much social work training may take place poses some additional challenges,
student rights will not take priority over service user or public safety needs and rights. It is
therefore incumbent upon social work educators to define in positive terms, not just through
the absence of negative factors, what standards and qualities are expected and required in
any particular context and to make confident professional judgments that draw upon our
professional expertise. Indeed, social work educators need to “recognize the responsibility
to struggle honestly with the multidimensional identities of being a social work educator”
(Sowbel, 2012: 28).
Notes
1 Within the UK, there are currently different regulatory systems and bodies within the component coun-
tries, with wide-scale reforms occurring particularly within England in recent years.
2 “Widening access” or “widening participation” are terms used in a number of contexts within Higher
Education, but particularly within Western countries. The terms refer to policies and practices designed
to increase access to Higher Education (HE) by those less traditionally represented. Operating flexible
admissions policies and recognizing a broader array of academic and other entrance qualifications or
criteria are often one strand of such policies designed to increase overall levels of participation in HE,
especially by more marginalized groups.
References
Bradley, G. (2012). Professional suitability of students at the point of selection: What is it realistic to assess?
British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(4), 200–202.
Byrnes, D., Kiger, G., & Shechtman, Z. (2003). Evaluating the use of group interviews to select students into
teacher-education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 163–172.
Clark, C. (2006). Moral character in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 75–89.
Cliffordson, C. (2006). Selection effects on applications and admissions to medical education with regular
and step-wise admission procedures. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(4), 463–482.
Cornish, S. (2011). Negative capability and social work: Insights from Keats, Bion and business. Journal of
Social Work Practice, 25, 135–148.
Currer, C. (2009). Assessing student social workers’ professional suitability: Comparing University proce-
dures in England. British Journal of Social Work, 39, 1481–1498.
David,T. J., & Lee-Wolf, E. (2010). Fitness to practise for student nurses: Principles, standards and procedures.
Nursing Times, 106(39). Available at www.nursingtimes.net/roles/district-and-community-nurses/
fitness-to-practise-for-student-nurses-principles-standards-and-procedures/5020031.fullarticle.
Devereux, J., Hosgood, P., Kirton, J., Jack, B. A., & Jinks, A. M. (2012).Why do students fail to disclose health
problems. Nursing Times, 108(1/2), 18–20.
Dillon, J. (2007). The conundrum of balancing widening participation with the selection of suitable stu-
dents for social work education. Social Work Education, 26, 827–841.
307
Cath Holmström
Elpers, K., & FitzGerald, E. A. (2013). Issues and challenges in gatekeeping: A framework for implementa-
tion. Social Work Education, 32(3), 286–300.
Ferguson, E., Sanders, A., O’Hehir, F., & James, D. (2000). Predictive validity of personal statements and the
role of the five factor model of personality in relation to medical training. Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Psychology, 73, 321–344.
Finch, J., & Taylor, I. (2013). Failure to fail? Practice educators’ emotional experiences of assessing failing
social work students. Social Work Education, 32, 244–258.
Furness, S. (2007). An enquiry into students’ motivations to train as social workers in England. Journal of
Social Work, 7(2), 239–253.
Furness, S. (2015). Conduct matters: The regulation of social work in England. British Journal of Social Work,
45, 861–879.
Gibbons, J., Bore, M., Munro, D., & Powis, D. (2007). Using personal quality assessment for selection of
social work students. Australian Social Work, 60(2), 210–221.
Grady, M. D., & (Anon.), S. (2009). Gatekeeping: Perspectives from both sides of t the fence. Smith College
Studies in Social Work, 79, 51–64.
Gray, M., & Gibbons, J. (2007). There are no answers, only choices: Teaching ethical decision making in
social work. Australian Social Work, 60(2), 222–238.
Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) (2012). Guidance on conduct and ethics for students. [pdf]. Lon-
don: HCPC. Available at www.hcpc-uk.org/assets/documents/10002C16Guidanceonconductandeth-
icsforstudents.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2015].
Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) (2014). Standards of education and training. [pdf]. London:
HCPC. Available at www.hcpc-uk.org/assets/documents/1000295EStandardsofeducationandtraining-
fromSeptember2009.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2015].
Holmström, C. (2014). Suitability for professional practice: Assessing and developing moral character in
social work education. Social Work Education, 33(4), 451–468.
Holmström, C., & Taylor, I. (2008a). Mapping the terrain of selection for social work: A critical analysis of
policy, theory and research. Social Work Education, 27(5), 519–535.
Holmström, C., & Taylor, I. (2008b). Researching admissions: What can we learn about selection of appli-
cants from findings about students in difficulty on a social work programme. Social Work Education,
27(8), 819–836.
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) Global Standards (2012). Available at http://ifsw.org/
policies/global-standards/ [Accessed 20 July 2015].
Lafrance, J., Gray, E., & Herbert, M. (2004). Gate-keeping for professional social work practice. Social Work
Education, 23(3), 325–340.
McFadden, P., Campbell, A., & Taylor, B. (2013). Resilience and burnout in child protection social work:
Individual and organizational themes from a systematic literature review. British Journal of Social Work,
45(5), 1546–1563.
McLaughlin, K. (2007). Regulation and risk in social work: The general social care council and the social
care register. British Journal of Social Work, 73, 1263–1277.
Manktelow, R., & Lewis, C. (2005). A study of the personality attributes of applicants for postgraduate
social work training to a Northern Ireland university. Social Work Education, 24(3), 297–309.
Manthorpe, J., Moriarity, J., Hussein, S., Sharpe, E., Stevens, M., Orme, J., MacIntyre, G., Green Lister, P., &
Crisp, B. R. (2010). Changes in admissions work Arising from the new social work degree in England.
Moriarty, J., & Manthorpe, J. (2013). Shared expectations? Reforming the social work qualifying curricu-
lum in England. Social Work Education, 32(7), 841–853.
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) (2008). Codes of ethics. Available at www.socialworkers.
org/pubs/code/default.asp [Accessed 20 June 2015].
O’Connor, L., Cecil, B., & Boudioni, M. (2009). Preparing for practice: An evaluation of an undergraduate
social work ‘Preparation for Practice’ module. Social Work Education, 28(4), 436–454.
Pelech, W., Stalker, C. A., Regehr, C., & Jacobs, M. (1998). Making the grade: The quest for validity in
admissions decisions. Journal of Social Work Education, 35(2), 215–226.
Preston-Shoot, M. (2011). On administrative evil-doing within social work policy and services: Law, ethics
and practice. European Journal of Social Work, 14(2), 177–194.
Ross, E. (2010). Selection tests and social justice: A profile of applicants seeking admission to the social
work undergraduate degree at a South African University. Social Work Education, 29(5), 459–474.
308
Seipel, M. M. O., Johnson, J. D., & Walton, E. (2011). Desired characteristics for MSW students and social
work employees: Cognitive versus personal attributes. Journal of Social Work Education, 47(3), 445–461.
Shaw, I. (1977). Selecting for social work. British Journal of Social Work, 7(1), 55–72.
Sowbel, L. R. (2012). Gatekeeping: Why shouldn’t we be ambivalent. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(1),
27–44.
Tam, D. M., Coleman, H., & Boey, K. (2012). Professional suitability for social work practice: A factor anal-
ysis research. Social Work Practice, 22(2), 227–239.
Thompson, L. J., & West, D. (2013). Professional development in the contemporary educational context:
Encouraging practice wisdom. Social Work Education, 32(1), 118–133.
Younes, M. N. (1998). The gatekeeping dilemma in undergraduate social work programs: Collision of ideal
and reality. International Social Work, 41, 145–153.
309
27
SOCIAL MEDIA IN SOCIAL
WORK EDUCATION
Developing teaching and learning strategies
Joanne Westwood
As communication is a key way in which social workers engage with individuals, families
and groups for the purposes of assessment and intervention, developing students’ commu-
nication skills has long been a key aim of social work education. Whilst the development of
students’ skills in face-to-face communication has traditionally dominated curricula, the recent
growth in cyber and digital technologies, most particularly social media, has brought about
new challenges for practitioners’ professional relationships with service users and carers, and
the boundaries between workers’ personal and professional lives (Mishna et al., 2012). Students
entering social work education are increasingly sophisticated users of digital technologies and
are looking to their educators to guide and support them in how to engage in social media in
ways which are consistent with the ethics and values of the profession. This chapter will focus
particularly on the opportunities and challenges which social media presents to the profession
and consider how social work education should prepare students for these. It begins with an
overview of terminology used and then goes on to discuss a range of practical and ethical issues
related to using social media in social work education and in supporting student use of social
media for practice.
Defining social media

‘Social media’ is a short-hand term for a publishing and broadcast technology which offers new
and exciting ways for individuals, communities, groups and organisations, who might never
have the opportunity to meet face to face, to connect and interact ‘virtually’. It facilitates the
development of networks, the sharing of information, knowledge, ideas and experiences, and
is commonly utilised as a marketing strategy by commercial organisations. As well as breaking
down barriers and traditional communication hierarchies, social media dramatically speeds up
communication processes. Information that relied on traditional news media for dissemination
can be quickly shared using social media platforms reaching a wider and global audience. Social
media users connect and interact with web content and with each other in a way that has only
been made possible by advances in web technologies during the last decade (Fang et al. 2014).
boyd and Ellison (2007) define social media as:
310
Social media in social work education
web-based services that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile

within a bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a con-
nection, view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within
the system.
(p. 209)
The most common platforms for interaction are Social Networking Sites (SNS). These are
online spaces which are used to host individual or organisational profiles and which might
include written content, photographs, video and audio materials. A popular example of an SNS
is Facebook (www.facebook.com). The individual user of Facebook can invite others to view
his or her profile as well as connect and engage in dialogue and discussions. A blog is another
way of publishing views and opinions, thoughts and reflections. Blogs such as the most popular
blogging service,Tumblr (www.tumblr.com/), can be widely shared or restricted so that they are
only accessible by certain individuals. Micro-blogging is a similar system but there are restric-
tions on the number of characters which can be used. In the case of the SNS Twitter (https://
about.twitter.com), for example, this is just 140 characters. In terms of global users, Facebook
has upwards of 1.4 billion accounts, Tumblr has more than 230 million active blogs and Twitter
has 288 million monthly active accounts (Statista, 2015). Box 27.1 contains an example of a
Twitter exchange which is stimulated by a social work conference presentation:
Box 27.1
Twitter exchanges stimulated by a social work conference
presentation
Twitter exchange extract: 16 July 2015

Alaine Shaw @AlaineShaw.Jul16
Great response to SUfeedback App presentation #jswec @jlwestwood
@AnnieCampbellA @KatharineDill @researchIP
Joanne Westwood @jlwestwood. Jul 16

AlaineShaw @AnnieCampbellA @KatharineDill @researchIP @StirSociaWork lots of great
collaboration #jswec
Helen Franklin @helfrank. Jul 16

@AlaineShaw @jlwestwood @AnnieCampbellA @reSEARCHip sounds intriguing would
love to know more
The participants in the exchange are members of a research team sharing their experience of
talking about a service user feedback App they are developing which is designed for use by social
workers to gather the views of service users about the social work services they receive. As the
conversation is public, other Twitter users can become involved should they wish. In this case, a
follower, @helfrank, who is not attending the presentation expresses her interest in the App and
311
Joanne Westwood
joins in the conversation asking for more information. One member of the research team, @
KatharineDill, who is not at the presentation is also able to participate in this experience as she
is named in the exchange. (I have written permission from all of the people and organisations
mentioned in the extract.)
Twitter, along with other SNSs, provides effective ways for collating and curating posts for
future reference. Indeed a significant feature of social media, which distinguishes it from other
forms of online activity, is that users can be real-time creators and contributors as well as con-
sumers (Kimball & Kim, 2013; Fang et al., 2014).Whilst the restricted number of Twitter charac-
ters (140) limits the length and therefore depth of ‘posts’, the functions provided by the hashtag
(#) can be utilised to facilitate group conversations and collaboration capture posts into one
space and archive them for later use.
There are some important differences across the globe, especially in developing countries,
and a digital divide within developed countries, whereby people are unable to access digital
technologies due to a lack of infrastructure and/or unable to afford them. Nonetheless, the
trend towards increased use of social media is upwards, especially amongst young people
(Lafferty, 2015), as is ownership of smart devices (GWI, 2014). The desire and need to com-
municate with peers is enabled by social media and by the dozens of platforms already avail-
able and growing all the time. Growing up in the digital age means that many young people
will be familiar and comfortable with using technology to communicate and confident in
using this in both formal and informal arenas. White and Le Cornu (2011) define users of
social media as either digital visitors or digital residents. Digital visitors are defined by their
functional use of the Internet which is often exploratory and tentative. Digital residents
use the space in a different way to socialise and are often immersed in social media as they
have grown up using it in their daily lives. In the developed world young people clearly fit
into the resident category as they have been exposed to sophisticated technology from early
childhood and the age at which they might own a mobile phone has been steadily decreasing
(Insafe, 2015).
The opportunities and challenges for social work practice

By virtue of its wide use, the immediacy it affords and the ease of accessibility of information,
social media has a democratising potential, reducing barriers to trade, for local as well as global
businesses, as well as promoting access to knowledge and expertise in health care and education
between developed and developing countries, and enabling members of civil society to be able
to better inform themselves about world events (Ali, 2012). This is arguably in keeping with
the global social work project in terms of promoting and campaigning for the global human
rights agenda, social justice and equality and with local aims of connecting with communities
and individuals, and supporting them to achieve personal and social change (see Brady,Young &
McLeod, 2015). Social media has been integrated creatively into social work practice, and social
work educators are now able to draw on a vast array of materials to support student learning. In
the UK, children who are looked after by local authorities can contribute to their reviews, access
advocacy and make a complaint using a specially designed App for iPads, MOMO (Mind Of My
Own) (Fursland, 2014).The Fostering Network has developed a guide for using social media
in foster carer recruitment (Stevenson, 2014). Social media has also been incorporated into
work with adults; for example Whose Shoes? (2015), an interactive online tool designed to facil-
itate national and local policy and practice developments in regard to personalisation and self-
directed support, uses social media to promote and encourage collaboration and coproduction
between service users, carers, commissioners, social workers and academics. The Social Work
312
Social Media App (Cooner, 2013a) is designed to be used by social work educators, students and
practitioners and engages with the various ethical and values issues which social media presents
in practice; it is discussed in more detail later.
It is clear that social work and allied practitioners have begun to utilise social media to inform
their work and, as such, it is important that social work educators engage with opportunities and
challenges in their learning and teaching. Social media as a learning medium has the potential to
complement the teaching of social work students. As students enter a practice landscape where
social media is used by service users and some practitioners, academic tutors and practice edu-
cators (field supervisors) should facilitate student engagement with a variety of media so that
students are informed about both the potentials they afford, and the possible risks.
There are increasing numbers of referrals being made to social work regulatory bodies in
the UK about inappropriate use of social media, which suggests that clear guidance and advice
for students is essential. One aspect fraught with potential risks is that all social media posts
are permanent and public once shared, unless privacy settings have been put in place by the
user which restrict access by others. Not all social work social media users may have thought
through sufficiently in advance the implications of publicly sharing information about them-
selves or posting their views on contested, controversial or sensitive issues. Privacy settings may
change as new versions and updates are made by the developers, and users need to review these
regularly to ensure their personal accounts or posts are sufficiently private given their profes-
sional role. Prior to entering social work education, students might have networked far more
publicly with social media and will find that they need to develop a rather different ‘digital
footprint’ as a professional. They will require advice and guidance from social work educators
regarding this, and yet they may find that educators are even less aware of these issues than they
are themselves.
The growth in the use of social media and the networked society we inhabit has been
greeted with caution (Houghton & Johnson, 2010) in terms of the well-being of users and the
nature of the relationships which are created online, particularly in respect of their authenticity
and permanency. This caution includes not only anxieties about the amount of time children
and young people spend online but also the content they are accessing. Children and young
people might be accessing social media networks on a smart device, tablet, mobile phone, or
personal computer, all of which may be beyond the reach of parents and carers, and there are real
concerns about the potential of cyberbullying, sexting and the risks of children being groomed
by predatory adults (CEOP, 2015).
There are also particular risks to children and young people in the care system who may be
contacted by their birth families, and might search and locate birth families themselves using
Facebook or other SNS platforms. In response to this, information is available which guides
practitioners and adoptive families towards recognising the potential risks and providing appro-
priate responses (BAAF, 2010). It is therefore important that social work educators engage with
the debates about using social media and alert students to the potential risks, opportunities and
practical implications for its use in social work practice.
Social media in social work education: ethical issues,

professionalism and accountability
The requirements for social workers to have appropriate professional and personal boundaries
and recognise ethical dilemmas which arise from the use of social media are contained in the
various codes of conduct for social work practice and are also applicable to students. Regulatory
bodies make specific reference to social media usage and require registrants to adhere to their
313
Joanne Westwood
standards and codes of conduct. Social work educators and students need to consider how they
engage with social media and make choices about how they use it based on a set of shared values,
including trust, respect and confidentiality. These values are central to social work practice, and
reference to the use of social media in social work practice is incorporated within professional
association and regulatory guidance and codes of conduct in many countries (see for example
United States of America: National Association of Social Workers, 2005; New Zealand Gov-
ernment, 2011; UK: BASW, 2012; England: Health Care Professions Council, 2012; Scottish
Social Services Council [SSSC], 2012; Australian Association of Social Workers, 2013; Canadian
Association of Social Workers, 2014; Care Council for Wales, 2015; Northern Ireland Health and
Social Care Board, 2015).
In social work practice, professional boundaries delineate relationships and formal/informal
interactions between service users and workers. Whilst there are valid arguments for these to be
fluid in the context of coproduction, enablement and empowerment, boundaries remain impor-
tant as distinctions between who is responsible and accountable for assessing and delivering a
service and who is receiving it (Mishna et al., 2012; Mishna et al., 2014). Boundaries are also
important in terms of worker stress and burnout, and caution is urged given the potential for
blurring work and personal boundaries in a demanding, pressurised work context where being
available and always connected is the norm.The wealth of information and the sheer number of
SNS platforms and systems to navigate requires workers to develop a range of strategies to man-
age the volume. These strategies might include accessing materials using different media forms
(for example audio and visual as well as text). Another strategy could involve workers planning
and securing space and time to explore and study social media platforms and how they might
be used. Opportunities for informal learning between peers is another useful strategy for those
who prefer hands-on learning, and this approach facilitates sharing knowledge between teams
in a supported way (Bucher, Fieseler, & Suphan, 2013).
With regards to social media there is potential for personal and professional boundaries
to be dissolved as traditional formal boundaries can be avoided or ignored, and it is therefore
crucial that social work organisations provide clear and accessible guidance about what sort
of contact between service users and workers is deemed to be permissible when using social
media. In Australia for example the NGO Uniting Care, which works with children and
families, uses both Twitter and Facebook to provide updated information about services and
contact details. Social media posts are not designed for interaction beyond providing general
information, and service users are directed towards more traditional contact methods for crisis
support, so whilst social media platforms may be helpful in communicating key information to
service users, agencies remain accountable and face-to-face services cannot simply be replaced
through virtual contact.
Developing a professional identify, professional boundaries and ethical issues are all impor-
tant factors to consider when working with student social workers to use social media in prac-
tice (Brady, McLeod, & Young, 2015). Doel et al. (2010) define professional boundaries as “the
boundary between what is acceptable and unacceptable for a professional to do, both at work
and outside it, and also the boundaries of a professional’s practice” (p. 1867). These boundaries
serve to maintain distance between professional and personal roles, and it can be challenging for
social work educators to convince students that participation in social media does have some
benefits in terms of their developing a professional identity. Developing a professional social
media profile should include opportunities for social work educators and students to reflect on
what information should be in the public realm, and how this might be perceived by service
users and colleagues. It is difficult for students to develop this professional identity if social work
educators shy away from engagement with social media, or if they, like students, are fearful of
314
getting it wrong, saying inappropriate things on social media or compromising their anonymity
and privacy. Students are reliant upon the expertise of their academic tutors and practice edu-
cators to support them to develop knowledge and understanding of the practical and ethical
aspects associated with social media use. There are several social media tools available which can
provide social work students and their educators with discussion points about the values and
ethical issues associated with social media’s use; see for example the Conceptual Framework pro-
posed by Brady, McLeod and Young (2015), which includes questions for educators to consider
as they develop ways of incorporating social media in their classroom-based teaching.
Social work educators also need to engage their students with the dilemmas which arise in
the use of social media in social work practice in terms of personal and professional bounda-
ries. Specific issues might include how to respond to online ‘friend’ requests from service users;
securing personal social media accounts; refraining from discussing details of their work or prac-
tice on social media which compromise service user anonymity or confidentiality; and adhering
to agency policies when using social media for communication with service users. In their
discussion of ethical boundaries and the use of social media, Kimball and Kim (2013) argue that
agencies and organisations need to take the lead in developing social media policies to prevent
breaches of ethical codes of conduct.They suggest that these should be developed in partnership
with service users, and with contributions from legal and human resources. Voshel and Wesala
(2015) advocate for the development of specific guidance and for training to prepare students
and newly qualified social workers for the ethical challenges that arise in the global social media
arena.The development and implementation of these strategies provide both students and social
work educators with opportunities to explore ethical issues that might arise and reflect on how
they and agencies/institutions might respond.
Preparing students for the safe use of social media in practice

The Social Work Social Media App (Cooner, 2013a) was initially designed along with an
accompanying workbook for educators to encourage discussion about professionalism, values
and ethical issues posed by social media in social work practice. The App introduces several
scenarios based on practice and invites the user to consider questions about online behaviour
in social work practice. In one scenario a student social worker routinely looks at the social
media profiles of service users and rationalises that this is appropriate as the profiles are publicly
accessible. The App user is invited to discuss this scenario and think about what guidance one
might give the student about the ethics of using social media in this way. In another scenario,
a member of the social work team keeps a blog and regularly posts pictures about his weekend
activities, going to parties and out with friends, and so forth. This is publicly accessible and the
App user is invited to think about the ethical and boundary issues that this scenario presents.The
App provides useful learning activities for social work educators and for social work teams who
are starting to consider the implications for their practice as social media develops and becomes
more integrated in daily life.
There are also individual barriers that deter students from engaging with social media; they
may include a lack of confidence, skills or knowledge about using social media in a profes-
sional environment. This suggests a real need for clarity in terms of what is permitted to be
shared and publicised on social media within a teaching and learning environment, as well as
practical information and advice about the technical aspects of using social media. Educators
should engage students in considering how social media communication differs from real-time,
face-to-face interactions. These differences include the permanent and immediately searchable
nature of online content, which means that anything posted using social media platforms can
315
Joanne Westwood
be widely shared with others (Fang et al., 2014). There is also the increased potential for con-
flict and misunderstandings between users if social media posts are misinterpreted. Unless social
work students and their educators are informed about the need for secure and private online
spaces, they risk breaching codes of conduct which might impact on service users’ rights to
anonymity. Goldkind and Wolf (2014) argue that developments in technology have changed the
ways in which we communicate and engage with others, and affect social work with clients,
service users and carers. These changes require social work educators to grapple with and start
to resolve the ways in which values are shaped and revised by technology. Making the best use
of the opportunities presented by social media in social work must mean we are able to reject
its inclusion in our teaching and practice where we believe our integrity and value base are
compromised.
Using social media to enhance teaching and learning

Whilst there is a developing body of research that explores how social media-based approaches
are being used within social work education, there is less available which examines its effec-
tiveness as a pedagogical method. However, insights into the opportunities and challenges of
including social media in the HE curriculum are available from research within other disci-
plines. Rochez (2015) found that education historians have tended to use online platforms for
engaging with others, accessing research, promoting their own work, sharing information about
events and activities, broadening their networks and making new connections with other aca-
demics from their field interested in and undertaking similar work. Lupton (2014) conducted an
international survey of social media use amongst academics where almost half were from social
science backgrounds and over a third from allied health or medicine.The survey findings suggest
that there were multiple benefits of using social media, and these included developing diverse
global networks and connections spanning academic disciplines:
Twitter, in particular, was viewed as useful for such purposes because it was global,
immediate, and responsive, provided a continuous stream of relevant links, gave people
the opportunity to publicise their blogs and publications and allowed people to follow
conferences and curate interest groups using hashtags strategically.
(Lupton, 2014: 30)
Smith and Lambert (2014), whose systematic review focussed on the use of Twitter and Face-
book in university-based health care education, reported that these platforms promote blended
teaching strategies which enhance student access to practice and expertise. They cite studies
where Facebook and Twitter were introduced as a communication tool between students and
academics, and where blogs were utilised to support cross-classroom discussions, engage students
in current topics and to encourage student contribution to discussions. Materials generated in
these activities were sometimes archived for future use in teaching and learning activities. Edu-
cators found they needed to keep the momentum going on the Facebook sites with posts and
commentary, for example by posting questions to support student revision.
Students in Smith and Lambert’s (2014) review generally welcomed the inclusion of social
media as a learning approach, although some reported being distracted from classroom discus-
sions by the inclusion of Twitter, finding that it affected their note taking and engagement in
class discussions. Students also expressed reservations about the potential for surveillance and
monitoring of them by academics, as they felt that online spaces such as Facebook are out-
side of the reach of tutors. In addition, students and academics had broader concerns about
316
e-professionalism and the possible impact of any negative exposure on social media to patients,
colleagues and employers. The review also found that across several studies there was a com-
mon theme of staff and students sharing concerns about the potential blurring of educational/
professional and social/personal boundaries through ‘friending’, for example, which might com-
promise both students and their educators. One important issue raised in the review was the lack
of research data to quantify or cost the time and resources which are needed by students and
academics to engage in and contribute to social networking as part of the learning and teaching
strategies (Smith & Lambert, 2014).
Whilst Smith and Lambert’s review was focussed on health care education in HE, there are
some parallels that can be drawn for social work education, which suggests caution should be
used in terms of introducing social media into teaching and learning activities. Staff need to be
clear about the issues relating to professional/personal boundaries, roles and purpose, and the
global and permanent nature of posts on SNSs before they can adequately educate students
about these. In addition, academics and HE providers generally need to ensure that they col-
late evidence to illustrate student gains from their engagement with social media, and the cost
in terms of resources of this investment. It is not always possible for students to access online
resources, and so activities which utilise social media need to be integrated into the curricu-
lum in such a way as to not disadvantage these users, or those who lack confidence or online
engagement skills.
Social media in social work education: key examples

Social media in social work education to date draws on blended learning approaches and capi-
talises on the availability and accessibility of technology. Cooner and Hickman (2008) describe
a blended learning design that includes a variety of teaching and learning methods that may be
computer-based and self-directed, face-to-face interaction and events-based activities. Several
social work educators who have welcomed social media into the curriculum have found that
the technology has enabled greater student engagement (Cooner, 2013b; Young, 2014). Social
media platforms, as well as facilitating interactions between academics, enhancing peer-to-peer
education and promoting the sharing of knowledge, ideas and interests in specific topic areas,
can also promote reflective and participatory learning experiences for students (Fang et al.,
2014). A starting point for any inclusion would be to determine the extent to which students
use social media in their personal lives and how comfortable, confident and skilled they feel
when engaging in social media activities for professional learning and development. White and
Le Cornu (2011) provide a useful typology for this purpose that they suggest is a continuum.
Digital visitors may become residents on this continuum as they situate themselves in the dig-
ital space and make increased use of its affordances, developing a blog, posting their views and
opinions, essentially engaging with the technology at a deeper level. Some digital visitors will
however choose to browse and then leave once they have found what they are looking for, and
others may only access specific digital spaces for functional purposes.
Social media can be used to develop international teaching and learning collaborations. An
international collaborative project involving social work students and educators from six con-
tinents used the Intercultural Competence Framework (Deardorff, 2009, cited in Rowan et al.,
2014), asynchronous video materials and web-based platforms. The project generated a range of
practical challenges but also some key learning about shared values, diversity and understanding
social problems in different contexts. Rowan et al. (2014) make salient points about students not
initially realising that social work is a global profession and the rewards for students of engaging
in cross-country collaborative learning opportunities which serve to “broaden students’ awareness
317
Joanne Westwood
of social problems around the world and the role of the social worker in addressing them” (p. 9). Hawkins
and Knox (2014) advocate using social media to promote greater understanding amongst social
work students of global human rights abuses – about gender equality, for example: “combining
cell phones, the internet and social media in innovative ways opens up a world of creative possibilities for
this techno-savvy generation” (p. 255). This approach might be useful to replicate to highlight to
students the differences and similarities in how social work is practised internationally and ena-
ble them to gain a better understanding of global issues with which social work is commonly
presented.
In the UK, Cooner (2014) used a closed Facebook group in a teaching and learning project
as part of a wider blended learning approach to encourage students to consider the impact of
social media and apply this knowledge to social work practice. Students reported that they found
the activities very useful in terms of gaining an understanding of the ethical issues related to
using social media, and the process of working on a project in a group was helpful for them in
terms of developing group work skills that required some online presence. These activities ena-
bled students to engage with social media as professional rather than personal users, illustrating
the potential for engaging with SNSs for training and learning beyond the classroom space.
Institutional Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) such as Moodle and Blackboard also allow
for some aspects of student learning to take place asynchronously beyond the classroom, poten-
tially adding flexibility and manoeuvrability to the restrictions of centralised timetabling sys-
tems. VLE platforms can also include social media activities, as these platforms can be linked,
allowing students to engage whilst using university systems. These technologies enable social
work students, and those from related disciplines, to learn together beyond the restriction of
time and geography, encouraging collaboration between institutions, organisations and agencies
as well as people who use social work services (Cooner, 2011).
Westwood, Taylor, and McKendrick (2014) facilitated a Twitter debate between social work
students in England and Scotland. As part of this activity they carried out a survey with students
in England and Scotland to establish the extent to which they felt able and confident in their use
of social media as part of wider cross-national collaboration. The survey identified that students
were sophisticated users of technology, and many would best be defined as digital residents.They
used SNS to complement and enhance their learning, embracing the ease and speed of access to
materials with which to augment the traditional classroom-based learning. This respondent for
example found that it gave a wider view of the profession:
I only ever used Facebook before starting Uni, I now use Twitter to communicate with
other social workers from all over the world, and I find it very interesting to see how
different people view things.
(cited in Westwood et al., 2014: 56)
Being able to access current information was also deemed important:
Twitter has enabled me to keep up to date with current issues within social work and
keeps me in touch with other academics and agencies.
(cited in Westwood et al., 2014: 58)
Social work academics and practitioners from several countries who are advocates of social
media and digital technologies have started to develop methods for integrating social media
tools into the social work curriculum. In Canada and Australia and the UK, these include
forging connections beyond the traditional boundaries of the classroom, enabling students to
318
connect with their peers, their tutors and with other academics developing communities of
learning (Cooner, 2015); with posts by social work educators which include references and
materials students might find useful; and with students during application and induction periods
(Iverson Hitchcock & Battista, 2013). Others in Scandinavia have used social media to connect
with students in remote areas (Kilpeläinen, Päykkönen & Sankala, 2011); and within classroom-
based teaching on social welfare modules in the US, to encourage interaction and student con-
tribution (Young, 2014). The benefits of social media engagement have been evident for students
undertaking doctoral-level studies in social work who found that regular-hosted discussion
groups reduced isolation and promoted international peer networks for support (Thackray,
2014; Turner, 2014).
Social media has been utilised to develop communities of practice and knowledge. Social
Work/Social Care and Media (2015), an online knowledge community with over 14,000 fol-
lowers on Twitter, was developed to engage with practitioners. It hosts regular tweet chats online
about different themes which are relevant to social work practice and education in the UK,
such as the assessed first year in practice, the personalisation agenda and leadership, for exam-
ple. The Social Work Book Group established by Taylor (2014) uses the social media platforms
Twitter and Storify to engage students and authors. Participants come together from across the
UK and beyond to discuss and apply social work theory to fictional characters and scenarios.
The group was developed so that members who could not physically attend, perhaps because of
caring responsibilities or other commitments, could contribute virtually. The group was initially
established in one university but has eventually spread across the UK. This project was endorsed
by The College of Social Work (the professional association in England at the time) as a Con-
tinuing Professional Development (CPD) activity and was subsequently implemented in several
local authority areas that were keen to support learning opportunities for both student social
workers and qualified practitioners (Taylor, 2015).
In a recently published study skills text, Poore (2014) reported that blogging was found to
be an effective learning tool for students in many disciplines, as they can access course materials
whilst lecturers can read student blogs and make comments. Poore (2014) suggests that com-
ments and contributions from peers and lecturers can help to assist students with the devel-
opment of their ideas, expression and cohesive writing. Blogs are a demonstration of work in
progress, and they illustrate intellectual engagement with a topic that can be assessed and graded.
There are several social work blogs that discuss the work, dilemmas and challenges in practice
(McKendrick, 2014) but as yet limited evidence of the usefulness of blogging in social work
education. A private/restricted blog lends itself well to the critical reflection required in social
work practice placements – which is often shared with practice educators but not always with
tutors – and to students developing their writing skills for both academic and fieldwork-based
work purposes.
Next steps for social media in social work education

The key issues discussed in this chapter highlight both the challenges and opportunities which
social media presents for social work educators and for social work practice. Privacy, personal
security and confidentiality are important features of modern life, and engaging with social
media can threaten this. Coming to terms with the changes in communication driven by the
use of social media does require a certain amount of personal risk, and it is clear, as discussed
in the examples in this chapter, that social work educators can promote the safe and secure
use of social media by students preparing for social work practice. With regard to developing
professional boundaries in social work practice, social work educators routinely focus on this
319
Joanne Westwood
when working with students to develop their professional identity, and social media provides
different kinds of opportunities for social workers to consider how they are viewed by others.
In essence the clear message for students, practitioners and educators is that they should ensure
that they behave professionally on social media platforms, as these are publicly accessible forums
and they are accountable to regulatory and professional bodies when using social media in a
professional context.The growing availability and accessibility of social media is however fraught
with inequalities in terms of affordability, infrastructure and investment in the technology, and
this divide is exacerbated in resource-poor countries in the developing world. Making materials
and learning resources available using social media should not take the place of students being
able to access them through traditional means.
As discussed, developments in digital technology have speeded up access to knowledge and
research encouraging and facilitating communication across a range of social media platforms
between students, educators and practitioners. As well as sharing ideas and developing new
learning activities, social media enables engagement with students in innovative and different
ways and encourages collaboration and learning beyond the traditional confines of the class-
room or indeed the university and country. It is also clear that further research about the inclu-
sion of social media in social work education is needed in order to determine what works and
is effective for student learning and what is practical and workable in classroom-based activities
and in the different contexts where students practice and learn about the profession.
Crucially, social media has the potential to dissolve geographical and national boundaries and
enable connections and collaborations for research. There are potentially real gains for collabo-
rations by social work educators from different countries if social media activities are integrated
into the curriculum, as they can provide students with an international perspective that would
otherwise be difficult to achieve. These collaborations can bring alternative perspectives from
countries where social work is differently practised, drawing for example on social or commu-
nity development models, not simply the case work models which dominate the Western con-
text. They might also encourage students to reflect on the different and competing issues that
face social workers in contexts of extreme poverty, environmental disasters and the challenges
imposed by armed conflict in war zones.
Social media can be used to share the stories and celebrate the triumphs of social work in
a way that was simply not possible even a decade ago. World Social Work Day, an annual inter-
national celebration of social work and other acknowledged commemorative events, provides
opportunities for social work educators to connect and share their progress and social justice
aims. Social work educators are well placed to harness social media to broaden and deepen their
own knowledge and enhance their students’ learning opportunities as well as help them learn
to understand the importance of developing an ethical approach underpinned by social work
values when using social media.
References
Ali, A. H. (2012). The power of social media in developing nations: New tools for closing the global digital
divide and beyond. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 24. Available at http://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/
uploads/2009/09/185–220.pdf.
Australian Association of Social Workers (2013). Practice standards. Available at www.aasw.asn.au/
document/item/4551.
BAAF (2010). Adoptive parents warned of risks of social media. Available at www.baaf.org.uk/media/
releases/100621.
BASW (2012). Social media policy. Available at http://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/basw_34634-1.pdf.
boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
320
Brady, S. R., McLeod, D. A., & Young, J. (2015). Developing ethical guidelines for creating social media
technology policy in social work classrooms. Advances in Social Work, 16(1), 43–54.
Brady, S. R.,Young, J., & McLeod, D. A. (2015). Utilizing digital advocacy in community organizing: Les-
sons learned from organizing in virtual spaces to promote worker rights and economic justice. Journal
of Community Practice, 23(2), 255–273.
Bucher, E., Fieseler, C., & Suphan, A. (2013). The stress potential of social media in the workplace. Informa-
tion, Communication and Society, 16(10), 1639–1667.
Canadian Association of Social Workers (2014). Social media use and social work practice. Canadian
Association of Social Workers. Available at www.casw-acts.ca/sites/default/files/Social%20Media%20
Use%20and%20Social%20Work%20Practice.pdf.
Care Council for Wales (2015). Practice guidance for social workers. Available at www.ccwales.org.uk/
practice-guidance-for-social-workers/.
CEOP Command. (2015). www.ceop.police.uk/
Cooner, T. S. (2011). Learning to create enquiry-based blended learning designs: Resources to develop
interdisciplinary education. Social Work Education, 30(3), 312–330.
Cooner, T. S. (2013a). Social work social media app. Available at https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/
social-work-social-media/id656114442?mt=8.
Cooner, T. S. (2013b). Using Facebook to explore boundary issues for social workers in a networked soci-
ety: Perceptions of learning. British Journal of Social Work, 44(4), 1063–1080.
Cooner, T. S. (2014). Using closed Facebook groups to teach social work skills, values and approaches for
social media. In J. Westwood (Ed.), Social media in social work education (pp. 29–39). Northwich Cheshire,
UK: Critical Publishing.
Cooner, T. S. (2015). Social media: Connecting social work students internationally. Available at https://
storify.com/Akali65/connecting-social-work-students-through-social-med.
Cooner, T. S., & Hickman, G. (2008). Child protection teaching: Students’ experiences of a blended learn-
ing design. Social Work Education:The International Journal, 27(6), 647–657.
Deardorff, D. K. (2009). Understanding the challenges of assessing global citizenship. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The
handbook of practice and research in study abroad (pp. 346–364). New York: Routledge.
Doel, M., Allmark, P., Conway, P., Cowburn, M., Flynn, M., Nelson, P., & Tod, A. (2010). Professional
boundaries: Crossing a line or entering the shadows. British Journal of Social Work, 40(6), 1866–1889.
Fang, L., Mishna, F., Zhang,V. F.Van Wert, M., & Bogo, M. (2014). Social media and social work education:
Understanding and dealing with the new digital world. Social Work in Health Care, 53(9), 800–814. doi
:10.1080/00981389.2014.943455.
Fursland (2014). The IT crowd: How technology is helping children in care. Children and young peo-
ple now – Special report technology in care. Available at www.cypnow.co.uk/cyp/feature/1145511/
crowd-technology-helping-children-care.
Goldkind, L., & Wolf, L. (2014). A digital environment approach: Four technologies that will disrupt social
work practice. Social Work, 60(1), 85–87.
GWI (2014). Global device summary Q3. Available at www.globalwebindex.net/.
Hawkins, C.A., & Knox, K. (2014). Educating for international social work: Human rights leadership. Inter-
national Social Work, 57(3), 248–257.
Health Care Professions Council (2012). Focus on standards: Social networking sites. Available at www.
hcpc-uk.org/Assets/documents/100035B7Social_media_guidance.pdf.
Houghton, D.J., & Johnson, A. (2010). Privacy, social network sites, and social relations. Journal of Technology
in Human Services, 28(1–2), 74–94, doi: 10.1080/15228831003770775.
Insafe (2015). Available at www.saferinternet.org/online-issues/parents-and-carers/mobile-phones.
Iverson Hitchcock, L., & Battista, A. (2013). Social media for professional practice: Integrating Twitter with
social work pedagogy. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 18, 33–45.
Kilpeläinen, A., Päykkönen, K., & Sankala, J. (2011). The use of social media to improve social work edu-
cation in remote areas. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29(1), 1–12.
Kimball, E., & Kim, J. (2013). Virtual boundaries: Ethical considerations for use of social media in social
work. Social Work, 58(2), 185–188.
Lafferty, J. (2015). Social times: Young people more likely to use social media in developing countries.
Available at www.adweek.com/socialtimes/study-young-people-more-likely-to-use-social-media-in-
developing-countries/617242.
321
Joanne Westwood
Lupton, D. (2014). ‘Feeling Better Connected’: Academics’ use of social media. Available at www.canberra.
edu.au/about-uc/faculties/arts-design/attachments2/pdf/n-and-mrc/Feeling-Better-Connected-
report-final.pdf.
McKendrick, D. (2014). New technology in social work education: Blogs and blogging. In J. Westwood
(Ed.), Social Media in Social Work Education (pp. 40–52). Northwich Cheshire, UK: Critical Publishing.
Mishna, F., Bogo, M., Root, J., & Fantus, S. (2014). Here to stay: Cyber communication as a complementing
social work practice. Families in Society:The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 95(3), 179–186.
Mishna, F., Bogo, M., Root, J., Sawyer, J.-L., & Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2012). “It just crept in”: The digital
age and implications for social work practice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 40(3), 277–286.
National Association of Social Workers/Association of Social Work Boards (2005). Standards for technol-
ogy and social work practice. Available at www.socialworkers.org/practice/standards/NASWTechnol-
ogyStandards.pdf.
New Zealand Government (2011). Social Media in Government Web Toolkit. Available at https://
webtoolkit.govt.nz/guidance/social-media/.
Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Board (2015). Available at www.hscboard.hscni.net/.
Poore, M. (2014). Studying and researching with social media: Sage study skills. London: Sage.
Rochez, C. (2015). Historians of education and social media. Journal of the History of Education Society, 44(4),
405–414.
Rowan, D., et al. (2014). Social media and its impact on social development. In S. Hessle (Ed.), Global social
transformation and social action: The role of social workers. Volume 3: Social work – Social development. Surrey,
UK: Ashgate.
Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) (2012). What is social media? Available at http://workforce
solutions.sssc.uk.com/new/docs/What_is_Social_Media_-_transcript.pdf.
Smith, T., & Lambert, R. (2014). A systematic review investigating the use of Twitter and Facebook in uni-
versity-based healthcare education. Health Education, 114(5), 347–366.
Social Work/Social Care & Media (2015). Knowledge community of practice. Available at http://
swscmedia.com/.
Statista: The Statistics Portal (2015). Available at www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-
networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/.
Stevenson, D. (2014). Developing your social media presence: A guide to utilising social media tools for
foster care recruitment. The Fostering Network. Available at www.fostering.net/all-about-fostering/
resources/developing-your-social-media-presence-guide-utilising-social-media#.VXRCitJVhBd.
Taylor, A. (2014). When actual meets virtual: Social work book groups as a teaching and learning medium
in social work education. In J.Westwood (Ed.), Social media in social work education (pp. 7–16). Northwich
Cheshire, UK: Critical Publishing.
Taylor, A. (2015). Social work book groups: A space to develop our knowledge. Available at www.tcsw.org.
uk/standard-2col-rhm-blog.aspx?id=8589948591&blogid=24762.
Thackray, L. (2014). Obstacles to and engagement with social media. In J. Westwood (Ed.), Social media in
social work education (pp. 7–16). Northwich Cheshire, UK: Critical Publishing.
Turner, D. (2014). Creating #Team turner: An autoethnography of connection within social work edu-
cation. In J. Westwood (Ed.), Social media in social work education (pp. 63–73). Northwich Cheshire, UK:
Critical Publishing.
Voshel, E.H., & Wesala, A. (2015). Social media and social work ethics: Determining best practices in an
ambiguous reality. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 12(1), 67–76.
Westwood, J., Taylor, A., & McKendrick, D. (2014). Student social workers use of social media: Findings
from a cross national survey. In J.Westwood (Ed.), Social media in social work education (pp. 17–28). North-
wich Cheshire, UK: Critical Publishing.
White, D. A., & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement. First
Monday, 16. Available at http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3171.
Whose Shoes? (2015). Available at http://nutshellcomms.co.uk/.
Young, J. (2014). iPolicy: Exploring and evaluating the use of iPads in a social welfare policy course. Journal
of Technology in Human Services, 32, 39–53.
322
28
WEB-BASED SOCIAL WORK
EDUCATION IN THE
UNITED STATES
Jo Ann R. Coe Regan
Overview of distance education in social work

Higher education is undergoing a period of rapid change with the rise of new learning modal-
ities and technologies. Since the early 1980s, technology advances have created many more
opportunities for social work programs to deliver education in a variety of formats. Technology
has been used to deliver social work education, primarily through distance education modalities,
since the early 1980s and is an accepted part of social work education in the United States (US)
(Raymond, 2005). The term distance education has been defined as any formal approach to
learning in which the majority of instruction occurs while the educator is at a distance from one
another (Verduin & Clark, 1991; Raymond, 2005).
Distance education for social work education in the US has evolved in several different
phases as advances in technology have emerged. Early forms of distance education in social work
were traditional face-to-face formats at locations separate from the main campus (e.g. satellite
or off-campus programs). Often, the faculty traveled to the location to teach the class. Next,
social work programs integrated the use of interactive television (ITV), which allowed students
to view the instructor from a location off campus in real time so that faculty and students could
interact (East, LaMendola, & Alter, 2014; Moore et al., 2015). The increased use of technology
applications, computers, mobile devices, the Internet, and course management software systems
has led to the third phase of distance education, which has been described as “computer medi-
ated” instruction.The advancement and convergence of these technologies, particularly through
the World Wide Web (WWW), now includes programs offered completely in an online for-
mat. The improved access to broadband computer networks, continued enhancement in course
management systems, and creative use of multimedia tools such as streaming video, social media,
and online animations has provided social work educators a variety of new tools to develop
online social work courses (Coe Regan, 2013; Ouellette & Wilkerson, 2013).
Today’s technology-supported social work education has dramatically shifted towards Web-
based delivery. “Web-based learning environments” are vehicles for distance education char-
acterized by the use of computers and the Internet to deliver coursework (Wilson, 1999).
Web-based education is defined as the use of the WWW to create entire or partial curriculum
content that is available online (Coe Regan & Youn, 2008). Web-based education offers learners
323
Jo Ann R. Coe Regan
access to instructional resources that surpass the reach of traditional classrooms. Learning expe-
riences can be open, flexible, and distributed.
Web-based education is being used in a number of different social work programs and course
formats. Distance education programs in social work have typically used interactive compressed
video systems (e.g. ITV) to deliver coursework, but Web-based courses are now the primary form
of technology used to offer social work distance education courses (Raymond, 2005). Various
course formats that use Web-based learning are being developed by social work faculty. These
formats range from providing all or some Web-supported/Web-enhanced courses for traditional
face-to-face courses to totally online courses with Web instruction only. Hybrid courses are also
being developed that combine traditional instruction with Web-based instruction. Many distance
education programs use a variety of instructional media that blends technologies. For example, a
directory of distance/online social work programs in the US indicates that many programs still use
interactive television and online technologies (Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], 2015c).
A primary characteristic of Web-based learning environments is whether they are synchro-
nous, asynchronous, or a hybrid of the two. Synchronous learning environments involve the
learner and other learners or instructors being online and communicating at the same time.
Examples of these learning environments are two-way video classrooms (done through com-
puter conferencing systems), online chat rooms, and whiteboards. Communication in asynchro-
nous learning environments takes place over elapsed periods of time, as opposed to real time.
Learning environments in which students log on, view and read postings, submit assignments,
and that do not use synchronous chat and whiteboard features are examples of asynchronous
learning environments. These environments generally allow students the ability to access and
download the course materials, which allow for several advantages over their synchronous
counterparts in that they do not require students to be online at the same time as other stu-
dents or instructors. This allows students to perform their work at their own pace independent
of time and place. Hybrid technologies allow for Web-based learning environments that use a
combination of synchronous and asynchronous teaching and learning activities. Course Man-
agement Software systems (e.g. Blackboard) are software packages that bundle instructional
technology tools such as e-mail, whiteboard, discussion/bulletin boards, virtual classroom via
chat, and classroom management tools, which have helped to make it easier for faculty to use
hybrid technologies in developing courses.These systems allow instructors to display the course
content of their class to students, such as grades, readings, and PowerPoint type presentations
via a secure Web site.
A new trend developing in hybrid technologies is the use of Web conferencing software tools
(e.g. Adobe Connect, Zoom, WebEx meeting) that provide audio and video delivered over the
Internet and have features such as shared whiteboards, document sharing, presentations, instant
polling, text, and sidebar chat that allow for most activities found in a traditional classroom with
modifications for online but mostly synchronous activities. New technologies such as wireless,
mobile laptop computing, personal digital assistants (PDAs), videoconferencing/video streaming
on the Web, pod casting, virtual reality, and gaming environments are also influencing how social
work education is being delivered. The use of cell phones, tablets, and other technology media
to access class lectures, the creation of virtual client systems, communities, and agencies through
online digital worlds (e.g. Second Life, avatars) for field experiences, and the development of
Web-based social work practice (i.e. Internet counseling) are examples of the current and future
trends for social work education (Coe Regan, 2013). Another trend in higher education is mas-
sive open online courses (MOOCs), which is a specialized form of Web-based education. They
are massive for enrollment numbers, open, and emphasize flexible interaction (Gates & Walters,
2015).
324
Web-based social work education
Overview of distance education for social work education

Several studies have been conducted in the past 15 years to document the prevalence and types
of distance education delivery in US schools of social work (Wilke & Vinton, 2006; Vernon
et al., 2009). In 2006, approximately one-fourth of Master of Social Work (MSW) programs
were offering some form of distance education, and 15% were offering at least one online
course. In 2009, 41% of Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and 52% of MSW programs reported
use of distance education technology in course delivery, and 21% indicated that they intended
to offer complete degree programs in the future.
A national survey of 121 deans/directors of US schools of social work found that 68% of
MSW programs offered some type of distance education to their students (East et al., 2014). Of
these 82 programs, 42 offered programs at other locations distant from the main campus and 66
offered one or more Web-based courses. The total number of online courses was 218, with an
average of 3.3 courses for each program. Off-site or satellite programs were the primary type of
technology used for distance education programs. However, three schools indicated that they
offer an MSW degree online, which was defined as 60% or more courses offered in a Web-based
format. Also, in response to the question on whether a program had plans to establish an online
MSW program in the next five to eight years, 19% of the sample indicated they were planning
to offer their program online.
The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) is the national association for schools of
social work in the US that maintains a directory of accredited social work programs offering dis-
tance education programs (CSWE, 2015c). Representatives from accredited programs who have
had their distance education components reviewed through either major change reports or reaf-
firmation review for accreditation can have their programs added to the list. The listing indicates
information regarding for whom the program is offered and the methodology used. Although not
exhaustive, the list indicates 7 BSW and 37 MSW programs offering distance education/online
delivery formats. All of the descriptions include references to online or Web-based components,
with many indicating that they are fully online, requiring no on-campus component, with field
requirements taking place in the student’s geographical area (CSWE, 2015c; Moore et al., 2015).
The Annual Survey of Social Work Programs is a census of accredited social work programs
in the US and its territories, conducted by the CSWE since 1952. Data collected in the online
Annual Survey are the primary sources of information about social work education in the US.
In the 2014 report (CSWE, 2015a), the data in Table 28.1 was reported regarding online or
hybrid offerings in accredited US social work programs.
Table 28.1 Availability of online or hybrid courses by program level
Response Program level
Baccalaureate Master’s
Number % Number %
Yes, the entire program is available online 9 1.8 27 11.8

Yes, part of the program is online or hybrid 162 32.9 106 46.5
No, but online or hybrid courses will be in operation next academic year 7 1.4 15 6.6
No, but online or hybrid courses are being developed 51 10.4 28 12.3
No 263 53.5 52 22.8
Programs reporting 492 228
325
Jo Ann R. Coe Regan
As the data indicate, almost 80% of accredited BSW and MSW programs offer part of their
program in an online or hybrid format. Fourteen percent of these programs state their entire
program is online, particularly at the master’s level. All of these studies and the most recent sta-
tistics indicate that Web-based education for delivering social work education programs in the
US is increasing and will continue to grow.
Implications of Web-based education in social work

The implications of using technology in social work education include educational quality
issues, pedagogical, and philosophical concerns. There is much debate as to the effectiveness and
practicality of Web-based education for social work, as well as resistance by social work educa-
tors and practitioners. With a focus on human interaction and hands-on teaching of practice
skills in social work education, Web-based education can seem incompatible with social work
education. The recent developments in hybrid approaches and synchronous technologies for
these technology-enhanced learning environments can help to overcome concerns about lack
of interaction and relationship building needed to teach social work practice skills (Coe Regan,
2013).
As distance education has evolved in social work education, early evaluative studies have
been completed by social work programs focusing on the effectiveness of distance education
programs. Most of these studies compared distance learners with on-campus learners in terms
of satisfaction with the program, instruction, learning environment, and student outcomes and
found no significant differences between groups (Forster & Rehner, 1998; Thyer et al., 1998;
Coe & Elliott, 1999; Peters, 1999; Freddolino & Sutherland, 2000; Petracchi & Patchner, 2000;
Macy et al., 2001; Seabury, 2003; Bellefeuille, 2006; Siebert, Siebert, & Spaulding-Givens, 2006;
Siebert & Spaulding-Givens, 2006). These studies helped to establish the credibility of distance
education, and these programs have been accepted as a valuable education option (Abels, 2005;
Raymond, 2005). However, many of the studies indicated that students tended to rate the Web-
based and/or distance education learning environment lower when compared with other for-
mats, as students indicated they preferred in-person interaction with faculty and students (Coe
Regan & Youn, 2008).
With the growth of Web-based education to deliver social work courses and programs since
the mid-2000s, studies focusing on effective pedagogical strategies have increased (Ouellette &
Wilkerson, 2013). One of the benefits of focusing on new evaluative methods is the potential for
finding new ways to teach social work skills in Web-based education formats. Ideally, evaluation
efforts should move beyond the comparison to face-to-face teaching to determining “what can
be” with Web-based learning environments rather than “what has been” (Twigg, 2001).
Many studies in social work now focus on identifying effective instructional e-learning strat-
egies based on research-informed guidelines (Seabury, 2003; Ouellette et al., 2006; Wilke, Ran-
dolph, and Vinton, 2009). These studies identify various theoretical models and concepts that
certain types of Web-based techniques may be effective in ways that do not exist in traditional
classroom formats. For example, text-based chatrooms on the Web and multimedia programs
have shown positive results when used with discussion of sensitive topics and often enhance
the teaching of clinical skills in a manner not available in the face-to-face learning environ-
ment (Coe Regan & Youn, 2008). A recent study on how to develop social presence in online
teaching and learning in social work offers an antidote to skepticism of online learning (Bentley,
Secret, & Cummings, 2015). Quality Matters, a national consortium of organizations and edu-
cators concerned with upholding quality in online education, has developed rubric standards
for online courses that can be used to develop strategies that enhance teaching and learning in
326
Web-based education for social work (Quality Matters, 2013). Finally, CSWE’s Commission
on Accreditation, the accrediting body for social work education in the US, has developed
accreditation standards focused on outcomes rather than process (CSWE, 2015).With a focus on
attainment of social work competencies, it is hoped that a new trend in the research will focus
on the advantages and benefits of a particular delivery method rather than just comparing for-
mats. Future studies can focus on determining how Web-based education in social work meets
the competency standards required by CSWE in order to be an accredited program in the US
(Ouellette & Wilkerson, 2013).
Despite the amount of research done on assessing the effectiveness of Web-based education
in social work, continuing resistance by social work educators exists about using Web-based
learning environments to teach social work practice skills (Coe Regan, 2013; Allen & Seaman,
2013). Siegel et al. (1998) found that social work educators have a bias against offering practice
or methods courses via distance education technology, since many of them feel that practice
skills can only be taught in person. Moore’s (2005) study on faculty perceptions of Web-based
education suggested continuing residual resistance, as many social work educators perceived
Web-based education to be less effective than face-to-face instruction, particularly in the area of
practice courses and teaching clinical skills.
This theme of technological resistance is important as it has been present throughout the
historical development of distance education and in later Web-based education (Coe Regan &
Youn, 2008).This theme is also evidenced in the social work practice community as summarized
by the Clinical Social Work Association (CSWA, 2013) in the US:
Many social workers are concerned that the relational skills and integrative knowl-
edge essential in social work practice are difficult, if not impossible, to convey in dis-
tance education formats where there is little or no in-person dialogue between faculty
and students. Social work is an essentially relational enterprise; social work education
should entail this same relational quality to achieve consistency and quality. CSWA is
concerned about the ability of online MSW programs to adequately monitor their
students’ progress in both academic and field education settings. This is particularly
problematic in field internships where online education programs must quickly estab-
lish connections with field supervisors in agencies in distant communities without
longstanding relationships between agencies and professional schools. CSWA also con-
sidered various ethical concerns implicit in online professional education.
(CSWA, 2013: 2)
CSWA states in their report that distance learning has a role in twenty-first-century graduate
social work education, but only to augment in-person graduate social work education (CSWA,
2013). Despite the growing number of online social work programs in the US, it is clear from
the review of literature that this resistance will continue.
Future trends and challenges for Web-based social work education in the US
The history of distance education in social work and evolution towards Web-based education
used by social work programs in the US has led to the development of a coherent body of
knowledge to support the delivery and adoption of teaching and learning in these formats.
Shifting social work education from a traditional model of face-to-face instruction to Web-
based education has its challenges. The shift to new educational paradigms and assessing the
processes and outcomes of this shift needs continuing examination. Furthermore, implications
327
Jo Ann R. Coe Regan
for students and faculty engaged in teaching and learning in these Web-based learning envi-
ronments (i.e. increased surveillance by administrators, student privacy, and online assessment
of courses) also need to be explored. Web-based learning environments can allow for a class or
entire course to be recorded and packaged in such a way so the instructor could be completely
out of the picture. The role of the educator moves from being the sole provider to a facilitator
or enabler in the learning process. Students also take more responsibility for their learning in
Web-based education learning environments (Ouellette & Rank, 2000). All of these issues need
to be addressed, as they have implications for the future of social work education.
Another challenge is the increased research needed to assess the processes and student learn-
ing outcomes in Web-based education formats. A number of areas have been identified by
researchers as needing further investigation.Variables identified as important to Web-based edu-
cation include what specific technology is best for student learning, learner characteristics, fac-
ulty concerns and characteristics, online pedagogical strategies, content area of courses, building
community in online communities, and conceptual and organizational frameworks for quality
Web-based programs (Ouellette & Wilkerson, 2013). Although the revised CSWE educational
policy and accreditation standards (EPAS) emphasized assessment of student learning, very little
guidance is provided on how to do this kind of assessment practice, particularly for Web-based
education. As with other professions, social work needs to develop best practices in assess-
ing social work competence. Developing an inventory of successful assessment practices is an
important focus as social work education moves forward with Web-based education to deliver
courses and programs of social work in the US.
The review of the literature indicates many of the Web-based social work education pro-
grams in the US do not address theoretical models used in their online teaching and learning
activities. The further development of Web-based learning environments to deliver social work
education should focus on best practices for social work educators to discover new and better
ways to provide Web-based learning opportunities to social work students (Coe Regan & Youn,
2008). The use of these environments should bring new theories and models not considered by
traditional theories that rely on face-to-face teaching. Examples of this are MacFadden’s (2005)
Constructivist, Emotionally-Oriented (CEO) Model of Web-Based Instruction and Bentley
et al.’s (2015) model for focusing on social presence in Web-based education. Both of these stud-
ies offer models and guidelines for Web-based learning environments to enhance such concepts
as emotional capacity and social presence. Models for creating and developing Web-based social
work education programs can be constructed to guide the program development for social work
programs considering whether or not to create an online program (Moore et al., 2015).
Other recommendations include leadership development to help schools of social work
transform models of curriculum delivery with research findings on best practices and to develop
protocols and criteria for excellence in Web-based education for social work. A new initiative
between CSWE and the Indiana University School of Social Work in 2015 convened a social
work distance education conference, with the conference proceedings available online (Indiana
University, 2015). This conference brought together over 400 social work educators to share
models and best practices in Web-based education, and it will be continued on an annual basis.
Future trends in teaching through the use of Web-based education indicate tremendous
possibilities and changes for social work education. Social work programs in the US are now
delivering their entire social work program and field experiences in a Web-based environment.
New program delivery options and formats will likely change the landscape for Web-based
social work education programs as these programs evolve. For example, what future trends
can we expect in areas such as pedagogy and course formats as new technologies evolve?
Will collaborative models of community learning, as represented in MOOCs and focus on
328
competency-based education models, further enhance the development of Web-based educa-

tion? Will these programs be more university-centric or teacher/learner-centric? The contin-
uum of delivery systems for social work education will continue to grow. Improved pedagogical
strategies will be research-informed and likely focused on learning outcomes (competencies)
and skills performance. Creating effective online teaching and learning strategies will require
that social work educators work with a variety of colleagues such as course designers, technical
consultants, and graphics designers to create quality Web-based education environments (Ouel-
lette & Wilkerson, 2013).
Conclusion
There is no doubt that new developments in technology will make Web-based social work
education more effective and widespread. However, it is important that these rapid develop-
ments in technology be tempered with careful planning, evaluation, and research as to the most
effective and ethical methods for delivering this type of education, which incorporates relevant
theory, concepts, and methods for teaching in a Web-based learning environment. Social work
educators should be on the forefront of taking advantage of these technological developments
to discover new and better ways of providing education to social work students. Although more
work needs to be done, the use of Web-based education for social work education indicates that
social work programs, faculty, and administrators have taken up the challenge to improve the
assessment of student competence to prepare students for professional social work practice and
improve the quality of social work education in the US.
References
Abels, P. (2005). The way to distance education. In P. Abels (Ed.), Distance education in social work: Planning,
teaching, and learning (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course:Ten years of tracking online education in the United States
[online]. Available at http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/survey_report/changing-course-ten-years-
tracking-online-education-united-states/ [Accessed 12 September 2015].
Bellefeuille, G. L. (2006). Rethinking reflective practice education in social work education: A blended
constructivist and objectivist instructional design strategy for a Web-based child welfare practice course.
Bentley, K. J., Secret, M. C., & Cummings, C. R. (2015).The centrality of social presence in online teaching
and learning in social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(3), 494–504.
Clinical Social Work Association (CSWA) (2013). Report on online MSW programs. Unpublished report
from CSWA Distance Learning Committee, Garrisonville,VA.
Coe, J. R., & Elliott, D. (1999). An evaluation of teaching direct practice courses in a distance education
program in rural settings. Journal of Social Work Education, 35(3), 353–365.
Coe Regan, J. R. (2013). Technology in social work education. In T. Mizrahi & L. Davis (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of Social Work (20th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Coe Regan, J. R., & Youn, E. (2008). Past, present, and future trends in teaching clinical skills through
Web-based learning environments for distance education. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2), 95–116.
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) (2015a). CSWE dashboard indicators. [online] Available at
www.cswe.org/About/AnnualReports/70630.aspx [Accessed 12 August 2015].
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) (2015b). Educational policy and accreditation standards.
[online] Available at www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=81660 [Accessed 11 August 2015].
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) (2015c). Online and distance education. [online] Availa-
ble at www.cswe.org/Accreditation/Information/OnlineandDistanceEducation.aspx [Accessed 11
August 2015].
East, J. F., LaMendola, W., & Alter, C. (2014). Distance educational and organizational environment. Journal
of Social Work Education, 50(1), 19–33.
329
Jo Ann R. Coe Regan
Forster, M., & Rehner,T. (1998). Part-time MSW distance education program: A program evaluation. Com-
puters in Human Services, 15(2–3), 9–21.
Freddolino, P. P., & Sutherland, C. A. (2000). Assessing the comparability of classroom environments in
graduate social work education delivered via interactive television. Journal of Social Work Education, 36,
115–129.
Gates, T. G., & Walters, A. (2015). Massive open online courses (MOOCs) in social work education: Impli-
cations for online education. Advances in Social Work, 16(1), 184–201.
Indiana University School of Social Work (2015). Social work distance education conference. [online].
Available at http://swde.iu.edu/index.php [Accessed 11 August 2015].
MacFadden, R. (2005). Souls on ice: Incorporating emotion in Web-based education. Journal of Technology
in Human Services, 23(1), 79–98.
Macy, J. A., Rooney, R. H., Hollister, C. D., & Freddolino, P. P. (2001). Evaluation of distance education
programs in social work. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 18(3–4), 63–84.
Moore, B. (2005). Faculty perceptions of the effectiveness of Web-based instruction in social work educa-
tion: A national study. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 23(1–2), 53–66.
Moore, S. E., Golder, S., Sterett, E., Faul, A. C.,Yankelov, P., Mathis, L.W., & Barbee, A. P. (2015). Social work
online education: A model for getting started and staying connected. Journal of Social Work Education,
51(3), 505–518.
Ouellette, P., & Rank, M. (2000). Transitioning from teaching to life-long learning: Towards yet another
paradigm shift. Journal of Family Social Work, 5, 57–73.
Ouellette, P., Westhuis, D., Marshall, E., & Chang, V. (2006). The acquisition of social work interviewing
skills in a Web-based and classroom instructional environment: Results of a study. Journal of Technology
in Human Services, 24, 53–76.
Ouellette, P. M., & Wilkerson, D. (2013). Social work education: Electronic technologies. In T. Mizrahi & L.
Davis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social work (20th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Peters, B. (1999). Use of the Internet to deliver continuing education in social work practice skills: An
evaluative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas.
Petracchi, H. E., & Patchner, M. A. (2000). Social work students and their learning environment: A com-
parison of interactive television, face-to-face instruction, and the traditional classroom. Journal of Social
Work Education, 36, 335–346.
Quality Matters (2013). Quality Matters program: A national benchmark for online course design. [online]
Available at www.qualitymatters.org [Accessed 11 August 2015].
Raymond, F. B. (2005). In P. Abels (Ed.), Distance education in social work: Planning, teaching, and learning
(pp. 23–40). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.
Seabury, B. A. (2003). On-line, computer-based, interactive simulations: Bridging classroom and field. Jour-
nal of Technology in Human Services, 22(1), 29–48.
Siebert, D. C., Siebert, C. F., & Spaulding-Givens, J. (2006). Teaching clinical social work skills primarily
online: An evaluation. Journal of Social Work Education, 42, 325–336.
Siebert, D. C., & Spaulding-Givens, J. (2006). Teaching clinical social work skills primarily online: A case
example. Social Work Education, 25(1), 78–91.
Siegel, E., Jennings, J. G., Conklin, J., Napoletano, F., & Shelly, A. (1998). Distance learning in social work
education: Results and implications of a national survey. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 71–81.
Thyer, B. A., Artelt,T., Markward, M. K., & Dozier, C. D. (1998). Evaluating distance learning in social work
education: A replication study. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 291–296.
Twigg, C. (2001). Innovations in online learning. Moving beyond no significant difference. [online] Availa-
ble at www.thencat.org/Monographs/Innovations.html [Accessed 11 August 2015].
Verduin, J. R., & Clark, T. A. (1991). Distance education: The foundations of effective practice. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Vernon, R.,Vakalahi, H., Pierce, D., Pittman-Munke, P., & Adkins, L. (2009). Distance education programs
in social work: Current and emerging trends. Journal of Social Work Education, 45, 263–276.
Wilke, D. J., Randolph, K. A., & Vinton, L. (2009). Enhancing Web-based courses through a mutual aid
framework. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29(1), 18–31.
Wilke, D., & Vinton, L. (2006). Evaluation of the first Web based advanced standing MSW program. Journal
of Social Work Education, 42, 607–620.
Wilson, S. (1999). Distance education and accreditation. Journal of Social Work Education, 35, 326–330.
330
29
ARTIFACTS OR CATALYSTS?
MOVING DOCTORAL
DISSERTATIONS FROM THE
SHELF TO THE COMMUNITY
Lucyna M. Lach, Sacha Bailey, Aline Bogossian, and David Rothwell
Introduction
Social workers have a decided professional and ethical commitment to the pursuit of social jus-
tice. Those who engage in obtaining a doctoral degree in social work have a particularly unique
relationship with this commitment that is qualitatively different from those who do not pursue
this degree. At some point, they must grapple with this difference and answer the question
about the relationship between their scholarly pursuit and the pursuit of social justice. In other
words, they must reflect on how the knowledge generated from their research will contribute
to and influence existing practice guidelines, future research, and policies that will benefit target
populations. If one accepts that this is indeed the case, then one may assume that the knowledge
gap fulfilled by a doctoral dissertation should have some kind of catalytic quality that informs
the social justice mission (IFSW, 2014). At a minimum, the social work doctoral dissertation, as
the culmination of a student’s scholarly work, should demonstrate the writer’s ability to conduct
independent research and to make an important and unique contribution to existing knowl-
edge and practice (Rothwell, Lach, Blumenthal, Akesson, 2015).While rates of successful degree
completion may address the former, evidence of the latter is more questionable. We know very
little about the extent to which social work doctoral research is published beyond the disserta-
tion, what the impact of doctoral research is, and how it contributes to social work knowledge
and practice (Maynard et al., 2012).
The purpose of this chapter is twofold: to describe the extent to which Canadian social
work doctoral dissertations contribute to other forms of knowledge beyond the dissertation
itself (i.e. publication and dissemination); and to prescribe two methods for ensuring that doc-
toral research moves beyond the proverbial ‘shelf ’ using a manuscript-based thesis method and a
community-based knowledge mobilization exercise.
Knowledge mobilization: the thesis and beyond

The written thesis is a manuscript that provides evidence of the doctoral student’s integration of
existing theoretical and empirical knowledge and, in most cases, the student’s capacity to inde-
pendently implement a research project and analyze and write up the data. Discussion should
331
Lucyna M. Lach et al.
generate a coherent reflection on the extent to which results have contributed to what was
previously understood or known. Until recently, this was good enough. However, Tri-Council
funding agencies, a major source of research funding for postsecondary institutions in Canada
(e.g. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [SSHRC] and the Canadian Institutes
for Health Research [CIHR]) have increasingly placed emphasis on demonstrating the proposed
‘impact’ of knowledge generated from publicly funded research.This imperative applies not only
to established social work scholars but also to doctoral students who are required in their appli-
cations for funding to articulate how the knowledge that they generate will be transformative
or catalytic.
To place this in context, Canada has been an international pioneer in the field of knowledge
mobilization (KMb) (Graham et al., 2006), leading the health and social science community to
reflect on how it moves knowledge into action. As an applied discipline, social work KMb activ-
ities translate research knowledge to help stakeholders make sense of new information in their
real-world application, and help them apply that knowledge in their practice with individuals,
groups, and families, or at macro program and policy levels. This is entirely consistent with the
social justice mandate of social work.
We were interested in learning how findings from social work doctoral dissertations were
being developed as KMb activities, such as publication in peer-reviewed journals; books and
book chapters; presentations at conferences and community-based workshops; dissemination of
research briefs through social media or on websites; community outreach; and the education of
the next generation of social workers. In order to answer this question, we conducted an environ-
mental scan (Abels, 2002; Choo, 2001) of the KMb activities of Canadian doctoral dissertations.
Using our initial dataset of n = 248 social work dissertations published between 2001 and
2011 (Rothwell, Lach, & Blumenthal, 2013), we updated the dataset to include dissertations
published until February 2015.1 In order to trace KMb activities, we drew a stratified random
sample by research method (qualitative study, quantitative study, mixed method study), selecting
20% of dissertations per stratum. The sample resulted in 39 qualitative studies, 9 quantitative
studies, and 10 mixed methods studies, for a total stratified random sample of 58 studies. See
Figure 29.1, representing our decision tree.
Data collection: tracing KMb activities

In order to trace KMb activities, we examined the CVs of doctoral scholars through a com-
bined Internet search along with attempts to directly contact authors. Two research assistants
searched for KMb activities including peer-reviewed publications (national and international),
professional periodical publications, full books, book chapters, information sheets, research sum-
maries, reports, manuals, presentations at peer-reviewed conferences (provincial, national, and
international), other presentations, and/or other media activity.The initial search was conducted
in Google Scholar, where the name of the author was entered and online CVs or any references
that could be related to the dissertation topic were collected and entered into an electronic data-
base. A second search was conducted in the websites Academia.edu and ResearchGate.Third, we
searched for online CVs on university websites. Finally, we emailed authors directly to request
information about the KMb activities linked to their doctoral research.
Tracking authors and obtaining full CVs

Of our stratified random sample of 58 dissertations published between the years 2001 and
2015, 25 (43%) full CVs were either available online or obtained through direct contact with
332
Doctoral Dissertation Project Decision Tree
STEP 1
Electronic search in Proquest Dissertations and
Theses dB to locate Canadian social work theses
published between 2001−2015
Total sample n = 289
STEP 3
Selection of random sample 20%
of studies from each data type
Qualitative studies
20% of qualitative
n = 195, 67% of total studies n = 39
sample
STEP 2 Quantitative studies
20% of quantitative STEP 4
Distribution of studies by data n = 44, 15% of total
studies n = 9 Total random sample n = 58
type (Qual / Quant / Mixed) sample
Mixed method studies

20% of mixed methods
n = 50, 17% of total
studies n = 10
sample
Data collection activities
1) Web search for
publication lists
2) Contact authors
3) Network contacts
Figure 29.1 Doctoral dissertation project decision tree

authors. Of the remaining studies, in 25 (43%) cases, partial CVs were located but no response
was received to email correspondence with authors requesting their full CV and a list of KMb
activities, and in 8 (14%) cases, authors did not have a web presence and did not respond to
email correspondence.Therefore, 57% of social work doctoral dissertation graduates did not have
adequate Internet presence to be able to generate an online representation of their work.
Knowledge mobilization activities

Doctoral graduates who engaged in traceable KMb activities produced a total of 158 activities.
Of the traditional KMb activities, n = 37 (23%) were in peer-reviewed publications, n = 20
(12%) were book chapters, n = 5 (3%) were books, n = 4 (2%) were in professional periodicals,
and n = 52 (32%) were presentations at peer-reviewed conferences (provincial, national, and
international). Other KMb activities included invited presentations (n = 12, 7%), other media
(e.g. radio) (n = 13, 8%) and, finally, publication of information sheets resulting in 15 traceable
activities (9%).
Limitations, challenges, and lessons learned

The environmental scan of KMb activities of social work doctoral graduates provided fodder
for reflection but was not without its limitations or challenges. For instance, our KMb data
collection method gave primacy to a web-based search that raised the possibility of missing
other legitimate and important KMb activities. As a result, we are wary of misrepresenting or
underestimating the productivity of Canadian social work doctoral graduates. While it was not
within the scope of our study, our environmental scan revealed that several social work doctoral
graduates have been very productive in topic areas outside of the dissertation topic, including in
the content areas of social work pedagogy and research methodology. These products were not
captured in our search. Moreover, our email exchange with a few colleagues revealed that our
search missed other important forms of KMb such as how findings influenced changes to BSW
and MSW curricula, practice, and policy. Also, because we examined solely those doctoral dis-
sertations that had been uploaded to the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database, it is likely
that we missed theses that did not appear in ProQuest.
Online presence of social work doctoral graduates

A striking finding of our search revealed that the online professional presence of Canadian social
work doctoral graduates was surprisingly low. Forty-three percent (43%) of doctoral graduates
had partial or select information posted on university sites, while fourteen percent (14%) were
not traceable online.
KMb activities reported on CVs, university websites, and other academic websites (such
as Academia.edu and ResearchGate) tend to be peer-reviewed publications, presentations at
peer-reviewed conferences, books, and book chapters. It is more difficult to locate informa-
tion on other sources of doctoral research dissemination conducted in less formalized settings.
This may lead to the skewed impression that social work research is primarily relegated to
academia and has little presence in non-academic/practice settings. For example, the few quali-
tative comments emerging from email exchanges with social work colleagues from our sample
highlighted how social work dissertation findings were used to inform direct clinical prac-
tice and were translated into standardized programs for social work with a target population.
Our search strategy would not have picked those up. Others self-reported how their doctoral
334
Artifacts or catalysts?
research methods training that led to the completion of their dissertation also informed robust
and funded research projects subsequent to graduation. Finally, doctoral research had informed
curriculum development, teaching training, and pedagogical mentoring.
What can help improve knowledge mobilization activities?

Why do some social work doctoral graduates consistently and routinely publish from their dis-
sertation while others do not? Part of the answer is associated with an institutional or discipli-
nary culture that promotes and supports research dissemination. Indeed, assistance, information,
and encouragement from a supervisor or committee chair has been associated with consistent
publication practices; the absence of an institutional strategy, policy, or support for the dissemi-
nation of research has been found to make a successful dissemination record a “hit or miss affair”
(Dinham & Scott, 2001). The publication culture of a discipline has also been associated with
increased confidence and propensity to publish. For instance, a comparison of the experiences
of doctoral students in the sciences versus those in education revealed contrasting patterns, writ-
ing cultures, and expectations between the fields (Kamler, 2008). For science students, writing
and publishing early and in international refereed journals, before the finished dissertation, is
an expectation of the field, while in education it is not. An analysis of supervision practices and
institutional supports available to supervisors and doctoral students might help us to answer this
question.
Using a manuscript-based approach for the social work dissertation

Drawing from the field of science, one innovative way to move social work doctoral research
from the ‘research lab’ to the field is for students to consider an alternate dissertation format. We
provide a rationale and discuss the benefits and inherent challenges for making the switch from
the traditional monograph thesis to the multi-article manuscript as a means for increasing the
rapid visibility of doctoral research findings.
Moving the doctoral student from novice writer to published author

Doctoral students, particularly those interested in remaining in academia, are strongly encour-
aged to publish their research whilst completing their degree, as doing so demonstrates their
potential to become productive scholars and to write successfully for an academic audience;
this places them at a competitive advantage when applying for a tenured academic position.
In a study of Canadian social work doctoral dissertations, 40% of students had publications or
presentations relating to their dissertation research prior to completion of their degree (Roth-
well et al., 2015). These findings demonstrate the motivation of doctoral students to establish
themselves as scholars, their desire to move their work into the field, and the commitment and
support from supervisors to ensure student publication activity. The journey to successfully
establish oneself as an independent and prospectively productive academic can be positively or
negatively influenced by a mix of variables, including the writing/publication culture of a given
discipline, student interest and readiness to publish, opportunities for student involvement in
research projects, and the ability of supervisors or other mentors to afford students with train-
ing and co-authorship opportunities. The novice doctoral student writer may feel untrained to
embark on the peer review process, especially when he or she has not completed enough inde-
pendent work to publish as a sole author. Opportunities to publish in a supported environment
through collaborations with supervisors, committee members, and other academics with whom
335
they may be connected through research assistantships may be helpful to launch these students.
If conducted equitably, the importance of these collaborations to launch one’s career cannot be
understated. In the absence of previously published work, doctoral students rely on their disser-
tation to demonstrate their ability to make an important and unique contribution to existing
knowledge in their particular area of study. The majority of students fulfill this requirement by
submitting a traditional dissertation in the monograph format. Those who later wish to publish
their findings will traditionally do so in the form of a book or by reformatting sections of the
thesis for article submissions to peer-reviewed journals.
An alternative format to the traditional dissertation is the manuscript-based dissertation, which
offers students the opportunity to purposefully write for scholarly publication. A manuscript-
based dissertation is comprised of a collection of thesis chapters that have either been submitted
or will be submitted for publication, formatted according to the manuscript thesis requirements.
Referred to as an article-based dissertation/thesis, publication-based dissertation/thesis, thesis
by publication, multi-paper format, or compilation thesis, this format has been most frequently
employed in the natural, medical, and engineering sciences, where emphasis is placed on a quick
turnaround of scientific findings which could potentially inform or advance the field.The prac-
tice is less common in social sciences and humanities disciplines, where there is a long-standing
tradition of employing the standard monograph format and where students are encouraged to
publish books from their findings.
Doctoral students in Canadian schools of social work have not yet embraced the manuscript-
based dissertation. In our review of Canadian social work dissertations published between
2001 and 2015, only 5 out of 293 were located in ProQuest as having been manuscript-based.
One was published in 2008 (McGill University), two were published in 2009 (UdeM and
University of Windsor), and another two were published in the years 2013 and 2014, respec
tively (McGill University). Yet, there are a number of reasons to choose this format over
the traditional dissertation. First, this method facilitates the dissemination of knowledge and
ensures that the knowledge generated through the dissertation is disseminated in a timely
manner. In doing so, the student researcher gets a head start in developing an academic profile.
Second, the production of the manuscript-based thesis offers training opportunities. By gear-
ing their writing for publication rather than institutional requirements for dissertation writ-
ing, students become familiar with the format, expectations, and processes of peer-reviewed
publication. Engagement with this process provides multiple direct and indirect benefits that
will be invaluable in the student’s future. Benefits include learning the rules of article sub-
mission, learning to communicate with an editorial board, and engagement with the revision
process, which will help prepare students for productivity requirements in academe. Third,
production of the manuscript-based thesis allows students to write as they go, which may
prove to be more manageable and specific. In this way, students may contribute to different
aspects of the field, both in terms of substantive knowledge through a comprehensive liter-
ature review or dissemination of partial findings, as well as by writing about novel research
approaches, research protocols, and commentaries. Doing so may result in their work reaching
a wider audience than can be achieved through the publication of a book or the publication of
research findings alone. Finally, and most importantly, the demonstration of productivity and
the dissemination of one’s work in this way will provide the student with greater exposure,
which may in turn facilitate or increase the student’s ability to procure research grants or a
position within academia.
Canadian universities typically provide guidelines for the production of the manuscript-based
thesis. For example, the dissertation requirements of McGill University stipulate that the dis-
sertation must 1) constitute original scholarship and be a distinct contribution to knowledge;
336
2) demonstrate familiarity with previous work in the field and an ability to plan and carry
out research, organize results, and defend the approach and conclusions in a scholarly manner;
3) clearly demonstrate how the research advances knowledge in the field; and 4) be written
in compliance with norms for academic and scholarly expression and for publication in the
public domain, and that the research itself meets the current standard of the discipline within
which it is produced [www.mcgill.ca/gps/thesis/guidelines/general-requirements]. In addition
to the requirements for the production of the traditional thesis, many universities have devel-
oped guidelines that specifically apply to the manuscript-based dissertation format. As these
requirements vary from one institution to the next, students must familiarize themselves with
the guidelines of their own university. For instance, McGill University’s guidelines for the manu-
script thesis stipulate that it can include the text of one or more manuscripts and that co-authors
on those manuscripts may comprise other students, research partners, or academics, though the
author of the dissertation must be the primary author for all manuscripts. In addition to rules
around authorship, McGill’s guidelines stipulate that the dissertation must not be formatted as
collection of manuscripts. Instead, the manuscript-based thesis must be presented as a cohesive
piece of work, documenting a single program of research, with connecting text between articles
[www.mcgill.ca/gps/thesis/guidelines/preparation].
A sample outline developed by the second author of this chapter (SB) for her dissertation
research is offered:
• Chapter 1: Introduction – Background and Overview

• Chapter 2: Article 1: A qualitative synthesis of the exploration of hope in studies of children
with Neurodevelopmental Diagnoses
• Linking statement
• Chapter 3: Article 2: Knowing, reflecting and doing: using constructivist Grounded Theory
to study hope among parents of children with Neurodevelopmental Diagnoses
• Linking statement
• Chapter 4: Article 3: The light at the end of the tunnel: experience of hope among parents
of children with Neurodevelopmental Diagnoses
• Chapter 5: General Discussion and Conclusion
The introductory chapter describes the rationale and objectives of the research and provides
background to the study.The second chapter consists of the first article, which in this case com-
prises a qualitative synthesis of the published literature in the substantive area of the dissertation.
This article fulfills the institutional requirements of providing a comprehensive review of the
relevant literature in the area of study. Chapter 3 presents Article 2, a reflective and methodolog-
ical account of the use of a particular approach (constructivist Grounded Theory, in this case) to
the dissertation study. Chapter 4, Article 3, presents the main conceptual findings of the empir-
ical study undertaken for the doctoral dissertation. This article utilizes a traditional empirical
publication format to convey the findings and is specifically structured toward the requirements
of the target journal to which the article is submitted. Finally, to satisfy the requirement of
presenting an overall scholarly discussion and final conclusion, Chapter 5 offers a general discus-
sion and conclusion. The linking statements between the three articles make explicit how one
informs the next. In this case, the literature review informs the methodological approach, the
rationale for the study, and the particular methods used. The findings paper (Article 3) naturally
flows from the methodology paper (Article 2). It is acceptable by some institutions (like McGill,
for example) that dissertation papers are longer and more detailed than manuscripts submitted
for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In order to fulfill institutional requirements, students
337
might, for instance, be required to offer more detail around the study methods than would oth-
erwise be expected due to word limit constraints of journals.
The manuscript-based format can be advantageous and practical for many doctoral students
seeking to establish a publication record prior to and shortly after completion of their programs
of study. However, this format is not without its challenges. One of those challenges or con-
siderations is the issue of authorship. As with any publication, authorship should be discussed
early on in the writing process. It is most often the case that the student is required to be the
primary author of each submitted article. Whether and in what order the supervisor, commit-
tee members, and others are listed on the manuscripts is a matter to be sorted out between the
student and the supervisor/committee. Another challenge is the lack of models or examples
emerging from social work programs from which students may draw to design their own
manuscript-based dissertation. Additionally, some institutions and schools of social work may
lack guidelines specific to this format. This means that the student may have to put in more
effort to locate examples of proposals and dissertations and may be required to go outside the
discipline to find them. Students who opt to use this format may face resistance from a number
of sources, including their department, faculty, committee members, supervisor, and colleagues.
Some committee members and supervisors may feel that the manuscript-based dissertation
places more of a writing burden on them than if the student elected to write a traditional
monograph dissertation, especially if they are being listed as co-authors. As such, they might
discourage students from choosing this format. Some might have the sense that this format is
either more or less work than a traditional format, which might also lead them to discourage
using it. Others still might feel that the traditional dissertation is a rite of passage and might not
value the manuscript-based format. Even if a committee is supportive of a student pursuing this
format, they may lack the experience to adequately supervise and support a student, placing the
student in a position to locate the information and educate their committee. Typically, it is the
supervisor and committee who guide the student to ensure that all requirements are met prior
to the dissertation submission. Students in this scenario may be uncomfortable with not being
able to turn to their committee for answers to specific questions about dissertation require-
ments and the evaluation process. Given the added complexity of designing a manuscript-based
thesis, the proposal stage of the doctorate may be more lengthy, as students must conceptual-
ize how their work will generate several articles. Again, in the absence of a pool of proposal
examples, students may experience difficulty in organizing a proposal that outlines the multiple
articles ahead of time. The publication of peer-reviewed articles does not guarantee that the
thesis will pass at the institution level. Many schools (e.g. McGill) state that publication or
acceptance for publication does not supersede the evaluation of the dissertation by way of the
university’s standard procedure. So, although a manuscript has been published, the university
still reserves the right to fail a dissertation that does not meet requirements. Finally, this format
may be better suited to some types of studies, areas of research, and methodological approaches
than others. Some research methods, for instance analysis of quantitative data, lend themselves
particularly well to the manuscript-based format since students are often working with datasets
that offer the prospect of several different analyses. Students can conceptualize each analysis as
an individual publication. In contrast, some studies, for instance those drawing from traditional
methodologies, necessitate the space a monograph thesis allows for the extended discussion of
the findings.
The manuscript-based thesis is a pragmatic option for some doctoral students seeking to
swiftly mobilize the knowledge generated over the course of their doctoral work. Many benefits
have been discussed here, as well as some of the challenges that may arise for those who elect
338
to use this format. The decisions and practicalities involved in applying this format should be
discussed early on in the doctoral program between the student and the supervisor and doctoral
committee and should continue from the proposal stage right through to submission of the
dissertation.
KMb exercise to practitioners

Up until this point, we have discussed trends in KMb activities among Canadian doctoral social
work graduates and have proposed different approaches to publishing the dissertation. In this
section we will share a new direction for knowledge mobilization drawn from our experience
of bringing doctoral dissertations findings to practitioners and service users in the field of pae-
diatric rehabilitation. Given the importance of doctoral dissertation findings for practice, we (a
group of researchers and doctoral students) recently engaged in an innovative KMb exercise at
a national conference, an activity that exemplified another method for taking doctoral findings
to the field. The CIHR Team in Parenting Matters!, an emerging team funded by the Canadian
Institutes for Health Research (co-principal investigator LL), was invited to present results of
this program of research to practitioners, policy makers, and parents associated with the Cana-
dian Association of Paediatric Health Centres (CAPHC). We presented commonly held ‘myths’
about parenting of children with neurodisabilities and doctoral research findings that addressed
these myths, and then invited participants to reflect on practice implications associated with
these myths using an interactive exercise.
There were over 100 participants in attendance, and four myths, reflective of commonly
held beliefs about parents and parenting children with neurodisabilities, were presented. These
included myths such as “parents who are hopeful are in denial”, “fathers are not interested in
being involved in their child’s care plan”, and “program and policy decisions are based on evi-
dence”. After each presentation, a question was posed to the group. For instance “how should
hope be integrated into clinical care?”, “how can we be more inclusive of fathers?”, and “if there
is ONE piece of information that policymakers should have, what should it be?”.
After each presentation, participants were asked to gather in small groups in order to reflect
upon and discuss the myth and findings. They were then asked to divide into groups of two in
order to generate practice implications for each myth and its evidence and to write their favour-
ite implication on an index card. Following that, participants were directed to walk around the
room exchanging index cards. After one minute, the moderator asked them to stop and form
new groups of two and to rate the recommendation written on the index cards in their hands
on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being the lowest endorsement and 7 being the highest. They were
asked to write down their rating on the back of the index card at each round. At the end of
four rounds, participants were asked to add up the ratings. The four top recommendations were
identified and shared with the group for each myth.
Following this, we generated a report that was distributed to all participants. Not only was it
an active workshop that built in a consensus-building process regarding best practices tailored
to the needs of participants, it also engaged participants to reflect on their taken-for-granted
assumptions and invited them to think about ways in which they could change their practice in
response to the knowledge generated by the doctoral students.
We have no way of knowing the extent to which their practices have changed. However,
we do know that those practitioners must, at a minimum, question the extent to which their
practice is consistent with the myths as opposed to the best practices identified through the
consensus-building process.
339
Conclusion
The social world is a rapidly changing place, and the issues and phenomena experienced by
individuals, groups, and communities served by social workers require informed, responsible,
and prompt attention and action. In this chapter we traced the knowledge mobilization activities
of Canadian social work doctoral researchers in order to illustrate the mechanisms with which
new knowledge has been conveyed to stakeholders of research and the broader academic com-
munity. Driven by two main aims, we first traced dissemination activities and then proposed two
methods that could help increase the productivity and reach of social work doctoral research.
The main knowledge mobilization activities employed by the Canadian social work grad-
uates are the traditional academic activities of publication in peer-reviewed journals and pres-
entation at peer-reviewed conferences. Much less evident is scholars’ use of alternative and
complementary methods of transmitting new knowledge such as publication in professional
journals or the use of social media or similar means to promote one’s professional biography,
research, and research interests.
We suspect that training in knowledge mobilization (KMb) is currently not a requirement
in doctoral programs. However, given the rate at which doctoral dissertations are published in
traditional vehicles of KMb, we highly recommend that this be integrated into doctoral educa-
tion. We suggest the manuscript-based thesis as one fruitful option for extending the reach of
the social work doctoral dissertation format and promoting the practice of ongoing writing and
peer feedback. We also suggest that moving research findings, in snippets, to people delivering
and receiving services fosters the continuous and purposeful flow of evidence and helps build
meaningful connections between academics and their larger communities.
There are, of course, many challenges associated with this. Nevertheless, we think that it is
incumbent on doctoral programs to engage in reflection and program planning on how to move
social work dissertations from the shelf to the community to fulfill our mandate of social justice.
Note
1 We used a similar search strategy and screening/review procedure as in the first study and located an
additional 40 dissertations.
References
Abels, E. (2002, February/March). Hot topics: Environmental scanning. Bulletin of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 28.
Choo, C. W. (2001). Environmental scanning as information seeking and organizational learning. Informa-
tion Research, 7(1). Available at http://informationr.net/ir/7-1/paper112.html.
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2001). The experience of disseminating the results of doctoral research. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 25, 45–55.
Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W. and Robinson, N. (2006). Lost in
knowledge translation: time for a map? Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1) 13–24.
IFSW (2014). Global definition of social work (2014). Available at http://ifsw.org/policies/definition-of-
social-work.
Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyond the thesis. Studies
in Higher Education, 33, 283–294.
Maynard, B. R.,Vaughn, M. G., Sarteschi, C. M., & Berglund, A. H. (2012). Social work dissertation research:
Contributing to scholarly discourse or the file drawer? British Journal of Social Work. doi:10.1093/bjsw/
bcs172
Rothwell, D. W., Lach, L., & Blumenthal, A. (2013). Social work doctoral scholarship in Canada (Version V2).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Dataverse Network. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/21789.
Rothwell, D. W., Lach, L., Blumenthal, A., & Akesson, B. (2015). Patterns and trends of social work disser-
tations in Canada. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35, 46–64.
340
SECTION 6
Future challenges for

30
EDUCATING RESILIENT
PRACTITIONERS
Introduction
Social work requires practitioners to demonstrate resilience in the navigation of the environ-
mental and personal demands upon our professional activity. The focus on education for resil-
ience within the social work profession results from a shift in defining social work as a profession
of experts dispensing services (whereby the spotlight is firmly on the recipients of these services)
to an interactive systems understanding of engagement, the use of the self as a relational tool,
and an acknowledgement of the emotional content of the work (for instance, Morrison, 2007).
Social workers engage in complex, often high-risk and intense interpersonal decision making
that emphasises the use of the self in partnership with service users, often in contested or poten-
tially conflicted situations. Effective practice is now recognised as requiring social workers to
function in organisational settings where they must balance the tensions between community
and government expectations, public scrutiny and resource allocation, as well as engaging sen-
sitively and authoritatively with the challenges in the lives of service users (Badger, Royse &
Craig, 2008; Russ, Lonne & Darlington, 2009; Jack & Donnellan, 2010). This places substantial
emotional demands on practitioners and is likely to be one of the reasons practitioners become
psychologically distressed,‘burned out’, ill or leave the profession prematurely (Kinman & Grant,
2011).
Exposure to workplace adversities is now accepted as a challenge to the coping, retention and
effective performance of the social worker in practice and to the capacities of educational pro-
grammes to prepare graduates for this exposure (Collins, 2007; Morrison, 2007). These adver-
sities are variously documented as ranging from the absorption of the impact of service-user
trauma narratives (Bride, 2007; Agllias, 2010; Savaya, Gardner & Stange, 2011) to the challenges
of the organisational culture (Coffey, Dugdill & Tattersall, 2004; Ellett, 2009). These stressors can
result in compassion fatigue and emotional burnout, staff turnover and retention issues (with the
loss of professional expertise and institutional knowledge) for employers and agencies (Acker,
2004, 2010; Ellett et al., 2007; DePanfilis & Zlotnik, 2008; Kim & Stoner, 2008).
The chapter takes a broad ecological systems approach to the consideration of educating for
resilience. It considers first the rationale for resilience as a focus within social work education.
This includes acknowledgement of the contested terrain of social work, including its definition;
the ways in which its professional environment impacts upon practitioners; and the manner in
343
which educational programmes are envisaged and constructed. The lens of resilience as a means
of examining social workers’ abilities to develop and maintain sustainable coping strategies in
their work is examined and conceptually located. Resilience, we acknowledge, is a contested
notion, its meaning open to capture by competing interests. As Diprose (2015) suggests, it is a
term that can be used to justify intervening, or not intervening, to support change in peoples’
lives. Applying it to social work education, resilience can be constructed as a process whereby
students develop skills in managing workplace stress (see, for example, Kinman & Grant, 2011),
and as a demonstration of the reflective ability to critically deconstruct the social work role
within competing tensions of government, agency and community. Clarity over its definition
and conceptual identity is therefore crucial.
In our approach, resilience is conceptualised as a relational, dynamic and fluid process rather
than as an immutable set of skills or a static personality construct. Our chapter suggests that
educating for resilience within the educational setting therefore requires an interactive and
contextually aware approach that provides opportunity for students to link and develop existing
knowledge, skills, capabilities and reflective capacities with the new challenges of social work
practice. From the examination of resilience and its relevance for social work and its education,
the chapter leads into a discussion of the research base for the individual, relational and contex-
tual factors which emerge as important contributors to the development of robust graduates
able to survive and thrive in social work.
Who defines resilience? stakeholders and resilience in social workers

The concept of resilience in the research literature is an evolving and debated term, embed-
ded within broader scientific and intellectual developments that have seen the reduction of an
emphasis on pathology and an integration of systemic and constructivist influences. It is now
conceptualised as a dynamic interaction of the individual with the environment and the medi-
ation of multiple influences that sustain or erode strengths and resilience in the face of adver-
sity (Bottrell, 2009; Bonanno, Westphal, & Mancini, 2011). Current perspectives on resilience
embrace not only the relational and systemic dimensions of the wider family and social contexts,
but also acknowledge notions of hidden strengths (Ungar, 2004), socio-cultural interpretations
of our responses to adversity (Ungar, 2008), circular causality and the variability of positive
adaptation over time (Keenan, 2010). Correspondingly, the move towards a greater holistic and
ecological understanding of the multiple influences on social worker resilience has seen a shift
from a focus on the individual capacities of the practitioner (their personality, past experiences
and coping styles) towards the inclusion of the wider context such as social policies, resource
allocation, public perceptions of social work and organisational structures and systems. Signifi-
cantly, the interaction of the individual practitioner with this context has become the subject of
research investigation and consideration (Adamson, Beddoe & Davys, 2012; Grant & Kinman,
2014; McFadden, Campbell & Taylor, 2014). The dynamics of social worker resilience are now
recognised as being mediated by factors as diverse as access to effective professional supervision
(Beddoe, Davys & Adamson, 2014); the knowledge and skills acquired from education and sus-
tained by the availability and uptake of continuing professional development (Rixon & Ward,
2012; Moriarty & Manthorpe, 2013); team relationships and peer support; and the management
of work roles and commitments in balance with demands on the social worker from personal,
family and cultural systems (Fouché & Martindale, 2011).
There is significant philosophical synergy between social work thinking and current research
perspectives on resilience. Social work’s knowledge bias (Payne, 2001) of a worldview that spans
the micro to the macro gives us an affinity – aligned with complexity theories, strengths-based
344
Educating resilient practitioners
practice, the inclusion of indigenous worldviews and our values concerning social justice and
human rights – with research recognition that there are multiple predictors of positive out-
comes from adversity (Bonanno et al., 2011). Resilience is but one trajectory out of adversity
(Norris, Tracy & Galea, 2009), and one person’s resilience is not the yardstick for another’s
(Ungar, 2004). As a process within a complex system, a resilient move may, or may not, result in
positive and sustained change. Resilience – in service users, in social work students and in social
work practitioners – is thus not a unidimensional or linear concept, and this understanding
impels social work education to consider multiple developmental processes that assist future
social workers to identify, develop and sustain their resilience (de las Olas Palma-García &
Hombrados-Mendieta, 2014; Grant, Kinman & Baker, 2014; Rajan-Rankin, 2014).
Social work educators within the academy constantly manage the tensions between the
institutional requirements of academic achievement and the professional and developmental
processes of student learning. Ife’s (2010) construction of social work as encompassing knowl-
edge, values and skills, and Furness and Gilligan’s (2004) description of competence as a blend of
ability, knowledge and understanding, lend themselves readily to the inclusion of the demonstra-
tion of resilience as a key factor in sustained and effective practice in the workplace. Resilience,
as a dynamic and relational process, might best be evaluated through a matrix of factors such
as observable behaviour, the demonstration of positive attitudinal change and the assessment of
reflective/reflexive capacities, all of which the research indicates may contribute (but not in a
linear or positivist fashion) to the enhancement of resilience capacity over time.
There are, however, contextual constraints on our ability to freely utilise the concept of resil-
ience within social work education. Because of its person-in-environment, relational identity
(a strength from a social work standpoint), it is not a universally agreed term devoid of coded
meaning (Diprose, 2015). It is open to capture by competing ideological agendas, not all of
which are philosophically, economically or politically inclined either to recognise the contextu-
ally embedded and complex nature of human experience, or the obligations that such intercon-
nectedness demands. If there is no acknowledgement that the term ‘resilience’ can be used for
different purposes by different stakeholders, educators may run the risk of seeing the concept as
a ‘one size fits all’ approach to student development that not only ignores the current research
but risks imposing a perception of resilience that encourages accommodation or compliance
with practice, employment or social conditions. This may create a more rigid interpretation of
the ‘ideal’ social work graduate that does not facilitate the adaptability in practice required by
complex practice environments. Complex stakeholder relationships exist between social work
education, the representatives of the profession (the professional associations and regulatory
bodies), the employing agencies and the wider political environment. These relationships are
interdependent, which suggests the need for negotiation over the qualities and abilities of grad-
uates and the potentially contestable concept of the resilient practitioner.
The identity of social work as a professional discipline committed to principles of “social
justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities” (IFSW, 2014) in
itself creates tensions for any resilience focus within social work education. Policy makers and
employers, within what for most jurisdictions is currently a neoliberal environment, focus on
issues of competence in skills and knowledge, public accountability and statutory compliance:
employers thus expect that social work education should result in students capable of “hitting
the ground running” (Donnellan & Jack, 2015). This expectation that schools of social work are
able to graduate ‘complete’ practitioners, ready for anything, places considerable responsibility
on the academy and underplays the evidence that resilience is contextually determined. A social
work perspective and an understanding of current resilience research suggest that a practition-
er’s ability to withstand the adversity of complex social work environments is determined, to a
345
significant extent, not only by the individual graduate’s abilities but by the support and resources
within the employment environment. Critiques of the fit between social work education and
the demands of the employing bodies and wider political environment, such as the Narey report
into the education of children’s social workers in England (Narey, 2014), are often in contrast to
the profession’s construction of what contributes to the making of a social worker.
An illustration of this tension lies in social work education’s emphasis on critical reflection,
which is considered by many in the profession as the key tool for enabling practitioners to
develop a contextual understanding that enables and enhances resilience in the field. Such a
focus can be unhelpfully downgraded where there is a preferred emphasis on practitioner com-
pliance with tasks and the observable skills and performance standards required within organisa-
tional settings (Eadie & Lymbery, 2007; van Heugten, 2011; Morley & Dunstan, 2012). Indeed,
critical reflection, and the fostering of reflexive practice that scrutinises the causes of adversity
rather than its effects, may not be considered a foundational principle of social work education
within some policy environments. Employment within statutory settings, for instance, attempts
to shape the social work role to the services determined by government policy: the expectations
of social work graduates, schooled in the values of social justice and human rights, may be chal-
lenged. The assumptive link between resilience, critical reflection and social work’s core values
and identity (IFSW, 2014) is of course not linear or simple: there remains considerable scope
for social work education to provide research evidence regarding the complex relationships
between reflectivity, resilience and competence. This chapter addresses research evidence for
some of the core curriculum and programme design elements considered essential to contribute
to the development and maintenance of resilience for practice. A model for practice resilience
is first presented, followed by a consideration of specific curriculum content to be incorporated
into social work education.
Laying the groundwork for a focus on resilience in the social work curriculum
Described elsewhere in the literature (Adamson et al., 2012; Beddoe et al., 2011, 2014), an
interactive model for resilience in the social work profession is utilised here (see Figure 30.1).
It is suggested that its relational and contextually sensitive perspective can provide a framework
for developing students’ resilience within the social work curriculum. Alongside the concep-
tual framing of resilience, it proposes that resilience and other responses to adversities within
the social work experience are an expression of the dynamic and fluid relationship between
the individual qualities of the social workers (their personal attributes, histories and sensitisa-
tion to stress, and their moral and ethical codes); mediating factors (such as work–life balance,
Individual Mediang Pracce

factors factors context
Figure 30.1 A framework for resilience
346
developmental learning, coping behaviours and relational skills, supervision and peer support,
professional identity and roles, and the knowledge, education and theory utilised); and the prac-
tice context (the organisational structures, the political and legal context and the public and
community environments in which social work activity occurs).
Social work education and the teaching of resilience

Our research (Beddoe et al., 2011) supported findings reported by Kinman and Grant (2011)
and in Grant and Kinman (2011), whose work strongly argued that social work education can
contribute in several important ways to prepare social work students to be resilient practitioners.
We recommend the strengthening of these elements in social work qualifying education with
a triple focus. First, we consider the journey of the resilient student to resilient practitioner,
exploring the importance of giving students tools to develop their professional identity with
a realistic set of expectations about the career they are beginning. Second, we will describe
the components of a resilience knowledge base within the social work curriculum. Finally, we
will examine the importance of career-long strategies for maintaining resilience through post-
qualification professional development and supervision. We argue that beginning practitioners
must be well supported if they are to retain optimism and competence.
From resilient student to resilient practitioner

For teaching and learning about professional resilience to be transformative, rather than merely
informative, social work education can offer many opportunities for personal development. Such
preparation may provide some inoculation against future corrosive experiences (Grant et al.,
2014). Pedagogies for personal and professional development are generally diffused through-
out the curriculum rather than forming a discrete topic, as developing reflective practice has
become the norm to underpin the aims of integration of knowledge, skill and use of self (Mar-
lowe et al., 2014). Selection for admission or progress to field education may include exploring
information about potential students’ previous experience of challenges and how these were
managed. Evidence of dispositional optimism, hardiness (Collins, 2007, 2008) and human caring
(Ellett, 2009) should all be considered at the selection stage as significant predictors of resilience.
Increasing attention to ‘fitness to practice’ standards required by placement agencies, employers
and regulators means that educators may find themselves supporting and sometimes ‘counselling
out’ students whose resilience, through prior traumatic exposure, for example, renders them too
vulnerable or unsafe for practice (Elpers & Fitzgerald, 2012; Robertson, 2013). Such gatekeep-
ing requires transparent and fair processes and support systems, and identification of concerns
throughout a degree, not just in practicum (Elpers & FitzGerald, 2012).
Learning to reflect may be perplexing and challenging as well as stimulating, so needs to be
built up slowly (Yip, 2006). Social work students frequently face some difficult learning, such as
the painful realisation that, to some considerable extent, entering the profession separates social
workers from service users. Lehmann (2014), writing about working-class university students,
noted that some students can feel distanced from their community and family as a consequence
of studying at university, but at the same time feel like ‘outsiders’ in the university. Students who
have left care or been users of mental health services may feel their world is changing, and the
transition from service user to service provider can be difficult. Careful scaffolding of reflective
activities, such as journaling and writing critical reflections, can enable students to process these
changes in the relative safety of education and clinical placement (Marlowe et al., 2014). Related
to this, students will become aware of the public perception that social workers are seen as very
347
powerful even when they may often feel vulnerable in the face of client hostility, the corrosive
impact of critical media (Beddoe, 2003) and negative community perceptions (Shier & Graham,
2013). Social work organisations produce relentless demands and the pressure to ‘do’ rather than
think. A significant step forward may be the teaching of tools which students can implement
to ensure they get sufficient thinking time and support to develop tolerance of anxiety gener-
ated by constant exposure to emotionally charged situations (Marlowe et al., 2014). A common
“source of pressure arises from other professionals exhorting social workers to ‘do’ something”
(Ruch, 2007: 371). While personal skills and attributes can provide significant protections, it is
important for students to be made aware of the organisational responsibility to provide a safe
practice environment, to avoid the individualisation of responsibility leading to stress and anxi-
ety (Taylor, Beckett & McKeigue, 2008).
Our research (Beddoe et al., 2011, 2014) supported McAllister and McKinnon’s argument
that personal qualities such as adaptability, positive identity, using social support, personal coping
skills, spiritual connections, and meaning making in adversity can be strengthened by resilience-
enhancing focused educational experiences (McAllister & McKinnon, 2009). Building a ‘big
picture’ of the professional journey ahead is vital to developing a realistic professional self.While
most students enjoy their social work study, some students will experience stress, and Collins,
Coffey and Morris (2010) recommended that such students can learn positive coping from the
provision of support systems.
Recognising personal journeys and motivations and the need to process these forms a signif-
icant part of stress inoculation (Adamson, 2006). Developing a clear professional identity with an
understanding of the marginalised and contestable places in which social work resides (Beddoe,
2003) is challenging, frequently requiring educators not to ‘fudge’ the realities of practice while
being careful not to extinguish altruism and hopefulness. McAllister and McKinnon (2009)
recommend “Identity building work, in order to explore and articulate such questions as: Who
am I with this new professional identity? What do I believe in? What are my aspirations? What
will I stand up for?” (p. 375). An understanding of embodied cultural identity and the emotional
reactions and triggers attached to experiences of racism and other forms of discrimination is
also crucial to developing professional identity during the transition from student to practitioner.
This is supported by Rajan-Rankin (2014: 2439), who found that, while most students initially
thought revealing emotions during a professional encounter to be unprofessional, “there was
also an appreciation that acceptance of one’s own emotions as an integral part of their own self-
hood was essential in order to develop a resilient and professional persona.”
Our research also confirmed that exposure to positive role models is extremely important in
building a positive, resilient professional identity. McAllister and McKinnon (2009) describe the
importance of professional cultural generativity and fostering emergent leadership. Developing
social workers need to be prepared “to cope with more than present work challenges” (p. 375).
Our graduates are the future leaders, and we can assist them to build better workplaces. Model-
ling constructive practice requires opportunities to observe and contribute to learning how “to
act with engagement, respect and partnership” (p. 375). The provision of inter-year meetings,
shared meals and other activities as well as more formal peer mentoring can enable experienced
students to share their experiences with newer colleagues pre-placement and support the devel-
oping leaders.
Building a resilience knowledge base

A series of recommendations can be suggested as avenues for education-based opportunities
to develop those features identified as contributing to personal resilience.Van Heugten (2011:
348
47) asserts that social workers should not “stumble upon” concepts of burnout and stress
when already in a workplace. Curricula should address human resilience and coping, the
impact of trauma, including an understanding of the importance of self-care via recognition
of the possibilities of vicarious trauma and desensitisation (Miller, 2001; Breckenridge &
James, 2010; Grant et al., 2014). We recommend instruction about subjective well-being and
life domains and work–life balance (Fouché & Martindale, 2011). Teaching professional ethics
and, in particular, the importance of clear personal and professional boundaries contributes
to well-being and appropriate and safe use of self (Wendt, Tuckey & Prosser, 2011). Mind-
fulness (Chinnery & Beddoe, 2011; Shier & Graham, 2011; Marlowe et al., 2014) and other
awareness-enhancing techniques (see, for example, Mensinga, 2011, on yoga) can support stu-
dents to develop their capacity for deep reflection. Educators and practitioners demonstrating
altruism, setting a good example, mentoring, leading, coaching and motivating others model
virtuous activities encouraged in those entering the profession (McAllister & McKinnon,
2009: 376).
Teaching students about the value and importance of supervision in practice is also impor-
tant and creates a healthy expectation that this needs to be routinely provided by social service
organisations. In the literature and in our own research we have identified general agreement
that curricula should include explicit teaching of self-care, beyond the usual “stress and burnout”
workshops and exhortations to make sure supervision is accessed. Teaching students how to
maximise their use of supervision for life-long learning (Davys, 2007) and as an effective self-
care tool (Davys & Beddoe, 2009; Beddoe et al., 2014) is vital, and schools of social work need
robust processes to ensure students receive quality supervision. In an ideal world all students
would be allocated a supervisor to support them in their learning journey and to ensure they
graduate with the skills to assertively access and utilise supervision.
Field (practice) educators in our research often emphasised the importance of modelling and
encouraging self-care and fostering a long-term desire to develop through formal and experien-
tial learning (Beddoe et al., 2014). Participants confirmed the importance of social work educa-
tion promoting realistic expectations of the profession. While the retention of a hopeful stance
was vital, so was recognising ‘the big picture’ and the existence of social and political forces that
impose limits on what could be achieved within contemporary workplaces. An enduring belief
that they were ‘making a difference‘ was what enabled social workers to get up the morning
after a really bad day. A literature review conducted by Stalker et al. similarly found that child
welfare workers with emotional exhaustion could still find job satisfaction – what was essential
was the continuing belief “that one is truly helping vulnerable children and making a positive
difference in their lives” (2007: 188).
Post-qualification professional development and resilience

Our research has found that self-care and time for refreshment were vital and career-long activ-
ities (Adamson et al., 2012; Beddoe et al., 2014).Tools for developing self-awareness were linked
to strategies to ensure that social workers know when and how to enable the time for the think-
ing that is essential for safe practice. Given the substantial investment made by all the parties
to social work education, surprisingly little is done in many countries to support the needs of
newly qualified social workers, beyond an induction programme which may be offered by some
larger employing agencies. For those beginning work in smaller organisations, their support
needs will often be met by immediate colleagues and their supervisor. Access to further profes-
sional development may be limited, and continuing professional education in some countries is
frequently available only for those willing to self-fund and use personal leave.
349
Franklin (2011) characterises newly qualified social workers as ‘green’ (as in new, untested)
and presenting with a combination of uncertainty and enthusiasm. Field education supervision
will have inducted the new practitioner into the world of professional social workers. Their
practice will have begun to develop through interaction with experienced practitioners and ser-
vice users with frequent observation (Beddoe, 2015). Good placements will have provided the
opportunity to test students’ capacity to demonstrate reflexive, responsive and self-aware practice
at a beginning level. However, placement is not ‘the real thing’ and the early years of practice are
stimulating but very testing of resilience.
Several studies have been conducted about the experiences of early-career social workers,
with common findings highlighting the importance of supervisor and peer supports and the
presence of a learning culture in promoting practitioner well-being and retention. Retention to
practice, and indeed especially retention in challenging social work fields such as child protec-
tion, cannot ignore research that suggests beginning competence and readiness to work is not
in itself enough. What personal resilience has been built up by attention to coping strategies in
initial education must be supported by good induction, excellent supervision and support for
continuing education. Guerin, Devitt and Redmond (2010) noted that their study reported
many positive aspects of social work experienced by participants in their survey of graduates.
There were, however, concerns expressed about the negative impact of organisational features,
lack of support and exposure to service-user aggression. Chenot, Benton and Hansung (2009)
noted the significance of strong supervisory support in relation to retention, not only in a
particular agency but within the field of child welfare in general. The nature of organisational
culture is also a pivotal factor: supportive, learning and non-blaming cultures which offer pro-
active supports to new graduates will be more likely to retain them. In a very different Chinese
cultural and organisational context, Liu, Lam and Yan (2012) found supervision and induction
crucial to assisting new social work graduates to understand the work context there, especially
when they faced challenges to their emergent social work identities. In an international study
considering the work of novice social workers in three countries – Australia, England and Swe-
den – Healy, Meagher and Cullin (2009) also supported workplace changes to ensure caseload
volume, mix and intensity are carefully managed to ensure ongoing development of new social
workers rather than subjecting them to overwhelming pressure. Healy and colleagues made an
observation that junior doctors rotate through clinical domains over the first years of practice
and are not expected to be ready for every possibility, unlike social workers.
Ideally all new graduates would join a structured early career programme such as the En-
glish model reported by Carpenter et al. (2013). This programme included dedicated time for
professional development and supervision of the newly qualified practitioners, supporting mate-
rials for participants and comprehensive training for supervisors and programme coordinators.
Supervision is now strongly mandated in many countries, with licensing or full registration
requiring minimum hours of supervision in the period following qualification, thus ensur-
ing that supervision must be made available. However, research in several jurisdictions reports
practitioners were not receiving regular supervision (in Australia, Egan, 2012; in Australia and
the United Kingdom, Robinson, 2013; in England, Turner-Daly & Jack, 2014). Turner-Daly
and Jack (2014) reported that more than half of participants in their recent study indicated
that health and well-being was either dealt with in a rather superficial mode or was simply not
addressed. Manthorpe et al. (2013) sought the views of newly qualified social workers, managers
and directors on various elements of their support and development in their jobs. Among the
findings was that those who had less frequent supervision were less likely to feel they had a
manageable workload and were less engaged with the job. Clearly the profession needs to take
charge of this vital work to support the new generation.
350
Conclusion
Social work education plays an important role in ensuring that social workers graduate with
knowledge about the exposure to potentially harmful stress they will face by virtue of their
core tasks. Students are well served if their education has incorporated awareness of the risks of
stress and burnout, resilience-building activities and positive coping strategies and has exposed
them to positive modelling of supervision, supportive peer engagement and leadership. What
conditions the newly qualified face on entering the workforce may be beyond our control as
educators, but we can play a role in advocating for good, early-career supports and inculcating
a spirit of optimism and lifelong learning in our graduates. The next part of the journey of
the newly qualified practitioner requires professional and organisational commitment to safe
workloads, quality induction and commitment to ongoing supervisory support and meaningful,
continuing professional education.
References
Acker, G. M. (2004).The effect of organizational conditions (role conflict, role ambiguity, opportunities for
professional development, and social support) on job satisfaction and intention to leave among social
workers in mental health care. Community Mental Health Journal, 40(1), 65–73.
Acker, G. (2010). The challenges in providing services to clients with mental illness: Managed care, burn-
out and somatic symptoms among social workers. Community Mental Health Journal, 46(6), 591–600.
doi:10.1007/s10597-009-9269-5.
Adamson, C. (2006). Stress, trauma and critical incidents: The challenge for social work education. Social
Work Review, 18(4), 50–58.
Adamson, C., Beddoe, L., & Davys, A. (2012). Building resilient practitioners: Definitions and practitioner
understandings. British Journal of Social Work, 32(1), 100–117. 10.1093/bjsw/bcs142.
Agllias, K. (2010). Student to practitioner: A Study of preparedness for social work practice. Australian Social
Work, 63(3), 345–360.
Badger, K., Royse, D., & Craig, C. (2008). Hospital social workers and indirect trauma exposure: An explor-
atory study of contributing factors. Health & Social Work, 33(1), 63–71.
Beddoe, L. (2003). Danger and disdain: Truth or dare in social work education. Women in Welfare Education
(Australia), 6(Special Field Education Edition), 13–25. Available at www.aaswwe.asn.au/wiwe/default.
htm.
Beddoe, L. (2015). Social work supervision for changing contexts. In L. Beddoe & J. Maidment (Eds.),
Supervision in social work: Contemporary issues (pp. 82–95). London: Routledge.
Beddoe, L., Davys, A., & Adamson, C. (2011). Educating resilient practitioners. Social Work Education, 32(1),
100–117. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2011.644532.
Beddoe, L., Davys, A. M., & Adamson, C. (2014). Never trust anybody who says “I don’t need supervision”:
Practitioners’ beliefs about social worker resilience. Practice, 26(2), 113–130. doi:10.1080/09503153.20
14.896888.
Bonanno, G. A., Westphal, M., & Mancini, A. D. (2011). Resilience to loss and potential trauma. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology, 7(1), 511–535. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210–104526.
Bottrell, D. (2009). Understanding “marginal” perspectives: Towards a social theory of resilience. Qualitative
Social Work, 8(3), 321–339. doi: 10.1177/1473325009337840.
Breckenridge, J., & James, K. (2010). Educating social work students in multifaceted interventions for
trauma. Social Work Education, 29(3), 259–275.
Bride, B. E. (2007). Prevalence of secondary traumatic stress among social workers. Social Work, 52(1),
63–70. doi:10.1093/sw/52.1.63.
Carpenter, J., Patsios, D., Wood, M., Platt, D., Shardlow, S., McLaughlin, H., Haines, C., Scholar, H., Wong,
C., & Blewett, J. (2013). Early professional development pilot programme (First cohort 2009 to 2011): Final
evaluation report. London: Department for Education.
Chenot, D., Benton,A. D., & Hansung, K. (2009).The influence of supervisor support, peer support, and organ-
izational culture among early career social workers in child welfare services. Child Welfare, 88(5), 129–147.
Chinnery, S. A., &Beddoe, L. (2011).Taking active steps towards the competent use of self in social work.
Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, 13(1), 127–152.
351
Coffey, M., Dugdill, L., & Tattersall, A. (2004). Stress in social services: Mental well-being, constraints and
job satisfaction. British Journal of Social Work, 34(5), 735–746.
Collins, S. (2007). Social workers, resilience, positive emotions and optimism. Practice: Social Work in Action,
1(4), 255–269.
Collins, S. (2008). Statutory social workers: Stress, job satisfaction, coping, social support and individual
differences. British Journal of Social Work, 38(6), 1173–1193.
Collins, S., Coffey, M., & Morris, L. (2010). Social work students: Stress, support and well-being. British
Davys, A. (2007). Active participation in supervision: A supervisee’s guide. In D. Wepa (Ed.), Clinical supervi-
sion in Aotearoa/New Zealand: A health perspective (pp. 26–42). Auckland: Pearson Education.
Davys, A., & Beddoe, L. (2009). The reflective learning model: Supervision of social work students. Social
Work Education, 28(8), 919–935. doi:10.1080/02615470902748662.
de las Olas Palma-García, M., & Hombrados-Mendieta, I. (2014). The development of resilience in social
work students and professionals. Journal of Social Work, 14(4), 380–397.
DePanfilis, D., & Zlotnik, J. L. (2008). Retention of front-line staff in child welfare: A systematic review of
research. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(9), 995–1008.
Diprose, K. (2015). Resilience is futile: The cultivation of resilience is not an answer to austerity and pov-
erty. Soundings, 58(58), 44–56. 10.3898/136266215814379736.
Donnellan, H., & Jack, G. (2015). The survival guide for newly qualified social workers: Hitting the ground running
(2nd ed.). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Eadie, T., & Lymbery, M. (2007). Promoting creative practice through social work education. Social Work
Education, 26(7), 670–683.
Egan, R. (2012). Australian social work supervision practice in 2007. Australian Social Work, 65(2), 171–184.
10.1080/0312407x.2011.653575.
Ellett, A. (2009). Intentions to remain employed in child welfare: The role of human caring, self-efficacy
beliefs, and professional organizational culture. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(1), 78–88.
Ellett, A., Ellis, J. I., Westbrook, T. M., & Dews, D. (2007). A qualitative study of 369 child welfare profes-
sionals’ perspectives about factors contributing to employee retention and turnover. Children and Youth
Services Review, 29(2), 264–281.
Elpers, K., & FitzGerald, E. A. (2012). Issues and challenges in gatekeeping: A framework for implementa-
tion. Social Work Education, 32(3), 286–300. doi:10.1080/02615479.2012.665867.
Fouché, C., & Martindale, K. (2011). Work–life balance: Practitioner well-being in the social work educa-
tion curriculum. Social Work Education, 30(6), 675–685. doi:10.1080/02615479.2011.586566.
Franklin, L. D. (2011). Reflective supervision for the green social worker: Practical applications for super-
visors. The Clinical Supervisor, 30(2), 204–214. 10.1080/07325223.2011.607743.
Furness, S., & Gilligan, P. (2004). Fit for purpose: Issues from practice placements, practice teaching and the
assessment of students’ practice. Social Work Education, 23(4), 465–479. 10.1080/0261547042000245053.
Grant, L., & Kinman, G. (2011). Enhancing wellbeing in social work students: Building resilience in the
next generation. Social Work Education, 31(5), 605–621. doi:10.1080/02615479.2011.590931.
Grant, L., & Kinman, G. (2014). Emotional resilience in the helping professions and how it can be enhanced.
Health and Social Care Education. doi: 10.11120/hsce.2014.00040.
Grant, L., Kinman, G., & Baker, S. (2014). Put on your own oxygen mask before assisting others: Social
work educators’ perspectives on an “emotional curriculum”. British Journal of Social Work. doi:10.1093/
bjsw/bcu066.
Guerin, S., Devitt, C., & Redmond, B. (2010). Experiences of early-career social workers in Ireland. British
Journal of Social Work, 40(8), 2467–2484. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq020.
Healy, K., Meagher, G., & Cullin, J. (2009). Retaining novices to become expert child protection prac-
titioners: Creating career pathways in direct practice. British Journal of Social Work, 39(2), 299–317.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcm125.
Ife, J. (2010). Human rights from down below: Achieving rights through community development. Port Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
International Federation of Social Workers .(2014). Global definition of social work. [online] (Last updated
6 August 2014) Available at http://ifsw.org/policies/definition-of-social-work [Accessed 14 May
2015].
Jack, G., & Donnellan, H. (2010). Recognising the person within the developing professional: Tracking the
early careers of newly qualified child care social workers in three local authorities in England. Social
352
Keenan, E. (2010). Seeing the forest and the trees: Using dynamic systems theory to understand “Stress
and coping” and “Trauma and resilience”. Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment, 20(8),
1038–1060.
Kim, H., & Stoner, M. (2008). Burnout and turnover intention among social workers: Effects of role stress,
job autonomy and social support. Administration in Social Work, 32(3), 5–25. doi:10.1080/03643100801
922357.
Kinman, G., & Grant, L. (2011). Exploring stress resilience in trainee social workers: The role of emotional
and social competencies. British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 261–275. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq088.
Lehmann, W. (2014). Habitus transformation and hidden injuries: Successful working-class university stu-
dents. Sociology of Education, 87(1), 1–15. doi:10.1177/0038040713498777.
Liu, Y., Lam, C.-M., & Yan, M.-C. (2012). A challenged professional identity: The struggles of new social
workers in China. China Journal of Social Work, 5(3), 189–200. doi:10.1080/17525098.2012.721166.
Manthorpe, J., Moriarty, J., Hussein, S., Stevens, M., & Sharpe, E. (2013). Content and purpose of supervi-
sion in social work practice in England:Views of newly qualified social workers, managers and directors.
British Journal of Social Work. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct102.
Marlowe, J. M., Appleton, C., Chinnery, S.-A., & Van Stratum, S. (2014). The integration of personal and
professional selves: Developing students’ critical awareness in social work practice. Social Work Education,
34(1), 60–73. doi:10.1080/02615479.2014.949230.
McAllister, M., & McKinnon, T. (2009). The importance of teaching and learning resilience in the health
disciplines: A critical review of the literature. Nurse Education Today, 29(4), 371–379.
McFadden, P., Campbell, A., & Taylor, B. (2014). Resilience and burnout in child protection social work:
Individual and organisational themes from a systematic literature review. British Journal of Social Work.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct210.
Mensinga, J. (2011). The feeling of being a social worker: Including yoga as an embodied practice in social
work education. Social Work Education, 30(6) 650–662. doi:10.1080/02615479.2011.586562.
Miller, M. (2001). Creating a safe frame for learning: Teaching about trauma and trauma treatment. Journal
of Teaching in Social Work, 21(3–4), 159–176.
Moriarty, J., & Manthorpe, J. (2013). Post-qualifying education for social workers: A continuing problem or
a new opportunity? Social Work Education. doi:10.1080/02615479.2013.806468.
Social Work Education, 32(2), 141–156. 10.1080/02615479.2012.730141.
Morrison, T. (2007). Emotional intelligence, emotion and social work: Context, characteristics, complica-
tions and contribution. British Journal of Social Work, 37(2), 245–263.
Narey, M. (2014). Making the education of social workers consistently effective: Report of Sir Martin
Narey’s independent review of the education of children’s social workers. Available at www.gov.uk/
government/publications/making-the-education-of-social-workers-consistently-effective.
Norris, F. H., Tracy, M., & Galea, S. (2009). Looking for resilience: Understanding the longitudinal trajec-
tories of responses to stress. Social Science & Medicine, 68(12), 2190–2198.
Payne, M. (2001). Knowledge bases and knowledge biases in social work. Journal of Social Work, 1(2), 133–
136. doi:10.1177/146801730100100202.
Rajan-Rankin, S. (2014). Self-Identity, embodiment and the development of emotional resilience. British
Journal of Social Work, 44(8), 2426–2442. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct083.
Rixon, A., & Ward, R. (2012). What difference does it make?: Social work practice and post-qualifying
awards. Practice Social Work in Action, 24(3), 147–159. doi:10.1080/09503153.2012.679256.
Robertson, J. S. (2013). Addressing professional suitability in social work education. The Journal of Practice
Teaching and Learning, 11(3), 98–117. doi:10.1921/2402110307.
Robinson, K. (2013). Supervision found wanting: Experiences of health and social workers in non-
government organisations working with refugees and asylum seekers. Practice: Social Work in Action,
25(2), 87–103. 10.1080/09503153.2013.775238.
Ruch, G. (2007). “Thoughtful” practice: Child care social work and the role of case discussion. Child &
Family Social Work, 12(4), 370–379.
Russ, E., Lonne, B., & Darlington,Y. (2009). Using resilience to reconceptualise child protection workforce
capacity. Australian Social Work, 62(3), 324–338.
Savaya, R., Gardner, F., & Stange, D. (2011). Stressful encounters with social work clients: A descriptive
account based on critical incidents. Social Work, 56(1), 63–69. doi:10.1093/sw/56.1.63.
Shier, M. L., & Graham, J. R. (2011). Mindfulness, subjective well-being, and social work: Insight into their
interconnection from social work practitioners. Social Work Education, 30(1), 29–44.
353
Shier, M. L., & Graham, J. R. (2013). Subjective well-being, social work, and the environment: The impact
of the socio-political context of practice on social worker happiness. Journal of Social Work, 15(1), 3–23.
doi: 10.1177/1468017313503449.
Stalker, C. A., Mandell, D., Frensch, K. M., Harvey, C., & Wright, M. (2007). Child welfare workers who are
exhausted yet satisfied with their jobs: How do they do it? Child & Family Social Work, 12(2), 182–191.
Taylor, H., Beckett, C., & McKeigue, B. (2008). Judgements of Solomon: Anxieties and defences of social
workers involved in care proceedings. Child & Family Social Work, 13(1), 23–31.
Turner-Daly, B., & Jack, G. (2014). Rhetoric vs. reality in social work supervision: The experiences of a
group of child care social workers in England. Child & Family Social Work, doi:10.1111/cfs.12191.
Ungar, M. (2004). Nurturing hidden resilience in troubled youth. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Ungar, M. (2008). Resilience across cultures. British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 218–235.
Van Heugten, K. (2011). Social work under pressure. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Wendt, S.,Tuckey, M. R., & Prosser, B. (2011).Thriving, not just surviving, in emotionally demanding fields
of practice. Health & Social Care in the Community, 19(3), 317–325.
Yip, K.-S. (2006). Self-reflection in reflective practice: A note of caution. British Journal of Social Work, 36(5),
777–788.
354
31
DEVELOPING THE SOCIAL WORK
ACADEMIC WORKFORCE
Profiles from the United Kingdom and the
United States of America
Barbra Teater, Michelle Lefevre, and Hugh McLaughlin
Introduction
Social work is regarded within universities as an “applied discipline”, unlike “pure” disciplines
such as sociology or social policy. A key difference implied by this “applied” nature is that the
academic staff are required to conduct research and produce new knowledge for the discipline
and profession alongside their role as educators, preparing the next generation of practition-
ers for the challenges of the workplace. Whereas academics in non-applied disciplines may
require methodological competence, disciplinary knowledge, and pedagogical skills to under-
take research and teaching adequately, social work academics will need additionally to be able to
embody and demonstrate the values, personal qualities, and technical skills of professional social
work. An appropriately qualified and skilled academic workforce would, then, ideally employ
academics who bring experience or skill in social work practice, pedagogical experience or
expertise, and a demonstrable potential for high-quality research (usually evidenced through a
PhD or doctoral degree [referred to throughout this chapter as “doctorate”] and/or research
experience and high-quality publications). However, there has been, and remains, a difficulty
both within the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA) in recruiting
individuals with expertise in these three capabilities.
In beginning to explore these difficulties, it was immediately apparent to us that much dis-
cussion of this issue relied on anecdote. There was a limited body of knowledge in relation to
the profiles and career journeys of the individuals who teach social work students and those who
conduct research in the discipline. In recognising that the three of us had entered academia at
different career points, each with a social work qualification and practice experience (including
direct social work practice, field instruction, and supervision and management) and only two of
us initially holding a doctorate, we hypothesised that much might be learned from examining
the career trajectories of other academics and identifying facilitators and barriers to being skilled
and qualified in both research and practice.
This chapter begins by setting out briefly the context of social work academics’ role in social
work education in both the UK and the USA and then presenting a profile of the social work
academic workforce in both countries based on survey data. The data presented will describe
355
Barbra Teater et al.
the UK and USA academics’ demographic characteristics, practice qualifications and experience,
and research skills and activity, as well as highlight similarities and differences between the two
groups.The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the key issues and challenges in develop-
ing the future social work academic workforce.
Social work academics: practitioners or researchers?
UK context
In order for individuals to become qualified social workers, they must have successfully under-
taken an approved social work programme, which entitles them to register with a regulatory
body.1 As there are four countries in the UK, these have separate regulatory bodies (the Health
and Care Professions Council in England; Scottish Social Services Council; Northern Ireland
Social Care Council; Care Council for Wales). However, there are no specifications from regula-
tory bodies regarding knowledge, skills, or qualifications required by university staff responsible
for the education of social workers, although the practice educator/field instructor respon-
sible for assessing the student’s practice in the placement must be a qualified social worker.
Additionally, universities often do not require new academics to have demonstrable pedagog-
ical experience or qualifications, as new appointees are generally required to take some form
of postgraduate certificate in higher education, accredited by the Higher Education Academy
(www.heacademy.ac.uk/services/accreditation). Given this, the ideal academic appointee would
bring both social work practice expertise (including practice experience, knowledge, and skills)
and experience in research, preferably including quality publications. However, there has been,
and remains, a difficulty in recruiting individuals with experience in both practice and research.
Some universities, when faced with this dilemma of a lack of staff holding both practice and
research knowledge and experience, appear to have chosen to rebalance the priorities in one
direction or the other. (No formal research appears to have been done on this matter in the UK,
so our perception is necessarily partial and anecdotal). In the group of universities known as
“post-92”2 (Scott, 2012), which are funded primarily on the basis of teaching, and which con-
sequently have less insistent drivers for appointing researchers over practitioners, there appears
to be a tendency to appoint individuals with practice qualifications, substantial field experience,
and registration (or eligibility for registration) with a social work regulator. Indeed, we continue
to notice that personal specifications for most new posts continue to require a qualification in
social work as an essential criterion but cite a doctorate, research experience, and publications as
desirable.This is very different from non-applied disciplines, and other health science disciplines,
such as nursing and occupational therapy (OT), where there is a desire to recruit at postdoctoral
level (Mills et al., 2006).
Whilst student learning is benefited by university tutors/advisors who understand contem-
porary practice issues and contexts, can deploy practice skills, and embody professional values,
traditionally social work academics have lacked a doctorate or research experience at the time of
appointment and perhaps beyond.This requirement for practice credibility is a key factor which
Sharland (2009) linked to the “dilution” of research expertise, with limitations in the quality and
complexity of research undertaken, and a lack of capacity within the discipline to draw on the
wide range of methodologies appropriate to address complex social, psychological, emotional,
and familial problems. This lack of researcher capacity reinforces itself cyclically: educators lack-
ing their own research training are ill equipped not only to undertake their own research, but to
teach research methods, critically appraise the research literature and integrate relevant findings
in their teaching, supervise social work students’ research dissertations, or mentor new staff.This
356
Developing the academic workforce
then “limit[s] the possibility of building up a critical mass of research students as future research-
ers within the discipline” (Orme & Powell, 2008: 994), as well as of social work practitioners
who use empirically derived work to inform their practice.
An alternative strategy to resolve the dilemma has been the appointment of early career
academics who have a doctorate and publications but who lack a social work qualification.
The group of universities known as “pre-92” or “research-intensive”, who traditionally have
had a higher percentage of their budgets coming from research funding, appear more likely
to appoint early career academics who lack a social work qualification but who hold a doc-
torate and/or research experience, in preference to a qualified and experienced practitioner
or manager, if there is no applicant with both skill sets. The driver here is the importance of
ensuring high-quality academic outputs which, when judged at periodic UK “research excel-
lence” audits, determine government research funding for the next six- or seven-year cycle
(e.g. 2014 Research Excellence Framework [REF, www.ref.ac.uk] and the preceding 2008 and
2001 Research Assessment Exercises 1986; 1989; 1992; 1996; 2001 [RAE, www.rae.ac.uk]). In
some universities this has led to a bifurcation strategy whereby there are appointments of some
“research active” staff who might lack practice experience but who can advance the research
strategy of the university, and of some “teaching focused” staff (holding a title of “teaching fel-
low” or similar) who have practice experience and can focus on teaching with no requirements
for research. It is possible that such fracturing of the academic role could eventually lead to a
dual workforce: those who are researchers and those who are educators.
Evidence of the impact of having academics focused more on research quality than the con-
cerns of practice has begun to accrue. The Social Work Task Force (SWTF) gathered opinions
from both employers and students that social work academics could be “out of touch” when
it came to current practice concerns (SWTF, 2009). This may have been worsened by a lack of
encouragement or incentive for social work academics to regularly update practice experience, as
there is in other professions such as nursing, clinical psychology, or medicine. A new government-
funded strategy currently being piloted to address this in England is the early adopter partner-
ships between local authorities and academic providers which require 10% of academic staff in a
given year to have protected time in practice to update their skills (DfE & DoH, 2015).
In summary, within the UK, the social work academic workforce has historically been
recruited on the basis of practice experience rather than research expertise. As important as it
is for educators to be in touch with contemporary practice, this historical prioritisation of a
social work qualification and practice experience has resulted in insufficient research capacity
or capability. Conversely, the more recent drive towards research-intensiveness appears to be at
the cost of practice-nearness by academics (White et al., 2009). Dichotomised responses to the
difficult question of how best to build a social work academic workforce remain problematic.
USA context
In terms of the social work academic workforce, the USA has experienced a different dilemma
for newly appointed social work academics, as high-quality researchers rather than practitioners
are valued, with this varying depending on the type of educational institution (e.g. teaching-
intensive versus research-intensive universities).Teaching-intensive and research-intensive univer-
sities can be public universities, which receive funding from state legislatures; private, non-sectarian;
or private, religiously affiliated.The extent to which a university is considered teaching-intensive
versus research-intensive is based on The Carnegie Classification3 (Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, 2011), with the largest factor being the number of doctorates granted
per year and the amount of external funding received.
357
There is a growing interest in the research capacity of social work academics and how to
build a solid infrastructure which supports high-quality research (McRoy, Flanzer, & Zlotnick,
2012). Whereas research by social work academics in the USA is not assessed via a “research
excellence” audit as in the UK, nor is government funding to public universities tied to the out-
come of any assessments of research, there is an “unofficial” assessment of the quality of research
via Hirsch’s h-index, which is “one of many metrics used to evaluate the effect of a researcher’s
contribution to the knowledge base of his or her respective discipline” (Barner et al., 2015: 6).
In particular, the h-index has been used to compare the “quality” of research produced by social
work academics compared to other disciplines, such as psychology (Barner et al., 2015).
Despite the push to build research capacity and productivity within the social work discipline,
academics in the USA are also “generally” required to have some practice experience. Based on
a study examining academic positions advertised during 2006, Anastas (2012: 202–203) listed
the following four qualifications as critical in gaining a position in academia: (1) having a Master
of Social Work (MSW) degree and post-MSW practice experience; (2) having some teaching
experience and having published in the field; (3) having a well-defined area of expertise that
fits with what the hiring institution focuses on in teaching and research; and (4) having some
expertise in diversity, cultural competence, or anti-oppressive practice.
This specification of practice experience is a result of the Educational Policy and Accredita-
tion Standards (EPAS) set by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) – the accrediting
body of social work programmes in the USA – that social work academics hold an MSW from
a CSWE-accredited programme and at least two years of post-MSW practice experience in
order to teach “practice-based” classes (CSWE, 2015: 15). In some states, such as New York, the
requirement to teach practice-based classes is even more stringent: only those academics holding
a LMSW4 (Licensed Master Social Worker) are able to teach practice-based classes to under-
graduates; whilst only those with a LCSW5 (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) are able to teach
practice-based classes to MSW students. Although holding an undergraduate degree in social
work or an MSW classifies someone to be “qualified” as a social worker, many states require
licensure in order to practice, and, thus, in order to teach practice-based classes.
Although USA universities specify the desire to appoint academics who have both practice
(post-MSW) and research experience, there has been growing concern that individuals increas-
ingly have little or no practice experience prior to beginning their doctorate. This appears to
be due, at least in part, to an increasing number of PhD programmes not requiring an MSW
for entry (Anastas, 2012); such students may (although most likely do not) have a social work
undergraduate degree, but they do not have the two years of “post-MSW” practice experience.
The result appears to be applicants for social work academic posts who hold research expertise
but lack the practice experience necessary to teach practice classes competently (Anastas, 2012).
Many social work programmes are then left with a divide whereby social work academics
undertake research and social workers from the community teach practice-based classes on an
adjunct (i.e. short-term contract) basis, which appears to be a direction favoured by some UK
social work programmes.
The current study

As illustrated in both the UK and USA contexts, there is an aspiration for social work academics
to combine capability and experience in both research and practice (Mills et al., 2006). This is
a tall order. Like those in other applied disciplines such as nursing, social work academics must
align competing demands, balancing the requirements of research excellence against the time,
358
expertise, and focus needed to ensure students are ready to practice safely and effectively with
clients and community members, service users, and carers in challenging contexts. As yet, this
tension has been insufficiently researched, with many perceptions being partial and anecdotal.
Social work in the UK and USA has lacked the baseline information needed to fully appreciate
the nature of the problem. This chapter provides a profile of social work academics in the UK
and USA in relation to their demographic characteristics, practice qualifications and experience,
and research skills and activity. Fuller explorations in relation to the UK study are provided in
Teater, Lefevre, and McLaughlin (under review).
Methods
The data for the USA and UK studies were collected at two different points in time. The UK
study was conducted in 2014 and aimed to provide a snapshot of the social work academic
workforce in terms of demographics, practice experience, and research activity and experience.
After the completion of the UK study, the authors initiated the USA study of providing a snapshot
of the social work academic workforce in the USA. Although the two parallel studies do not
constitute one “comparative” study, one intention of the USA study was to explore similarities,
differences, and trends between the UK and the USA. We acknowledge the limitations to any
parallels being made, as the UK and USA constitute very different contexts, and there are also
different contexts within the UK and the USA.
The questionnaire was originally devised for a UK audience and was subsequently revised
for a USA audience; many of the same questions were used, yet adjusted for country differ-
ences, and other questions were added based on the USA-specific context. The methods for each
involved a cross-sectional online survey consisting mainly of closed-ended questions, yet with
some opportunities for participants to provide qualitative comments. The UK-based question-
naire consisted of 55 questions and the USA-based questionnaire consisted of 58 questions that
covered the characteristics of the social work academics; their academic roles and aspirations;
their perceptions of social work and social work education; their past and present experience of
practising social work; and their current research activity. Eleven respondents to the UK survey
who volunteered were also interviewed individually to provide fuller accounts of their career
journeys, aspirations, and factors influencing research activity and practice-nearness, but they are
not discussed at length in this chapter (see Teater et al., under review).
In the UK, the authors distributed a link electronically to social work academics through
the Joint University Council Social Work Education Committee ( JUC SWEC) and “Ning”6
listservs as well as through social media (e.g. Twitter). The online survey was open from May
to September of 2014 and yielded a sample of 200 social work academics. In the USA, the
authors distributed the link electronically to social work academics through the Association of
Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors (BPD) listserv, individual emails to all programme
directors of bachelor’s and master’s social work programmes accredited by CSWE, and through
social media (e.g.Twitter and Facebook).The online survey was open from May to June of 2015
and yielded a sample of 501 social work academics.
Ethical approval was granted by Manchester Metropolitan University for the UK study, and
by the College of Staten Island, City University of New York, for the USA study.The purpose of
the study was set out in group and individual emails as well as at the beginning of the online
questionnaire. Potential respondents were informed that completion of the questionnaire was
voluntary and confidential; completion of the online questionnaire served as consent for par-
ticipation in the study.
359
Quantitative data were analysed in SPSS using descriptive statistics where percentages, basic
frequencies, and/or measures of central tendency were calculated for all variables. Bivariate
analysis (e.g. t-test) was used to determine any statistically significant differences between
variables.
Demographic characteristics
As Table 31.1 illustrates, the demographic characteristics of the UK and USA samples are rela-
tively similar in terms of age, sex, ethnicity, and years employed in academia. The mean age for
both the UK and USA sample is around 50 years, with the UK participants ranging in age from
32 to over 70 years, and the USA participants ranging in age from 28 to over 70 years.The major-
ity of participants in both samples are female, with a higher percentage of female social work
academics in the USA (75.5%) versus the UK (62.8%). The majority of both samples identified
their ethnicity as White (91.2% for UK; 84.6% for USA), yet there is greater diversity in terms
of race/ethnicity reported in the USA sample compared to the UK. Finally, for both samples, the
range of years employed in academia ranged from 0 to over 40 years, with a mean of 11.0 years
for the UK sample and 13.2 for the USA sample.
The majority of the UK participants reported being employed by post-1992 universities
(64.0%). The USA participants were predominately from public universities (68.9%), followed
by private, religiously affiliated (20.9%), and private, non-sectarian (10.2%), which indicates
a slightly larger percentage of representation from public universities and private, religiously
affiliated universities when compared to CSWE data on social work programmes collected in
2013 (CSWE, 2014). The CSWE data indicates a breakdown by institution as follows: 55.1%
public universities; 34.5% private, religiously affiliated universities; and 10.4% private-other
institutions.
The role titles of the academic posts which participants were in are set out in Table 31.1.
These reflect the stepped progressions in terms of role titles that vary not just across country
but across type of institution. In UK pre-1992 universities (or research-intensive universities),
the career structure is usually (although there may be variations dependent on the university)
lecturer grade A → lecturer grade B → senior lecturer → reader → professor, whereas in post-
1992 universities it is often lecturer → senior lecturer → principal lecturer/associate professor
→ reader → professor. Across all universities within the USA, the “traditional” entry route into
academia, for staff whose appointment involves teaching and research, is assistant professor →
associate professor → professor. Titles for UK staff whose primary responsibility is teaching are
teaching fellow → senior teaching fellow → professorial teaching fellow (in some universities).
In the USA such titles include clinical appointment, lecturer, instructor, and adjunct.
For both UK and USA participants, the majority reported being in early to mid-career, with
44.5% of the UK sample as senior lecturer and 23.5% as lecturer, and 32.1% of the USA sample
as assistant professor and 31.3% as associate professor. In the USA 19.6% of participants held the
highest title of full professor, and 11.0% of the UK participants held the highest title of professor.
In terms of education, the USA participants reported a higher percentage of doctorates
(75.4%) compared to the UK participants (34.4%). The UK participants were more likely to
hold a master’s degree/MPhil (53%) as their highest qualification. No participant in the USA
sample reported an undergraduate degree as their highest level of education, compared to 2.5%
of the UK sample. Of those participants who did not have a doctorate, around one-third of each
sample reported they were currently working towards one. Table 31.1 reports the full results of
the demographic characteristics.
360
Table 31.1 Demographic characteristics
UK (N = 200) USA (N = 501)
Variable (n) M(SD) %(f) Variable (n) M(SD) %(f)
Age (183) 51.3(7.9) Age (402) 50.8(10.8)

Sex Sex
Female 62.8%(121) Female 75.5%(321)
Male 37.2%(71) Male 24.2%(103)
Intersexed 0.2%(1)
Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity
White British/English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish 77.2%(149) White (non-Hispanic) 84.6%(362)
White other 6.2%(12) African American/Other Black 5.4%(23)
White Irish 5.2%(10) Multiple Race/Ethnicity 3.8%(14)
White European 2.6%(5) Other 1.6%(7)
Black-African 1.5%(3) Asian American/Other Asian 1.4%(6)
Mixed/multiple ethnic groups – White and Asian 1.5%(3) Puerto Rican 0.9%(4)
Other ethnic group 1.5%(3) American Indian/Native American 0.7%(3)
Black-British 1.0%(2) Chicano/Mexican American 0.7%(3)
Mixed/multiple ethnic groups – White and Black African 1.0%(2) Other Latino/Hispanic 0.7%(3)
Prefer not to say 1.0%(2) Unknown 0.7%(3)
Asian/Asian British-Indian 0.5%(1)
Black-Caribbean 0.5%(1)
Yrs employed in academia (190) 11.0(7.5) Yrs employed in academia (466) 13.2(9.0)
Employment Employment
Post-1992 university 64.0%(127) Public 68.9%(343)
Pre-1992 university 36.0%(72) Private, religiously affiliated 20.9%(104)
Private, non-sectarian 10.2%(51)
(Continued)
Table 31.1 (Continued)
UK (N = 200) USA (N = 501)
Title of academic role Title of academic role

Professor 11.0%(22) Full Professor 19.6%(98)
Associate Professor 1.5%(3) Associate Professor 31.3%(157)
Reader 1.0%(2) Assistant Professor 32.1%(161)
Senior Lecturer (Post and Pre-1992) 44.5%(89) Clinical Appointment 1.6%(8)
Principal Lecturer (Post-1992) 7.5%(15) Lecturer 3.4%(17)
Lecturer (Post and Pre-1992) 23.5%(47) Instructor 3.8%(19)
Senior Teaching Fellow 1.5%(3) Field Instructor 1.0%(5)
Teaching Fellow 2.0%(4) Adjunct 2.6%(13)
Other 7.5%(15) Emeritus 0.6%(3)
Other 4.0%(20)
Highest level of education Highest level of education
PhD (traditional research route) 25.3%(50) PhD (traditional research route) 69.7%(315)
DSW/Professional Doctorate/EdD 5.6%(11) DSW/Professional Doctorate/EdD 4.4%(20)
PhD (by publication) 3.5%(7) PhD (by publication) 1.3%(6)
Master’s degree 50.5%(100) Master’s degree 19.3%(87)
MPhil 2.5%(5) Undergraduate degree 0%(0)
Postgrad certificate 7.6%(15) Other 5.3%(24)
Undergraduate degree 2.5%(5)
Other 2.5%(5)
Plans for a doctorate Plans for a doctorate
Yes, currently working towards 33.8%(45) Yes, currently working towards 35.0%(36)
Yes, but not right now 36.8%(49) Yes, but not right now 15.5%(16)
No 29.3%(39) No 49.5%(51)
Practice qualifications and experience

Table 31.2 reports the practice qualifications and practice experience for both the UK and USA
participants. Almost all of both samples were social work qualified (95.4% UK, 97% USA), with
all of the USA participants being qualified at Master’s level (MSW). Of the UK participants who
held a social work qualification, 84.3% were registered with a regulatory body; registration ena-
bles individuals to practice social work and assess practice through field instruction, but is not
Table 31.2 Practice qualifications and experience
UK (N = 200) USA (N = 501)
Qualified social worker Degree in social work

Yes 95.4%(185) Yes, BA or BSW 0%(0)
No 4.6%(9) Yes, BA or BSW and MSW 29.4%(131)
Yes, MSW 67.6%(301)
No 2.9%(13)
Registered with a Hold a social work license
regulatory body
Yes 84.3%(156) Yes, LSW 4.0%(17)
No 15.6%(29) Yes, LMSW 14.1%(60)
Yes, LISW, LCSW, or LICSW 42.5%(181)
No 31.0%(132)
Other 8.5%(36)
Yrs in practice/ Yrs in practice/management
management
13.9(7.3) 11.4(8.2)
0 0%(0) 0 3.3%(14)
1–5 9.1%(17) 1–5 23.8%(100)
6–10 32.1%(60) 6–10 30.2%(127)
11–15 24.6%(46) 11–15 17.8%(74)
16–20 19.8%(37) 16–20 13.1%(55)
21–25 5.9%(11) 21–25 5.5%(23)
26–30 5.9%(11) 26–30 4.8%(20)
31 and over 2.7%(5) 31 and over 1.9%(8)
Yrs since practice/ Yrs since practice/
management management
9.5(6.7) 8.5(7.9)
0 6.7%(12) 0 19.9%(80)
1–5 23.0%(41) 1–5 23.3%(94)
6–10 33.1%(59) 6–10 24.3%(98)
11–15 19.1%(34) 11–15 14.9%(60)
16–20 11.8%(21) 16–20 9.7%(39)
21–25 3.9%(7) 21–25 5.5%(22)
26–30 1.7%(3) 26–30 1.0%(4)
31 and over 0.6%(1) 31 and over 1.5%(6)
Continued practice Continued practice valued by
valued by university university
Yes 69.6%(39) Yes 58.4%(97)
No 30.4%(17) No 41.6%(69)
363
necessary to teach social work. Sixty-one per cent of the USA sample held a social work license
while 31% did not; a license enables individuals to practice social work, and is only a require-
ment for teaching practice-based classes in some states.
Our study found that individuals entered academia with wide variations in practice experi-
ence and length of time since practice. Figure 31.1 indicates that UK participants had under-
taken between 1 and 36 years in practice, with a mean of 13.9 years; in the USA this was
0–42 years, with a mean of 11.4 years.The UK sample had, on average, longer in practice (76.5%
between 6 and 20 years compared to 61.1% with the USA sample). Over 3% of the USA sample
reported having no years in practice at all.
The range of years since UK and USA participants had practised was similar: for the UK sam-
ple (range of 0–34 years; mean of 9.5 years) and USA sample (0–38 years, mean of 9.5) – see Fig-
ure 31.2. Fewer of the UK participants, however (29.8%), had practised within the past five years
(43.2% of the USA sample). More of the US sample (19.9%) were still in practice (UK 6.7%), with
over 37% of the UK sample having not practised for 11 years or more compared with 32.6%
of the USA sample. Of those respondents who continued to practise, more of the UK sample
(69.6%) compared to the USA sample (58.4%) responded “yes” to the question: If you continue to
work directly with service users and carers, is this valued by your employing university?
Research activity
Three-quarters of both samples (72.9% UK, 74% USA) responded yes to the question: Are
you research active?7 It is important to remember that the remaining 26%–27% included those
holding positions that generally do not require research activity (e.g. teaching fellow, instructor).
The primary research methodology used by participants varied. The majority of the UK
sample used qualitative methods (57.9%), whilst this was the third primary research method
ology among the USA sample (23.9%), who preferred mixed methods (44.7%) and quantitative
methods (26.8%). Whilst 31.7% of UK participants used mixed methods, for only 2.8% was
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
UK
15.0%
USA
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 31 and
over
Figure 31.1 Years in practice
364
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
UK
15.0%
USA
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 31 and
over
Figure 31.2 Years since practice
quantitative methods the primary methodology, indicating a substantial gap and potential dif-
ference in mixed methods, with the UK favouring quantitative approaches to support their
qualitative work and vice versa in the USA.
To determine the amount of time that academics are expected, and are actually able, to par-
ticipate in research activities, participants were asked to indicate both the importance that their
university placed on the typical three aspects of a social work academics’ employment – research,
teaching, and administration/service – and the actual time they spent on each. Academics are
generally evaluated in these three areas for promotion and probation/when obtaining tenure.8
Often, employing universities specify the percentage of time that academics should spend on
each area through either their employment contract or through workload calculators. This
might be specified in terms of number of classes to be taught within a year and/or number of
peer-reviewed journal articles published within a specified timeframe (e.g. the UK REF period
of around six to seven years, or USA “tenure clock”, which is usually seven years from appoint-
ment). As Table 31.3 indicates, for both the UK and USA sample, there was a difference in terms
of the importance placed on research, teaching, and administration/service by universities and
the actual amount of time academics spent on these three areas, with both samples reporting the
largest percentage of their time was spent on teaching (UK 41.3%, USA 49.7%), followed by
administration/service (UK 38.8%, USA 35%), and lastly by research (UK 20.3%, USA 20.1%).
A series of paired-sample t-tests were utilised in order to determine whether there was a
statistically significant difference in the UK and USA participants’ perceived expectations of the
university in terms of amount of time spent on research, teaching, and administration and their
reported actual time spent on the three. The results for the UK sample indicate that partici-
pants spent less time on research activities than is expected by their universities (t(157) = 6.15,
p < .001), less time on teaching than is expected by their universities (t(163) = 2.50, p = .01),
and more time on administration/service than is expected by their universities (t(162) = –11.00,
p < .001). Likewise, the results of the USA sample indicate that participants spent less time on
research activities than is expected by their universities (t(374) = 4.24, p < .001), less time on
365
Table 31.3 Research skills and activity
Research active Research active

Yes 72.9%(145) Yes 74.0%(361)
No 27.1%(54) No 26.0%(127)
Primary research Primary research
Mixed methods 31.7%(46) Mixed methods 44.7%(155)
Qualitative 57.9%(84) Qualitative 23.9%(83)
Quantitative 2.8%(4) Quantitative 26.8%(93)
Other 7.6%(11) Other 4.0%(14)
University expectations of University expectations of
time on: time on:
Research (169) 32.8(17.5) Research (391) 23.5(17.6)
Teaching (171) 44.4(16.4) Teaching (414) 53.4(20.6)
Administration (170) 22.1(11.8) Admin/Service (410) 27.2(19.6)
Actual time spent on: Actual time spent on:
Research (175) 20.3(18.7) Research (394) 20.1(18.9)
Teaching (179) 41.3(18.5) Teaching (424) 49.7(22.5)
Administration (179) 38.8(18.2) Admin/Service (418) 35.0(22.5)
teaching than was expected by their universities (t(407) = 4.57, p < .001), and more time on
administration/service than was expected by their universities (t(404)= –9.08, p < .001).
Limitations
This study should be considered against several limitations. First, the number of social work aca-
demics across the UK and USA is not known, so we are unable to provide an accurate response
rate or indication of how the demographics of the sample might have skewed the results; the
extent to which the results would vary based on more responses is unknown. Second, as the
study was exploratory in nature, the findings are descriptive rather than inferential, thus limiting
the generalisability of the results. Third, the authors constructed the questions on the question-
naire, which have not been subject to psychometric testing. Finally, as indicated in the method-
ology section, the UK and USA comprise different contexts, and any similarities and differences
between the UK and USA should be considered with caution. Despite these limitations, this
study provides a snapshot of the current social work academic workforce in each country and
provides an initial understanding of the characteristics, practice background, and research expe-
rience of academics involved in the teaching and assessment of social work students.
Discussion
Despite their differing practice contexts and requirements, there are similarities as well as dif-
ferences in the social work academic recruitment and progression difficulties faced by UK and
USA universities. As indicated in the context sections, there are signs that professional discourses
in both countries set an aspiration for their academics to integrate expertise and experience in
both research and practice, and both countries appear to have experienced difficulties in recruit-
ing early career social work academics who bring expertise in both. There are, however, some
366
differing facilitators and barriers experienced in each country for academics holding expertise
in research and practice.
Most respondents in each country held social work qualifications, yet not all were regis-
tered/licensed. Proportionally, many more UK respondents were registered than those licensed
in the USA. Thirty-nine per cent of the US participants did not hold a social work license,
which could have implications in some states for teaching practice-based classes. The lack of a
registration or license leads to further questions of whether social work academics should be
required to hold a registration or license to teach social work and, if so, how do they manage
this requirement alongside the demands of research activity often required by many universities?
The UK workforce has historically been stronger in terms of practice experience versus
research expertise, which is perhaps why it has so far not needed to follow the USA in intro-
ducing regulatory requirements, such as CSWE’s EPAS requirement of two years of post-MSW
practice experience for those teaching practice-based classes.The lower USA proportion of those
licensed could lead to an argument that the license requirement doesn’t make a difference.
However, it is also possible that, without the requirement, even fewer USA academics might
have obtained the license. Future research should explore whether the lack of a license reflects
a lack of commitment or interest on the part of the remaining 39% to teach practice skills and
whether, as is noted at times in the UK, there is a perceived split between those who see them-
selves more as researchers and those who identify themselves more as social work teachers.
In terms of practice experience prior to moving into academia, those in the UK, on average,
had more prior practice experience, but the variance from the mean was wide in both countries,
with outliers at either end, and some in the USA with no practice experience at all. Practice
experience is generally viewed in both countries as either essential, or at least desirable, when
entering the academic workforce, but the extent to which social work academics remain abreast
of current practice issues while in academia is worthy of further study.
Although the USA academics had on average fewer years of practice experience, the number
of years since they had last practiced was less than those in the UK. Additionally, around one-fifth
of USA academics still practice – more than in the UK – but a smaller percentage of those still
practising in the USA viewed practice experience as being valued by their university, compared
with those in the UK. Perhaps a wider debate is also needed as to whether all those responsible
for the teaching and assessment of social work students should require a qualification, a certain
level of practice experience, recent practice experience, and/or statutory registration/license, for
at least those parts of the curriculum specifically relating to social work practice.
Around three-quarters of each sample reported being research active, but both groups sig-
nalled that they were spending less time on research than expected by their universities. Both
the UK and USA participants reported spending the largest percentage of their time on teaching,
followed by administration, and then research. The administrative duties may be indicative of
professional programmes – just as nursing, physical therapy, or education – which require extra
time to support field placements, admissions, ensuring students are suitable for practice, and
tutoring to develop students’ “use of self ”. Such activities are not always recognised in contracts
or workload calculators, and, thus, can take time away from research activities.This finding lends
weight to Sharland’s (2009) concern that, as important as it is for educators to be in touch with
contemporary practice, this historical prioritisation of a social work qualification and practice
experience has resulted in insufficient research capacity and expertise.
Another difference in the two samples was that USA respondents were markedly more likely
to hold a doctorate than those in the UK. Most academic posts in the USA require a doctorate,
which is likely to be influential in this regard, and the UK is moving in this direction. Around a
367
third of each sample were working on a doctorate at the time of the survey, with others planning
one in the future. This is a longer-term way of upskilling the academic workforce, but there
were substantial minorities among the whole samples of each group who had no plans for a
doctorate.
Conclusion
Dichotomised responses to the difficult question of how best to build a social work academic
workforce seem to be problematic, with potential to create a partially split workforce of edu-
cators who lack research expertise and researchers who are distant from the realities of prac-
tice. Indeed this was highlighted in the qualitative data from the UK study where respondents
advised that teaching should be done by research-active staff and research by those who under-
stand social work practice, if research and teaching are to be credible and practice relevant
(Teater et al., under review). Ways forward need to be found, such as supporting practitioners
in undertaking doctorates whilst in practice, or in the first few years of an academic post, and
ensuring that the teaching and administration workload related to social work programmes
relative to other “pure” disciplines does not hinder research activity.
The authors of this chapter have argued from the perspective that a social work academic
is someone who has social work experience, is research active, and is able to bring both sets of
skills to the classroom to prepare the next generation of social workers. However, all this begs
the question as to whether social work academics in the UK and USA, or for that matter the
social workers they develop, are “fit for purpose”? This larger question is beyond the scope of
this chapter and is one that will depend on the vision the reader has of the social work task and
social work academics’ contribution to this task. This chapter provides some initial information
about social work academics, their demographic characteristics, practice qualifications and expe-
rience, and research skills and activity to help inform the bigger debate.
Notes
1 Registration requires a social work qualification and a monetary fee to the registering body in the coun-
try in which the social worker will practice.
2 Funding arrangements depend on whether the HEI was granted university status before or after the
Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
3 Universities are recognised and described by The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education
(http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu). Doctorate-granting universities are classified as either Research
Universities (very high research activity); Research Universities (high research activity); or Doctorate/
Research Universities. Those non-doctorate-granting universities are described by whether they provide
undergraduate and/or masters programs and tend to, though not always, be referred to as “teaching univer-
sities” where academics have higher teaching loads and fewer research expectations.“Research-intensive”
universities generally refers to those universities classified as “Research Universities (very high research
activity)”.
4 An LMSW is a license obtained by a social worker who has an MSW from a social work programme
accredited by CSWE and who has passed the state LMSW test and paid a monetary fee.
5 An LCSW is a clinical license obtained by a former LMSW who has received the mandatory clinical
supervision, passed the state LCSW test, and paid a monetary fee.
6 A listserv for social work educators.
7 “Research activity” was not defined for the participants and could be seen as a limitation to this study.We
chose not to define “research activity” as we wanted to be inclusive of all types of research, from literature
reviews to federally funded studies.
8 Tenure is a US process to achieve a permanent position within a university, which cannot be terminated
without just cause.
368
References
Anastas, J. W. (2012). Doctoral education in social work. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Barner, J. R., Holosko, M. J., Thyer, B. A., & King, S. (2015). Research productivity in top-ranked schools
in psychology and social work: Does having a research culture matter? Journal of Social Work Education,
51(1), 5–18.
Care Council for Wales (2015). Continuing Professional Education and Learning Framework for Social
Workers. Available at www.ccwales.org.uk/continuing-professional-education-and-learning/#sthash.
YKIOglY2.dpuf [Accessed 31 July 2015].
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2011). The Carnegie classification of institutions of
higher education, 2010 edition. Menlo Park, CA: Author.
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). (2014). 2013 Statistics on social work education in the United
States. Available at www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=74478 [Accessed 29 August 2015].
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). (2015). 2015 Educational policy and accreditation standards.
Available at www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=81660 [Accessed 29 August 2015].
Department for Education (2014). Knowledge and skills for child and family social work. [online] Depart-
ment for Education. Available at www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/338718/140730_Knowledge_and_skills_statement_final_version_AS_RH_Checked.pdf
[Accessed 31 July 2015].
McRoy, R. G., Flanzer, J. P., & Zlotnik, J. L. (2012). Building research culture and infrastructure. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Mills, D., Jepson, A., Coxon, T., Easterby-Smith, M., Hawkins, P., & Spencer, J. (2006). Demographic review of
the UK social sciences. Swindon: ESRC.
Social Work, 38(5), 988–1008.
Scott, P. (2012). It’s 20 years since polytechnics became universities – and there’s no going back. The
Guardian. [online] Available at www.theguardian.com/education/2012/sep/03/polytechnics-became-
universities-1992-differentiation [Accessed 31 July 2015].
Sharland, E. (2009). Summary report to the Economic and Social Research Council training and development board
(strategic advisor for social work and social care research). Swindon: ESRC.
Social Work Task Force (2009). Building a safe, confident future: The final report of the Social Work Task
Force. [online] Department for Education. Available at www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/
publicationdetail/page1/DCSF-01114–2009 [Accessed 31 July 2015].
Teater, B., Lefevre, M., & McLaughlin, H. under review. An exploration of the factors that contribute to or
impede research activity amongst social work academics in the UK.
White, S., Broadhurst, K., Wastell, D., Peckover, S., Hall, C., & Pithouse, A. (2009). Whither practice-near
research in the modernization programme? Policy blunders in children’s services. Journal of Social Work
Practice, 23(4), 401–411.
369
32
BACK TO THE FUTURE
The role of the academy in social work education
Martin Webber, Ian Shaw, Simon Cauvain, Mark Hardy,
Mirja Satka, Aino Kääriäinen and Laura Yliruka
Introduction
Social work education in Europe operates within diverse historical, political and professional
contexts. In many European countries, such as in Germany, aspiring social work students
complete their professional training in a more varied, but perhaps a less integrated, fashion
than in the UK, where it is highly regulated. By contrast, in Denmark, while all education
programmes must be accepted by the Ministry of Education through an accreditation pro-
cess, the day-to-day work within the university is not controlled by any local, regional or
national system. In the Baltic States, the shifts and changes in social work training have been
inextricably tied to the practice within social pedagogy. This also shapes priorities in the
research agenda, such that, in countries like Denmark, research and scholarship in the social
work field are referenced against different institutional and policy contexts compared with
Finland and the UK. In Spain there is no official regulation system for social work education,
beside the general guidelines for university degrees. Only regulated professions in Spain have
special guidelines for their education, and social work is not a regulated profession. Some
European countries have a very small number of social work programmes, while others have
programmes that are located outside the university sector, such as in France, where vocational
fields like social work have lower academic status. Further, several countries in Eastern Europe
can look back to a period prior to the rise of communist governments where social work
programmes had begun to emerge but were then closed or became atrophied and desiccated
for half a century.
What is common, amongst this diversity, is that university social work educators apply knowl-
edge derived from the social sciences and social pedagogy in the education and training of social
workers and attempt to foster a sense of professional identity within social work students. Social
work academics also aspire to conduct research of real-world relevance for practitioners and of
intrinsic value for its scholarship (Parker & van Teijlingen, 2012). Its foundation in social theory
and social research means that social work practice is inextricably connected to the academy
from which it is derived. However, in the UK, where social work roles and tasks are largely
defined by government policy, there are repeated concerns about social work education not suf-
ficiently preparing students for frontline practice (Social Work Task Force, 2009; Clapton, 2013).
This is in the context of highly regulated professional education, which limits the latitude of
university social work departments in setting their own curricula. Government shaping of social
370
The role of the academy in social work
work education through successive reviews (e.g. Croisdale-Appleby, 2014; Narey, 2014) further
prevents social work from becoming a fully autonomous profession and shaping its own destiny.
Debate about the readiness to practise of social work students is not new (Marsh & Triseliotis,
1996, Pithouse & Scourfield, 2002). University-based social work programmes are criticised by
employers as not adequately preparing students to keep records, write reports, assess risk or man-
age their time (Marsh & Triseliotis, 1996, Pithouse & Scourfield, 2002), for example. This is in
contrast to employment-based routes, which came to the fore in the UK during crises in the
recruitment and retention of social workers (Douglas, 2002; Lymbery, 2004; Asquith, Clark &
Waterhouse, 2005; Kirkpatrick & Hoque, 2006; Cauvain, 2010), where newly qualified social
workers had acquired many of these skills prior to undertaking the training (Dunworth, 2007;
Harris, Manthorpe & Hussein, 2008).
UK government-backed fast-track programmes for children and families social workers
(MacAlister, 2012) and mental health social workers (Clifton & Thorley, 2014), which are largely
located within agencies, are perhaps a sign that leadership of social work education is shifting
away from the social work academy. It is even possible that entirely non-academic routes into
social work may be just around the corner in the UK. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
provide the majority of social care (non-professionally accredited) training in the UK, and it is
possible that they may also develop social work degree programmes in an increasingly diverse
social work education market. Although universities add value to social work education through
the practice-relevant research conducted by their academic staff, a lack of research training and
the recruitment of university staff primarily as social work educators has reduced the capacity
for social work research (Orme & Powell, 2008). Unless the social work academy can show more
effectively how it adds value to social work practice, social work education could be removed
from the academy entirely. This chapter explores this dilemma.
First, using the example of social work education in the UK and drawing upon interviews
with children and family social workers (Cauvain, 2010), we explore the disconnect between
students’ expectations when they graduate and the reality of social work practice in child pro-
tection agencies.
Second, we utilise findings from other practice-based disciplines (nursing and probation)
which have shifted between vocational and academic training, to establish what is and is not
known about the advantages and disadvantages of professional training within higher education,
as a basis for the establishment of priorities for future research into this area of social work.
Finally, we explore the Helsinki model, which brings the academy and agency together for
their mutual benefit. Although only one example of good practice, it may provide a means to
integrate the academy and agency in social work to enrich both.
Social work education in the UK

The Browne Review (2010) on the sustainability of the university sector in England and Wales
led to a substantial increase in student fees of up to £9,000 per year. This led to what some
described as a crisis for the academy (Docherty, 2011) as the coalition government cut teaching
budgets in universities by 80% (100% within the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences). Whilst
bursaries are available to some social work students, the largely private funding of undergraduate
education (via student loans) has helped to heighten the customer culture in universities, under-
pinned by the increasing significance of a National Student Survey (NSS) and a ‘league table’
approach to provision and the student fee regime. While ‘rate your professor’ sites (e.g. www.
ratemyprofessors.com) are as yet fairly minimal in Europe, we might anticipate their growth
insofar as university education becomes increasingly subject to market forces: a third of students
371
Martin Webber et al.
complain of poor value for money courses (Which?/Higher Education Policy Institute, 2013).
It is within this context that the role of the social work academy in relation to currency and
relevance, effectiveness and preparedness of students for practice, and quality of courses and
students is being scrutinised.
Some UK social work courses have closed (King’s College London, Southampton, and Read-
ing) and, under the coalition government (2010–2015), social work vacancy rates decreased
(Local Government Association, 2013). While this may seem to imply a reduction in need, this
seems unlikely with evidence suggesting frontline workers remain overstretched and job satisfac-
tion continues to threaten retention (McFadden, 2012), especially in relation to longer-serving
and experienced social workers (Burns & Christie, 2013).
The art of becoming a professional social worker in the UK involves the ‘twin-track approach’
of social work education, “a grounding in a discipline within the social sciences”, and of social
work training, “learning how to do it” (Doel, 2012). Such an approach, whether complementary
or conflictual, distinctly aligns education with the academy and training with the agency. This
road to professional status is justifiably one of both challenge and reward, reflecting the reality
and complexity of practice. Students must successfully complete 170 days of assessed work-
based learning, usually across two placements, and attain passes in a variety of academic modules
across the course. The twin-track approach therefore serves to prepare students for professional
employment within the diverse range of social work settings.
The currency and relevance of social work courses are particularly upheld by the academic
team delivering the ‘grounding’ and practice educators providing the ‘training’. ‘Grounding’
in social work reflects theories, values and the complexities of human beings working with
each other, often in times of great need. Social work research necessarily feeds and nourishes
the wide-ranging knowledge base which students use overtly or tacitly, consciously or uncon-
sciously, within their placements. The connectedness of these elements also needs to be taught,
experienced and understood by all involved in the education of social workers. Some practice
placements, however, stress that the need to ‘hit the ground running’ prevails. For example, a
typical response (from an empirical study of social work with children and families) was: “I don’t
particularly feel that the universities are equipping social workers with the right skills to come
and join local authority children and families teams” (children and families social worker, Cau-
vain, 2010).
One reason for this might be the prolonged concerns over the supply, quality and relevance
of practice placements for social work students (Social Work Reform Board, 2010). Another
could be some students’ lack of experience and poor standards of basic writing skills at which
experienced practitioners have expressed dismay (Social Work Reform Board, 2010). For exam-
ple: “I think resilience is possibly in the process of being eroded; accepting students onto the
social work degree with little or no real life experience and social work practice in non-statu-
tory sectors” (senior children and families social worker, Cauvain, 2010). Universities report an
increasing number of assessments of students with learning difficulties, including dyslexia, that
affect ability in reading and writing (Tinklin, Riddell & Wilson, 2001; Vickerman & Blundell,
2010). Students also share concerns, highlighting a disconnect between their expectation and
the perceived reality of practice (Cauvain, 2010), as shown in Table 32.1.
Evidence suggests links between the negativity around these experiences, feelings of detach-
ment towards the employer, increased likelihood of retention problems and subsequent burden
on the remaining colleagues (see Figure 32.1).
A key element of UK social work education appears to be the need for both the academy
and the agency to manage student expectations effectively. In doing so, academics must con-
sider the academy’s influence in students’ sense of disconnect and whether their contribution is
372
Table 32.1 Mismatch between social work student expectations and realities (Cauvain, 2010)
Student expectation Perceived reality
Direct work – helping people Commissioning

Making a difference Meeting a target
Time to ‘do the job’ Time limitations and Integrated Children’s System (ICS)
Relationship-based approach Crisis management
Culture of reflection and evaluating progress Culture of audit
Preventative work Child protection work
Available resources Service and budget cuts
Reproduced from Webber et al. (2014) with permission of Taylor & Francis Publishers, www.tandfonline.
com
Disconnect
leads to
dissatisfaction
Leavers lead
to increased
Dissatisfaction
burden on
leads to ‘push
those
factor’ leavers
remaining and
disconnect
Figure 32.1 Cycle of disconnect and dissatisfaction

Reproduced from Webber et al. (2014) with permission of Taylor & Francis Publishers, www.tandfonline.
com
relevant, contemporary and of high quality. Fundamentally, as educators we should teach in the
light of the implications that the perceived reality of practice has for social work, rather than
dismissing it. It is also important to provide opportunities for students to reflect critically on
the connectedness of the academy and agency to each other and to their students, and the con-
nections of individual academics to social work practice. Discourse around student and agency
expectations is essential and should involve a process of educators asking questions, actively
listening to responses, clarifying issues and acting upon them.
As previously acknowledged, the complexities involved in working with human beings can
be both challenging and rewarding; committed and connected students are likely to become
373
committed, connected and retained social workers. Positive dialogue between the academy,
agency and students based on reciprocity and a united aim for social justice can lead to success-
ful social work education. This implies a fundamental need for course content that maintains
currency and relevance, effectively prepares students for practice, and is of a quality that yields
high-calibre social workers who will serve their service users well.
The effectiveness of higher education in the training of

nursing and probation professionals
Arguably, then, the quality of social work practice is better as a result of qualifying-level educa-
tion which incorporates significant input from academics within institutions of higher education
alongside and as part of preparation for practice. But what evidence supports this proposition?
In fact, there is a paucity of research that enables us either to confirm or refute the presumed
advantages of higher education as the preferred location for social work training. Orme (2012)
suggests that both ‘snapshot’ and ‘moving picture’ evaluations have inbuilt limitations, and so
neither is well placed to address the issue of impact on practice outcomes. As Burgess and Car-
penter (2010) conclude, their own work provided only limited evidence of outcomes in terms
of changes in behaviour . . . and no evidence of the impact of social work education on the lives
of service users and carers (2010). Consequently, the social work academy is not well placed to
demonstrate whether the quality of outcomes in professional social work is better under work-
or university-based routes to qualification.
One way in which we might enhance our understanding in this area is via comparative
review of how such shifts have impacted in other practice-based disciplines. Concerns about
the quality of professional training and practice are not limited to social work (Moriarty et al.,
2011). Nursing and probation are both similar to, and, in the UK at least, have links with, social
work. Nursing is generally regarded as a ‘caring’ profession, which emphasises reflective practice,
critical reflection and critical appraisal as sense-making activities. Over the last two decades, it
has shifted in the UK from a vocational pathway to an academic one. Probation officers, mean-
while, trained as or alongside social workers until 1997 but are now trained wholly ‘on the job’
with very little input from academics. The findings of research into the impact of these shifts on
the quality of practice and outcomes may enable us to establish the advantages and disadvantages
of professional training within higher education, and inform debates about the future of social
work education.
The introduction of university-delivered pre-registration nursing education stemmed from
reforms initiated in the mid-1980s, which culminated in the requirement that a bachelor’s degree
would be the minimum academic level for all nurses across the UK as of 2013.This was intended
to ensure “fitness to practise” at the point of registration (Willis, 2012). Process-oriented studies
have investigated the consequences of these changes. For example, Lauder et al. (2008) found
consensus amongst key stakeholders that nurses trained with university involvement were “fit
for practice” at point of registration, which represented a major change from earlier studies.
There have also been studies focusing on the development of key skills (e.g. Thompson & Sta-
pley, 2011). Although these findings point to advantages arising from the involvement of higher
education in professional training, there has been no large-scale evaluation of whether or not the
shift ‘from the vocational to the academic’ has led to higher-quality nursing practice or improved
outcomes to further substantiate them.
In probation, there has been a substantial amount of research undertaken into the changing
nature and quality of practice since the “messy divorce” (McNeill, Bracken & Clarke, 2010) from
social work. Initially, this focused on large-scale evaluation of effectiveness, under the banner of
374
‘WhatWorks’or‘the Effective Practice Initiative’.These initiatives were curtailed – controversially –

before the results were in, on the basis of political rather than empirical considerations (Maguire,
2004; Raynor, 2004). Again, it is apparent that there has been no attempt to evaluate whether or
not, or in what ways, the change of training route has impacted on the actual outcomes of prac-
tice. Possibly, this is because there was no prospect that probation training would return to the
social work fold. Instead, official audit focused on compliance with the regulatory framework
rather than the impact of the diploma on service delivery (Knight & Ward, 2012). Subsequently,
much research has been small scale, practitioner-focused and concerned with the nature and
quality of practice under ‘the new regime’, comparing ‘old’ and ‘new’ school approaches to pro-
bation (Annison, Eadie & Knight 2008; Gregory, 2010; Fitzgibbon, 2011). Generally, these con-
clude that contemporary arrangements represent “a more instrumental and functional training
programme based on expediency and pragmatism” (Knight & Ward, 2012) and query whether
the new route enables staff to “make complex judgements in unpredictable and uncertain cir-
cumstances . . . to think, analyse and reflect, confident in the depth of knowledge and under-
standing that they can bring to their practice” (Knight & Ward, 2012).
The impetus for change in nursing and probation was arguably similar – both stemmed
from concerns about the quality of practice and threats to professional legitimacy – but the
approaches that the different professions took were diametrically opposed. In the case of nurs-
ing, one of the presumed advantages of higher education-based professional education was
the privileged status of academic knowledge, which is possibly seen as more robust than more
vocationally derived understanding, thus strengthening the legitimacy of the profession. And
yet, responses to recent health care failings routinely include a critique of the privileged role
accorded to academic knowledge by nurses trained under the new arrangements (e.g. Francis,
2010). Indeed, some practitioners are amongst those who denounce the emphasis on ‘scientific’
knowledge at the expense of ‘good old-fashioned’ nursing care. High-level requirements of
university-based training “exclude potential nurses who are kind hearted rather than clever”
(Willis, 2012), and patients and nursing are vulnerable as a result. In probation, meanwhile, after
a period in which service failures attracted equally critical attention (see Fitzgibbon, 2011, for a
review), managerial constraints on professional discretion have been significantly lessened with
the introduction of new national standards which emphasise the role of professional judgement
in decision making. The irony is that at the time when skills taught in social work programmes
became ‘officially’ relevant to probation work (Rex, 2010), the last vestiges of higher education
involvement in probation training finally disappeared.
In the absence of empirical evaluation, it does appear that shifts in the nature and context
of professional training do not necessarily appear to have had the effects that were anticipated.
A higher education base for nurse training was intended to ensure that health care ‘failures’ be
reduced, and that where they did occur, practitioners and profession were protected against
the charge that nursing was not rigorous in its approach to health care standards. Reaction to
healthcare scandals (Department of Health, 2013) suggests this defence is by no means water-
tight. The absence of any large-scale evaluation of the impact that the shift to higher education
has had on the outcomes of nursing practice makes this defence (if warranted) more difficult to
sustain than need be the case. At the same time, the last few years have witnessed a resurgence
of interest in relationship-based approaches to probation practice. Interestingly, some advocates
of evidence-based practice in US social work have moved to make the same plea. Munson, for
example, pleads for a version of evidence-based practice that is “balanced with a relationship
model” (Munson, 2004). He argues that intervention “must have a developmental focus using
a scientific perspective that relies on evidence that is grounded in a therapeutic relationship”
(p. 252).
375
At the same time, however, that there is a growing recognition that, as contributors to a
practice-based discipline, academic researchers in social work need to enhance the relevance and
utility of their contribution to direct social work practice via practice-based research (Dodd &
Epstein, 2012; Fouché, 2015), social work researchers are to some extent being pulled in a dif-
ferent direction by the demands of their disciplinary homes within the academy. In the UK,
the quality of research activity and outcomes is assessed every few years via an audit and qual-
ity appraisal process. The results of this assessment exercise inform the distribution of national
research funding to local institutions. The most recent of these exercises took place in 2014.
Provisional analysis of the performance of different social work departments suggests that those
which performed best are those where the academic activities of teaching and research are
undertaken separately, by specialists in each. Researchers with no teaching responsibilities can
focus on enhancing the quantity and quality of research grant applications and subsequent
outputs and impact activities. This has led to suggestions that the disciplinary status of social
work research could be enhanced by following the lead of those institutions which have already
implemented this model and therefore performed well in terms of research quality. While this
may enhance social work research as a discrete endeavour, it risks weakening the presumed link
between social work research and education, and could inhibit the development of research
skills amongst new academics. Further, taken to its logical conclusion it could diminish links
between the academy and the agency by limiting the potential for practice-based research.
Cumulatively, as a strategy, it risks long-term pain for short-term gain.
The Metropolitan Praxis: enhancing transformative practice by the

means of social work practice courses and learning networks
Whether social work education is located in the academy or the agency, university social work
can maintain its vitality by developing models which span the realms of practice and research.
The Helsinki model of organising the interaction between academy and agency is an example of
a solution to the question of the role of university social work in relation to practice.The model
has become known as a creative solution for facilitating a dialogue between the different cul-
tures and tasks of social work practice, education and research, and for social work programmes
in other European countries, may help them to meaningfully articulate their role in relation to
the social work agencies they work with.
In Finland, the discipline of social work has an interdisciplinary background and is consid-
ered to be one educational branch among the other social sciences. Within the frame of the
social sciences, the students learn to analyse societal changes and their effects at the level of
the individual and the community, to carry out social scientific research, and to produce practice-
based knowledge of social work and related activities. The bachelor of social work (BSW) and
master of social work (MSW) degree programmes provide students with basic skills for client-
centred professional social work and with skills for conducting independent research. It follows
that practising social workers have the skill for research, and all their university educators must
nowadays have a PhD and be active themselves in research while they teach.
In the urban Helsinki region a substantial part of social work instruction is given at two
practice research institutes, the Heikki Waris Institute and the Mathilda Wrede Institute. The
institutes provide an innovative mediating structure between research, teaching and social work.
Elementary parts of the new concept were two closely connected functions which were soon
termed Praxis and Practice Research (Karvinen-Niinikoski, 2005; Satka et al., 2005).This environ-
ment encourages a relationship between social work education and practice that is active and
dynamic. In recent years, the related social work experts have learned to consider partnerships
376
such as these as a crucial prerequisite for the development of research-minded expertise and for
research-based professional social work practice (Satka, Kääriäinen & Yliruka, in press).
Praxis consists of five courses during bachelor’s and master’s level studies in social work, while
the practice teacher training and development work is performed at social work agencies. The
overall aim is to create a learning network based on the idea of transformative, reflective learning
of all contributors. The main platform is a learning network of social work agencies in child
welfare services and social work with adults in addition to NGOs and governmental agencies.
The first four social work practice courses cover the following topics: (1) getting acquainted
with assisting NGOs, (2) the basic skills of psychosocial social work, (3) advanced social work
skills in public sector settings, and (4) interprofessional collaboration in social work. The fifth
course is practice research in various settings, including Metropolitan Practice Research Day, a
yearly event for agencies and the university to reflect on outcomes and discuss aims for the
future. The courses are organised by university lecturers and the agencies in cooperation with
the Institute (Heikki Waris Institute, 2015a; Heikki Waris Institute, 2015b).
Praxis helps various participants to bridge the gap between education and training (see
Table 32.2) via trialogical learning (Paavola, Engeström & Häkkäräinen, 2012), which is collabo-
rative knowledge creation with knowledge artefacts for transformations in practice.The concept
refers to the practice turn in social science (Schatzki, Knorr Cetina & Von Savigny, 2001) and
builds on classic approaches emphasising mediation as a basis for human activities. It emphasises
knowledge artefacts as things which mediate activities but are also taken themselves as objects
to be created and developed by the actors.
Practising social workers participate in coproduction processes to transform both education
and practice. Consequently these processes also enhance continuous learning in organisations,
and the outcomes are both material (research reports, teaching materials, academic articles) and
immaterial (breathing, dynamic and innovative actors and organisations).
Table 32.2 The benefits of the collaborative Praxis model in social work education
Presently In the future
Students Becoming reflective social Able to coproduce knowledge

workers able to use various with service users and
types of knowledge; learning professionals; development
to systematically create new of a research-minded social
knowledge and practice research work profession
Social work teams and New expertise created in dialogues New understanding, for
practice teachers with the students and practice example about transforming
teachers objects of social work with
themselves as actors
Service users, experts by Getting support for themselves; Feeling empowered and skilled
experience able to help service development; in activities of coproduction
learning to coproduce
University teachers Gaining up-to-date information Active agents in collaborative
for practice; relevant knowledge knowledge production;
production and teaching agents for change
Managers, leaders and Supplied by up-to-date information Participants in coproductive
politicians about services, people’s concerns dialogues; knowledgeable
and needs decision makers
Reproduced from Webber et al. (2014) with permission of Taylor & Francis Publishers
377
Praxis is a socially mediated learning network. The collaboration includes the surrounding
municipalities as well, but the aspiration is the same: influence the working culture of social
work and related fields by developing and sharing knowledge in the field.To that end, we have
established permanent co-developmental partnerships with social work communities who are
actively involved in social work education via the Metropolitan Praxis Network (Heikki Waris
Institute, 2015a), which was reconstructed in 2013 by the practitioners and academics as the
core activity of the Institute. Therefore, our present teaching and learning efforts are targeted
not only at our students, but we also strive to contribute to the active advancement of knowl-
edge in the partnering social work communities and expert cultures in, for example, welfare
agencies, hospitals, care institutions, and NGOs. The improved advancement of knowledge
and new culture of working with knowledge in social work and the related fields presumes
particular reflective structures (Yliruka, 2015) – time, space and organisation – which enable
learning processes on both individual and collective levels. In addition, all participants in these
processes, from students and social workers to their managers, professors and lecturers, ben-
efit from collaborative knowledge production that aims at facilitating renewed thinking and
practice.
Over the past 15 years, the Institute has succeeded in developing, in cooperation with the
Swedish-speaking Mathilda Wrede Institute, a knowledge community for social work practice
research that features an evolving knowledge practice of its own.This transformative knowledge
practice does not consider academia and practice as separate entities (Marthinsen et al., 2012;
Webber et al., 2014; Satka et al., 2016). Participants work together in a net connecting teachers
and students with work-teams and practice teachers in the field, and also with the managers,
service users and experts by experience in the surrounding community, including NGOs.
The participants are starting to see minor systemic changes ahead. One of them is that social
work graduates are valued both by the service users and employees because of their attitude
towards knowledge production and research in practice. On the other hand, academics have
become able to follow the timely changes in urban social work practice, both on the level of
the collaborating work-teams and the collaborating service users. Furthermore, research with
experts by experience produces new collaborative methods and improved services for peo-
ple (e.g. Uggerhøj, 2014). This positions academics side by side with social workers to take a
stronger role in the local politics, as advocates and collaborative voices in making decisions for
the future of social work.
The Finnish model often raises questions about the evidence of its outcomes. While no
all-encompassing evaluations have been conducted, the model has been adopted as the prom-
ising point of departure to reorganise the curriculum in other Finnish universities – although
it takes a lot of time and effort to establish the ongoing partnerships in the present economic
conditions. Some reports for the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health have recommended use
of the model throughout the country. Some groups of reformers of social work education in
other Nordic countries, e.g. Norway and Iceland, have visited Helsinki to learn about the Praxis
model for their own purposes. Thus, we can conclude, the Praxis model has turned out to be
a source for fruitful learning and rethinking for the partners involved, and for the most of the
Finnish universities teaching social work (e.g. Saurama & Julkunen, 2011).
Conclusion
There is no clear evidence that professional education is better located in the academy or the
agency. Carpenter’s chapter in this Handbook notes that existing evaluations of outcomes in
social work education largely focus on process and quality rather than effectiveness. However,
378
there is evidence to suggest that conceptual linkage activities are more strongly related to learn-
ing outcomes than observational or participatory activities in social work practice placements
(Lee & Fortune, 2013), suggesting that an integration of theory into practice supports learning
more effectively than just ‘doing the job’. Methods such as reflective practice logs can sup-
port this integration of knowledge and skills in social work practice placements (Lam, Wong &
Leung, 2007).
Limited evidence suggests that existing models of social work education (taught curriculum
located in the academy, combined with placements within agencies) effectively allow students to
integrate knowledge and practice. However, there are considerable methodological difficulties
entailed in identifying and capturing the links between training programmes and subsequent
practice quality. This may be a complex question, but given the challenges social work faces, it
is one with which it needs to engage.
It is arguably unhelpful to think about social work as a separation between the academy
and agency. Many social work academics continue in frontline practice or maintain close con-
nections with practice through their research or other independent work (as evidenced in the
chapter by Teater, Lefevre & McLaughlin in this Handbook). Many practitioners contribute to
social work programmes as practice educators or visiting lecturers. We should not assume that
there is a significant gap between agency and the academy or that the relationship is uniform
across Europe or within European countries. Further, there are opportunities in the new fast-
track programmes in the UK for social work academics to become more involved in practice
education within agencies than they are in traditional programmes. However, where a gap exists,
university social work can usefully position itself closer to practice to enhance the collaborative
potential of academics, practitioners and service users to work together for the mutual develop-
ment of the profession. The Metropolitan Praxis Network in Helsinki provides one example of
how this can be achieved and illustrates the benefits of closer integration for the profession and,
ultimately, the vulnerable people it seeks to serve.
References
Annison, J., Eadie, T., & Knight, C. (2008). People first: Probation officer perspectives on probation work.
Probation Journal, 55(3), 259–271.
Asquith, S., Clark, C., & Waterhouse, L. (2005). The role of the social worker in the 21st century – A literature
review. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Browne, J. (2010). Securing a sustainable future for higher education: An independent review of higher
education and student finance. Available at www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/31999/10–1208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report.pdf
[Accessed 14 May 2013].
Burgess, H., & Carpenter, J. (2010). The outcomes of social work education: Developing evaluation methods. South-
ampton: Higher Education Academy/SWAP.
Burns, K., & Christie, A. (2013). Employment mobility or turnover? An analysis of child welfare and pro-
tection. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 340–346.
Cauvain, S. (2010). Recruitment and retention of children and family social workers: A case study. PhD Thesis,
Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.
Clapton, G. (2013). Minding the gap: Assisting the transition from the academy to the profession. Social Work
Education, 32(3), 411–415.
Clifton, J., & Thorley, C. (2014). Think ahead: Meeting the workforce challenges in mental health social work. Lon-
don: Institute for Public Policy Research.
Croisdale-Appleby, D. (2014). Re-visioning social work education: An independent review. London: Department
of Health.
Department of Health (2013). Patients first and foremost. The initial government response to the report of the mid
staffordshire NHS foundation trust public inquiry London: The Stationery Office.
Docherty, T. (2011). For the University. London: Bloomsbury.
379
Dodd, S.-J., & Epstein, I. (2012). Practice based research in social work: A guide for reluctant researchers. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Doel, M. (2012). Social work:The basics. London: Routledge.
Douglas, A. (2002). Is anybody out there? Recruitment and retention in social care in London. Community
Care, 1427, 20 June, 38–40.
Dunworth, M. (2007). Growing your own:The practice outcomes of employment-based social work train-
ing: An evaluative case study of one agency’s experience. Social Work Education: The International Journal,
26(2), 151–68.
Fitzgibbon,W. (2011). Probation and social work on trial:Violent offenders and child abusers. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Fouché, C. (2015). Practitioner research partnerships in social work: Making a difference. Bristol: Policy Press.
Francis, R. (2010). Independent inquiry into care provided by mid Staffordshire NHS foundation trust January 2005–
March 2009. London: The Stationery Office.
Gregory, M. (2010). Reflection and resistance: Probation practice and the ethic of care. British Journal of
Social Work, 40(7), 2274–2290.
Harris, J., Manthorpe, J., & Hussein, S. (2008). What works in ‘Grow your own’ initiatives for social work?
Research report. London: General Social Care Council.
Heikki Waris Institute (2015a). The Metropolitan Praxis Network. [online]. Available at http://blogs.hel-
sinki.fi/heikkiwaris/praxis/praxis-network-in-the-helsinki-metropolitan-area/ [Accessed 27th July
2015].
Heikki Waris Institute (2015b). What is it? [online]. Available at http://blogs.helsinki.fi/heikkiwaris/what-
is-it/ [Accessed 27th July 2015].
Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. (2005). Research orientation and expertise in social work: Challenges for social
work education. European Journal of Social Work, 8(3), 259–271.
Kirkpatrick, I., & Hoque, K. (2006). A retreat from permanent employment?: Accounting for the rise of
professional agency work in UK public services. Work, Employment and Society, 20(4), 649–666.
Knight, C., & Ward, D. (2012). Probation education and training: An overview of the research. In J. Lishman
(Ed.), Social work education and training. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Lam, C. M., Wong, H., & Leung, T. T. F. (2007). An unfinished reflexive journey: Social work students’
reflection on their placement experiences. British Journal of Social Work, 37(1), 91–105.
Lauder,W., Roxburgh, M., Holland, K., Johnson, M.,Watson, R., Porter, M.,Topping, K., & Behr, A. (2008).
Nursing and midwifery in Scotland: Being fit for practice.The report of the evaluation of fitness for practice pre-reg-
istration nursing and curricula project. Dundee: NHS Education for Scotland.
Lee, M. G., & Fortune, A. E. (2013). Patterns of field learning activities and their relation to learning out-
come. Journal of Social Work Education, 49(3), 420–438.
Local Government Association (2013). Local Government Workforce Survey 2011/12: Summary findings for
England. London: Local Government Association.
Lymbery, M. (2004). Responding to crisis:The changing nature of welfare organisations. In M. Lymbery, &
S. Butler (Eds.), Social work ideals and practice realities (pp. 57–82). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Macalister, J. (2012). Frontline. Improving the children’s social work profession. London: Institute for Public Policy
Research.
Maguire, M. (2004). The crime reduction programme: Reflections on the vision and the reality. Criminal
Justice, 4(3), 213–238.
Marsh, P., & Triseliotis, J. (1996). Ready to practise? Social workers and probation officers: Their training and First
Year in work. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Marthinsen, E., Julkunen, I., Uggerhöj, L., Rasmussen, T., & Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. (Eds.) (2012). Practice
research in Nordic social work. Knowledge production in transition. London: Whiting & Birch.
McFadden, P. (2012). Resilience and burnout in child protection social work. PhD Thesis, University of Ulster.Avail-
able at http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.592009 [Downloaded 19 January 2016].
McNeill, F., Bracken, D., & Clarke, A. (2010). Social work in criminal justice. In I. Shaw, K. Briar-Lawson,
J. Orme, & R. Ruckdeschel (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social work research (pp. 447–462). London: Sage.
Moriarty, J., Manthorpe, J., Stevens, M., & Hussein, S. (2011). Making the transition: Comparing research
on newly qualified social workers with other professions. British Journal of Social Work, 41(7), 1340–1356.
Munson, C. E. (2004). Evidence-based treatment for traumatized and abused children. In A. R. Roberts, &
K. R.Yeager (Eds.), Evidence-based practice manual: Research and outcome measures in health and human ser-
vices (pp. 252–263). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
380
Narey, M. (2014). Making the education of social workers consistently effective. Report of Sir Martin Narey’s inde-
pendent review of the education of children’s social workers. London: Department for Education.
Orme, J. (2012). Evaluation of social work education. In J. Lishman (Ed.), Social work education and training
(pp. 15–34). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Social Work, 38(5), 988–1008.
Paavola, S., Engeström, R., & Häkkäräinen, K. (2012).The trialogical approach as a new form of mediation.
In A. Moen, I. Morch, & S. Paavola (Eds.), Collaborative Knowledge Creation (pp. 1–14). Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Parker, J., & Van Teijlingen, E. (2012). The Research Excellence Framework (REF): Assessing the impact of
social work research on society. Practice, 24(1), 41–52.
Pithouse, A., & Scourfield, J. (2002). Ready for practice? The DipSW in Wales:Views from the workplace
on social work training. Journal of Social Work, 2(1), 7–27.
Raynor, P. (2004).The probation service ‘Pathfinders’: Finding the path and losing the way? Criminal Justice,
4(3), 309–324.
Rex, S. (2010). Offender engagement programme. East of England: National Offender Management Service.
Satka, M., Kääriäinen, A., & Yliruka, L. (2016). Teaching social work practice research to enhance research-
minded expertise. Journal of Teaching in Social Work. doi: 10.1080/08841233.2016.1128779.
Satka, M., Karvinen-Niinikoski, S., Nylund, M., & Hoikkala, S. (Eds.) (2005). Sosiaalityön käytäntötutkimus.
Helsinki: Palmenia.
Saurama, E., & Julkunen, I. (2011). Approaching practice research in theory and practice. Social Work &
Social Science Review, 15(2), 57–75.
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., & Von Savigny, E. (Eds.) (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Social Work Reform Board (2010). Building a safe and confident future: One year on. Detailed proposals from the
social work reform board. London: Department for Education.
Social Work Task Force (2009). Building a safe, confident future.The final report of the social work task force. Lon-
don: Department for Children Schools and Families.
Thompson, C., & Stapley, S. (2011). Do educational interventions improve nurses’ clinical decision making
and judgement? A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(7), 881–893.
Tinklin, T., Riddell, S., & Wilson, A. (2001). Wider access for disabled students? Society for Research into Higher
Education Conference. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Uggerhøj, L. (2014). The powerful meeting between social workers and service users: Needs, barriers and
possibilities in participation processes in agency settings. In A.-L. Matthies, & L. Uggerhøj (Eds.), Par-
ticipation, marginalization and welfare services. Concepts, politics and practices across European countries (pp. 201–
217). Farnham: Ashgate.
Vickerman, P., & Blundell, M. (2010). Hearing the voices of disabled students in Higher Education. Disa-
bility and Society, 25(1), 21–32.
Webber, M., Shaw, I., Cauvain, S., Hardy, M., Kääriäinen, A., Satka, M., & Yliruka, L. (2014). W(h)ither the
academy? An exploration of the role of university social work in shaping the future of social work in
Europe. European Journal of Social Work, 17(5), 627–640.
Which?/Higher Education Policy Institute (2013). The Student Academic Experience Survey, Available at
www.hepi.ac.uk/455-2154/2013-Student-Academic-Experience-Survey-produced-jointly-by-HE-
PI-and-Which.html [Accessed 24 June 2013].
Willis, P. (2012). Quality with compassion: The future of nursing education. Report of the Willis Commission, Lon-
don: Royal College of Nursing.
Yliruka, L. (2015). Itsearviointi reflektiivisenä rakenteena. Kuvastin-menetelmän toimivuus, käyttöönotto ja kehit-
täminen [Self-evaluation as a reflective structure. Workability, adaptation and development of the Mirror Method],
Heikki Waris Institute’s Research Reports 1, Helsinki: Unigrafia.
381
33
The challenge of neoliberalism
Karen J. Swift, Luann Good Gingrich and Michael Brown
Introduction
Economics is the method [but] the object is to change the soul.
(Margaret Thatcher, cited in Ward, 2012: 16)
Greed, for want of a better word, is good, greed is right, greed works.
(character Gordon Gekko in the movie Wall Street, 1987)
Neoliberal ideology and practice, which dominate social, economic and political relations in the
contemporary world, are based on the ideal of unbridled self-interest, or greed, which, as the
Gordon Gekko character famously said, works. It works, he means, for capitalism. But as Marga-
ret Thatcher reminded us, neoliberal economics is only the method.The actual intent is to move
us from values of collective activity and shared responsibility to self-reliance and competitive
individualism – to change the soul.
Individual interests, according to neoliberal theory, are best organized and realized through
a worldwide free market system, unfettered by regulation and undiluted by mechanisms that
would redistribute wealth. The market becomes the “guide for all human affairs” (Ward, 2012:
2). This self-interested behaviour is not seen as selfish, greedy or unethical; rather, individuals
who look out for themselves, who take full responsibility for their personal life projects, are
viewed as morally strong and as contributing to the greater good. Those ‘dependent’ on society,
relying for instance on welfare state programs, are seen as morally challenged.Watchwords of this
new world order are efficiency, accountability, personal responsibility, initiative, balanced budg-
ets, small government.These discourses of neoliberalism have captured the world’s conversations.
Those who disagree with these truisms are disparaged as wimps, enablers, bleeding-heart liberals,
tree-huggers, do-gooders, socialists.
Social work arises from entirely different premises than neoliberalism and engages with dif-
ferent kinds of discourses, those having to do with social justice and social welfare. For example,
the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) provides a definition of social work that
places social justice at its core:

382
for diversities are central to social work . . .
(IFSW, 2015)
Discourses of social justice at present occupy minority territory. They are often ridiculed
and crowded out by the neoliberal conversation but remain robust and active globally, although
fragmented. Our aim in this work is to explore the context for social work education in this
neoliberal era and to propose educational requirements and curriculum necessary to challenge
neoliberalism and promote the social justice goals of social work. We begin with a summary of
neoliberalism, its reach and the positioning of social work in this context.
The neoliberal state

What is the role of nation-states in this new economic form? What we recognize as neoliber-
alism in contemporary times derives from historic liberal traditions, including the rationale for
the welfare state and especially ideas of the ‘free’ individual (Harvey, 2005; Siddiqui, 2012). But
neoliberalism also involves a restructuring and a ‘disciplining’ of both the state and individuals
in order to achieve its ends. The neoliberal state, according to Harvey, is in fact a state apparatus
whose fundamental mission is “to facilitate conditions for profitable capital accumulation on the
part of both domestic and foreign capital” (Harvey, 2005: 7). The key measure of success is not
the well-being of any population, but ongoing economic growth.
The ideology of neoliberalism began to take hold in the 1970s and has quickly come to
dominate economics around the globe, accompanied by its discourses of liberty and efficiency.
Its astounding success appears to have been facilitated by what many key government and busi-
ness figures consider to be a failure of Keynesian economics (Dobbin, 2003: 39–40; Panitch &
Gindin, 2012). Keynesianism encouraged governments to increase spending and run temporary
deficits when consumption slowed (Glyn, 2006: 33). Although never intended as a long-term
solution, neoliberals claim that this approach has led to high inflation, high unemployment and
rising government deficits (Dobbin, 2003; Panitch & Gindin, 2012).
Discussions about government budget balancing, via brutal austerity proposals, have become
virtually ubiquitous. This rhetoric does not match the practice, functioning instead to cover over
a wide range of strategies used to transfer public resources to corporate profits. Presented as
‘common sense’, claims of small government, balanced budgets, austerity measures, and debt
reduction stand in sharp contradiction to the actual expansion of government roles and budgets
in military and prison industries, bailouts and subsidies to corporations (through tax breaks for
example) and government outsourcing of human services to private, for-profit business. The
accusatory phrase ‘tax-and-spend liberal’ deflects attention from these costly practices, while
simultaneously discrediting voices proposing social spending.
Government interventions that facilitate and reinforce the accumulation of private wealth impose
sanctions on institutions that otherwise would restrain free flow of capital. Deficit reduction activities
separate certain profit-making interests from public influence, for instance via environmental and
safety regulations, with the intent of freeing up capital to seek the cheapest labour and resources
globally. At the same time, individuals who would benefit from state programs are disciplined through
tighter eligibility criteria and closer surveillance. And, importantly, deficit reduction satisfies global
institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
and private bond rating organizations that promote decreased public spending and increased capital
383
Karen J. Swift et al.
takeover of state-owned enterprises (Sinclair, 2005).Thus, states have changed function, moving away
from social and welfare support, market mediation and resource redistribution (Lightman, 2003),
toward supporting investors and policing the rules and boundaries of neoliberalism (Sinclair, 2005).
The precariat
Another primary feature of neoliberalism is its global nature, essential for capital accumulation
to increase by means of international capital flow (Bichler & Nitzan, 2012). In this scenario,
individuals are cast as ‘free’; that is, free to make choices from the open and internationalized
marketplace. Of course, another way of looking at this scenario is to recognize neoliberalism as
a contemporary form of imperialism (Bichler & Nitzan, 2012), arriving, not coincidentally, at a
time when previous forms of territorial imperialism have dwindled (Litonjua, 2010). This con-
temporary form of imperialism involves, among other things, the drive for a contingent labour
force, one that is ‘free’; that is, free to move from job to job, to do short-term or contracted work,
to be hired and also fired on short notice, unfettered by union rules and requirements; workers, in
short, that capital has no obligations to beyond paying the least possible cost for the most labour.
Standing (2011) has written extensively on this new economic class, known as the ‘precariat’.
Whereas precarious work in the welfare state was to some extent restricted to the less skilled and
educated, now almost everyone is vulnerable to precarious work. And whereas the welfare state
was in place with at least some safety nets for precarious workers, neoliberal policies and practices
have dismantled many of those supports in the interests of capital flow. State-sponsored labour
‘reforms’, designed to free up labour for the always changing needs of capital, have led to marked
growth in precarious, contingent jobs, weakened labour unions, and of course to reduced capac-
ities for people in lower income brackets to improve life prospects (Standing, 2011).
Mitchell (2010) argues that we no longer have a fundamentally capitalist economy in the
West. Rather, capitalism, based on production of goods and services, is subservient to finan-
cialism, defined as a system in which “investors in one country buy and sell assets in another”
(Bichler & Nitzan, 2012: 52). Thus, financial markets exist primarily to serve themselves and are
largely detached from production, much of which has been outsourced to developing countries
(Mitchell, 2010: 323). Investors come to be privileged over producers, leading to the financial-
ization of “everything” (Harvey, 2005: 33). Predictably, the results are less and less stable work
available in the West, and less and less remuneration for workers in developing countries.
Liberty versus democracy

Although a primary claim of neoliberalism is economic growth, in reality these claims are not
borne out. Growth in the West has been slow or stagnant at least since 2008. Adésinà notes, “it
is the neoliberal economic regime that is largely responsible for exacerbating intra-national and
global inequality and the vulnerability that the paradigm claims that it wishes to fix” (2010:
9). Furthermore, economists show direct links between neoliberal economics such as austerity
measures and increasing social and economic divides, along with reduced economic mobility
(Stiglitz, 2009; Stiglitz, 2012; Corak, 2013). Credit Suisse Research Institute (2014), examining
global wealth distribution, reports that in mid-2013 the bottom half of the global population
owned less than one percent of total wealth, while the richest 10 percent owned 86 percent
and the top one percent held 46 percent of global assets. Forbes (2014) reports that at 1,645, the
number of billionaires in 2014 was more than double the number in 2009.
Neoliberal ideology also claims to increase personal liberty, another unkept promise. Indi-
viduals are only free to make choices within certain narrowly defined boundaries, those that
384
facilitate the neoliberal project, and certainly not those involving communal and socialized
plans, politics and projects. Restraints on capital flow are lifted, but the movement of workers is
highly regulated, even criminalized.
Neoliberalism poses the individual as an autonomous actor, operating on an unconstrained
and level field. Also asserted is a shrinking state apparatus and ever-smaller bureaucracies at all
levels. However, in the interests of efficiency and accountability, neoliberalism has in fact pro-
duced highly managed individuals and institutions, via “New Public Management”, an organi-
zational form based on “output” (Ward, 2012: 46). The function of managers, as Marx observed,
is to administer other people’s money (Marx, 1996), and this function has never been more
exploited than now. All kinds and sizes of institutions, organizations and bureaucracies, includ-
ing universities and social services, have introduced a plethora of rules, standardized procedures,
guidelines, regimes, requirements, systems of oversight, risk assessments, instructions and forms
designed to track and order the workday from top to bottom. In contradiction to claims of
expanded freedom for all, power, control and decision-making are firmly placed at the top of
increasingly dense hierarchies, justified as more ‘efficient’, while CEOs and other executives
make increasingly outrageous sums of money and wages of others stagnate or decline (Stiglitz,
2012; AFL-CIO, 2015).
Democracy itself is threatened by the neoliberal regime, since individual liberties stand in
basic contradiction to majority rule. Friedman (2002), an early proponent of neoliberalism,
equated democracy with profit rather than with civic commitment and participation. Reduced
state commitment to marginalized populations and condemnation of entitlements like welfare,
unemployment benefits and even citizenship rights diminish or even destroy the capacities of
the most vulnerable to engage and participate in civil society. Not a problem for neoliberals,
for, as Margaret Thatcher famously maintained, there is no such thing as society; there are only
individuals. And so, the soul is changed.
Effects of neoliberalism on social work

In the West, the Great Depression of the 1930s followed by WWII and its aftereffects led to
broad acceptance of the need for state intervention to stabilize the economy, avoid another
depression, revive the middle class and deal with returning soldiers as well as the families of those
who did not return. The result was development of a substantial welfare state in North America
and Europe, a step most now recognize as the savior of capitalism. Social work, already recog-
nized at the time as a legitimate if minor occupation, became part of this new social contract,
earning a place in staffing the safety net for those victimized by the harsher realities of capitalism.
Training and education for social workers in the West expanded during this period, and grad-
ually spread into other parts of the world. Social work owes its presence in the world today to
this welfare state compromise. “Embedded liberalism” assumed this compromise between the
state and capital; that is, capital was to be restrained by some public ownership of resources and
provision of a portion of tax dollars to support institutions of the welfare state. The project of
neoliberalism is to disembed capital from this arrangement (Harvey, 2005: 11). As Dudziak (2002)
points out, this scheme has serious consequences for social work, tied as we have been to the
liberal compromise.
Contrary to the personal ‘liberty’ which is supposed to accompany the neoliberal program,
the needs of capital have led both to a decline in supportive social services and to a substantial
increase in highly managed workplaces. Social service and health workers are now conscripted
into rationing services, policing ‘dependency’ and patrolling the boundaries established by the
neoliberal project. Challenges to neoliberal ideology and practices are frequently and sometimes
385
viciously attacked, for instance by armed police presence at demonstrations and even legal
protests.
Contemporary social work, according to some authors (e.g. George, Coleman & Barnoff, 2011),
has become a tool of neoliberalism, focused on training to follow templates, adhere to models and
competencies, conduct risk assessments, and conform to standardized and managed labour prac-
tices; and, in sum, to become and produce others as “neoliberal subjects” who have lost the language
and imagination for any other path.
Social workers are still employed by government, although many former programs have
been privatized. They also work in community organizations, dependent on public funds, and
charitable organizations that often have funding strings attached. Internationally, they work in
newly created bureaucracies, often driven by Western requirements, and in NGOs, which are
themselves tied up with bureaucratic and other requirements of larger international organiza-
tions. Many of these employment sites are either under threat of being defunded and/or have
become, however unwillingly, part of the neoliberal project (Banks & Hulme, 2012). At the same
time, social workers in all these sites are dealing with increasing damage to the most marginal-
ized populations as the result of poverty, decreased social spending, demonizing discourses, and
sometimes violent repression.
Social work education

Ironically, there has been a dramatic expansion of social work programs over the last two decades
in countries all across the globe, due in part to the corporatization of postsecondary education
and the associated market imperative for infinite growth (Papadaki, 2001; Wong & Pearson,
2007; Nadkarni, 2011). In Canada, for example, the number of students in social work programs
in the country rose steadily from 10,600 in 2008–9 to just over 13,000 in 2013–14, an increase
of almost 22 percent in just a few years (Canadian Association for Social Work Education,
2015). The literature provides accounts of the ‘mushrooming’ of social work education and the
establishment of new schools in countries around the world (see Stanley, 2011). This substantial
growth of social work education in countries that have seen a corresponding ‘hollowing out’ of
social welfare, and the initiation of schools of social work in countries with very limited social
service systems, suggests a complex, shifting and possibly complicit relationship between social
work and neoliberalism.
Social work education is thus at a crossroads, challenged by the forces of globalization and
privatization (Nadkarni, 2011: 117), and the current trends are to adapt, to resist, or some mix
of both. For instance, the literature reports that some schools of social work are aligned with
disciplines and departments such as psychology and business administration that emphasize the
development of expertise for assessing, disciplining and managing the margins (Decker, 2011;
Doostgharin, 2011; Nadkarni, 2011). However, there are also examples of schools of social
work from around the world adopting a challenging position, despite, or perhaps due to, very
high stakes. From Brazil to China, from Uganda to Canada, social work educators describe
curricula and pedagogies that are grounded in social justice, critical analysis, and social activism
intended to provoke change in local and global communities (e.g. Sung-Chan & Yuen-Tsang,
2008; Bjuhr & Regnander, 2012; Parada et al., 2012; Chi-leung & Hoi-kin, 2013;Yazbek, 2014).
How can social work education challenge neoliberalism?

Social work has always aligned itself with social and political causes, but as neoliberalism
advances, work itself is changed; therefore our educational strategies will also need to change.
386
Our suggested strategies for contemporary education draw on a rich social work history, inter-
national literature and our own understandings of neoliberalism. As social work practitioners
and educators, our recommendations are rooted in an activist pedagogy.
Knowing neoliberalism
The cornerstone of our strategies for social work education in neoliberal times relies on eco-
nomic literacy for both students and educators. It is essential that we develop a thorough under-
standing of the economic regime of neoliberalism and how it has fundamentally changed the
social service terrain as well as our work and everyday lives. Without this understanding, social
workers risk becoming complicit. The effects of neoliberalism are fast-moving, profound and
far-reaching, shaping every context in which social workers engage. A curriculum designed to
challenge neoliberalism must be specific and must provide critical attention to social, economic
and political processes and discourses relating to trade agreements, structural adjustment pro-
grams, banking practices, austerity measures and their effects as they relate to social justice goals.
Reclaiming the social

Neoliberal ideals of competitive individualism and greed are pervasive. But this view of the
world and this discourse are not all there is – or all there ever was. Many Indigenous cultures
and African philosophies, for example, hold a communal worldview and assumptions of inter-
connectedness, such that “whatever happens to the individual happens to the whole group, and
what happens to the whole group happens to the individual” (Graham, 2006: 310). Moreover,
the neoliberal ideal of the autonomous, self-sufficient individual is based on an ontological error
or fallacy (Levinas, 2006), the claim that individuals exist outside the social. The endeavour of
social justice education emerges from and returns to social ideas and ideals – a commitment to
social rights and shared responsibility through public dialogue and collective action. Such social
goals are necessarily rooted in a deep awareness of our common fate – that ultimately, we all live
the conflict and violence wrought by the divides of our contemporary neoliberal world.
Reflexivity is key to unveiling the falseness of the neoliberal autonomous individual. It is to
know ourselves as social, which is to know our humanity.This sort of reflexivity is quite different
than the individual “process of constant self-monitoring . . .” (Houston, 2014: 3) that has become
quite popular in North American social work education.The practice of social reflexivity in the
classroom begins with considering together, “Who am I connected to?” The aims are to change
the conversation; to invite students to reclaim concepts that have been devalued and discredited;
and to develop a counter-narrative of compassion, common good, cooperation, shared respon-
sibility, collectivity and altruism.
The social work profession has embraced the neoliberal obsession with the individual as the
source of social ills and the site of intervention in its professional standards and accreditation
criteria (Khachatryan, 2011; Houston, 2014). These policies and procedures, exported from the
West to schools of social work all over the world, result in the deprofessionalization of practice
through “reducing social work to a reified set of skills or competencies” (Morley & Dunstan,
2013: 143). To revalue the social requires us to analyze and contest the individualized focus on
social problems and the regulation of behaviour (Thompson, 2002), and to reappropriate a social
work identity that is linked with liberating the individual and the collective from the dehuman-
izing forces of neoliberalism. Reclaiming social language used to disparage the worker and the
profession challenges the neoliberal order of things. Following bold examples of reappropriated
and revalued stigmatizing labels that have been ascribed by oppressive powers, such as “queer”
387
or “geek” (Galinsky et al., 2003), social work educators can teach, as a point of pride, identities
that have to do with care, soft-heartedness, relationships, kindness, interconnectedness and com-
munity. A repurposed identity for the social worker does not require us to choose between the
individual and the social. Social activism encompasses both.
Engaging history
Students working for social justice will need to know how social change efforts and movements
have succeeded (or failed) in the past. To resist neoliberalism, in other words, it is necessary to
know and situate social work in a social justice history.
There are many case studies to learn from. At the turn of the century in Bolivia, the IMF and
the World Bank insisted the government privatize the water supply, making water inaccessible
or unaffordable for many (Duchrow & Hinkelammert, 2004). In response, a coalition of unions,
human rights groups, environmental organizations and various other activists, La Coordinatora
de Defensa del Agua y de la Vida, was formed to challenge privatization. A variety of tactics have
been used to force changes to this policy. More recently in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, a city well
known for its extreme violence, a similar civic coalition formed to bring their city “back from
the brink” (International Crisis Group, 2015). Although results are so far mixed, significant pro-
gress has been made by local residents in reclaiming a more secure living environment.
Other well-known and dramatic social justice movements include the ending of South Afri-
can Apartheid (Mandela, 1995) and the many anti-colonial movements by countries securing
autonomy from European rule (Macey, 2000). Studying successful change efforts, social move-
ments, how resistance is aligned with social justice, and how it can become co-opted, can assist
not only students but their professors to become more knowledgeable about strategies and
tactics for change, and more comfortable with resistance, based on the success of seemingly
unwinnable conflicts. Stewart (2007) suggests deepening student learning by assigning “acts of
resistance” as practice to help reduce fear and encourage practice in speaking up against oppres-
sive and silencing policies.
Encouragement and inspiration can be found in struggles from the past:
First they ignore you.

Then they ridicule you.
And then they attack you and want to burn you.
And then they build monuments to you. . . .
(Klein, 1918)
Building alliances for resistance

A particularly effective form of resistance is the building of alliances, which might be in the form
of “affinity groups” (Dudziak, 2002) or “reference groups” (Murphy, 1999). Schools of social
work are obvious sites to begin building networks and community relationships, and they also
provide opportunities for students to practice bringing diverse people together, building support
for each other in the process. Schools might also include efforts to recruit known activists into
the student body in order to ‘seed’ the field with students already committed to social justice.We
can reclaim both the ‘social’ and the ‘worker’ in social work in order to remind ourselves that we
are workers of the social world.
Alliances between schools and professional organizations are of course a positive step. But
additionally, in this era, useful alliances with resistance movements could be formed. We might
388
begin by noticing those who are demonized in the media, such as environmentalists, immigrants
and refugees, youth, the poor and the un- and underemployed. Standing (2011), for instance,
has written that the work of shaping the precariat into a recognized and somewhat united class
interest will be one of the most important resistance tasks of the immediate future. Another
strategy would be for schools to organize collective development of activist teaching resources
to encourage a more collective basis for teaching resistance.
These kinds of connections developed within schools and through alliances between
schools would model for students ways to become engaged in local and global communities.
In this scenario, being part of a school of social work would introduce students from the
beginning to a network of communities, with students clearly invited to become connected
locally and globally. When a school develops formal alliances with communities of resistance,
the institution may then also act as a protective factor for individuals, both students and
faculty, thus counteracting some of the fear generated by neoliberalism. These connections,
formed in the context of education, can extend beyond graduation to help support social
workers as they try to put into practice the ideas and skills for resistance taught in their for-
mal education. In a study conducted by the authors involving focus groups of social work
students and graduates, participants stated the need for continued support as they entered
the workforce. They felt “set adrift” with the message they should resist oppressive practices
but they would be doing this on their own. By creating networks early on, this outcome can
be avoided, and a coalition of groups committed to the greater good can be expanded and
strengthened beyond graduation.
Using the practicum

Field placements for social work students have become a requirement to meet professional
accreditation standards. The usual practice is for students to be placed in social service or health
settings that can provide individual supervision by a qualified social worker. Scholars from
around the world note that with the universal shifts toward “fiscal austerity and policies that
emphasize market-oriented and individually-focused solutions” (Reisch, 2013: 715), schools of
social work are encountering challenges in implementing field education due to inadequate
placement opportunities and qualified supervisors (e.g. Khachatryan, 2011; Liu, Sun & Ander-
son, 2013; Tanga, 2013). Moreover, more social service agencies are using students to cover gaps
left by reduced funding, moving productivity and worker performance to the foreground and
student learning and critical analysis to the sidelines (Morley & Dunstan, 2013).Thus, the likeli-
hood that the practicum will serve as a funnel to a secure job becomes less likely in the current
neoliberal context.
If the purpose of field education is refocused to preparing students for active engagement
in the neoliberal world and providing experiences of resistance, what are the key local and
global settings? Can social work, as a profession, adopt a more creative and open approach to
acceptable field sites and supervision, one that emphasizes social justice practice and collective
action? Social work field educators may look to political settings, alternative health care cen-
tres, legal clinics, environmental activist organizations, human rights groups, labour unions and
grassroots social justice movements. Social work students might be paired with a politician, a
doctor serving refugee claimants, a human rights lawyer, a labour leader for migrant workers,
a conflict mediator or community organizer. A political and activist orientation toward field
education might generate issues-based placements in communities rather than in agencies
(George et al., 2011) to collectively tackle a shared social concern such as food insecurity or
violence.
389
An emphasis on mutual learning and active engagement in communities would shift super-
vision from an individualistic and expert approach to performance indicators based on collective
processes, accountability to the community, and reciprocity (Sung-Chan & Yuen-Tsang, 2008;
George et al., 2011). If we expand our view of ‘social worker’ to “refer to people who join the
effort for creating social change for their own social group or for other marginalized groups”,
student supervision might be coordinated by key “focal people” within communities (Sulistyo-
wati, 2011: 135). A central role of the field education office becomes, then, forging alliances
among students, faculty and communities to partner in mobilizing for social change.
Skill-building
Social work has a long and rich history of skill development, including active listening, rela-
tionship building, group work and community organization, skills we learn to do exceptionally
well. These important skills can be reframed, extended and put to use in challenging neoliberal
language, programs and policies as well as in assisting victims of neoliberalism.
Skills for engaging in democratic processes are crucial in neoliberal contexts. The neolib-
eral approach intends to discourage any critique of itself (Garrett, 2010), eliding thoughts about
democracy and what it requires to be maintained. In our experience, many social work students
graduate without skills required to effectively engage in democratic processes. Knowing how to
dissent and disagree without producing unhelpful conflict, ensuring all voices are heard, putting
the tools of conflict resolution into place, effectively engaging in meetings and using power for the
common good are all skills social workers will need to encourage social justice values and goals.
In the classroom, use of technology for on-the-spot social research, creating student-friendly
projects like zines (Desyllas & Sinclair, 2014) and joining and supporting activist communities
(Preston & Aslett, 2014) can help students practice activism. Susan Preston uses large classes to
conduct social justice campaigns in the classroom, a process that creates power through numbers
and also promotes collaborative learning (Preston & Aslett, 2014). Collective types of learning
such as popular theatre (Epskamp, 1989), restorative approaches to education and practice (Beck,
Kropf and Leonard, 2011; Llewellyn & Llewellyn, 2015), learning circles (Ball, Caldwell & Pranis,
2010) and group conferencing (Merkel-Holguin, 2004) can also be used to help students chal-
lenge the individualism of neoliberalism.
Community development, or “people-driven change” (Brady, Schoeneman & Sawyer, 2014),
is a core but underused social work skill base that likely needs revitalization for use in the cur-
rent context. Brady, Schoeneman and Sawyer (2014) show that since the 1980s community
organization models have been ‘neoliberalized’ through the infusion of evidence-based practice
approaches, professionalization and reduced attention to grassroots social movements. It is likely
this model, ‘expert’ led and driven, that is now being exported from the West to new schools of
social work around the world. Yet the most effective community development models histor-
ically have been driven by people themselves, based on their knowledge and expertise about
issues that directly affect them (Freire, 2000).
Conclusion
We cannot expect social work to shoulder the main challenge to this neoliberal world order.
However, social work is too often conspicuously absent from the forefront of social justice
movements. This is a luxury we won’t be able to afford if we expect to challenge rather than
reinforce injustices perpetrated in this neoliberal era.
Professional standards such as competency profiles (Aronson & Sammon, 2011) focus on pre-
paring students to be competitive in the global labour market more so than nurturing the ideals
390
and values of social work. To pursue this objective is to contribute to the demise of social work
itself. We therefore strongly encourage social work to educate itself about neoliberalism and to
think critically about it. We can learn, teach and emphasize language, values, attitudes and skills
that equip us for challenge and knowledge about how the world actually works. We can think
socially, resist collectively and work actively to work actively to create a collective soul.
References
Adésinà, J. O. (2010). Rethinking the social protection paradigm: Social policy in Africa’s development.
A commissioned background paper for the European Report on Development, Conference on promoting
resilience through social protection in Sub-Saharan Africa. Dakar, Senegal, 28–30 June 2010. Florence: Euro-
pean University Institute.
AFL-CIO (2015). CEO-to-worker pay ratios around the world. [online] Available at www.aflcio.org/
Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-Archive/CEO-Pay-and-You/CEO-to-Worker-Pay-Gap-in-the-United-
States/Pay-Gaps-in-the-World [Accessed 14 May 2015]
Aronson, J., & Sammon, S. (2011). Social work competency profile: A critique [letter]. (Personal commu-
nication, 17 June 2011). Hamilton, ON: McMaster University.
Ball, J., Caldwell, W., & Pranis, K. (2010). Doing democracy with circles: Engaging communities in public
planning. Ann Arbor, MI: Sheridan Books.
Banks, N., & Hulme, D. (2012).The role of NGOs and civil society in development and poverty reduction.
[pdf] Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester. Available at www.bwpi.manchester.
ac.uk/medialibrary/publications/working_papers/bwpi-wp-17112.pdf [Accessed 14 May 2015]
Beck, E., Kropf, N. P., & Leonard, P. B. (Eds.) (2011). Social work and restorative justice: Skills for dialogue, peace-
making, and reconciliation. Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bichler, S., & Nitzan, J. (2012). Imperialism and financialism: A story of a nexus. Journal of Critical Globalisa-
tion Studies, [e-journal] 5, 42–78. Available at York University Libraries website www.library.yorku.ca/
web [Accessed 14 May 2015]
Bjuhr, C., & Regnander, S. (2012). “We are our own social workers!” Social work and the discourses of LGBT rights
in Kampala, Uganda. Master of Science in Social Work. Göteborgs Universitet.
Brady, S. R., Schoeneman, A. C., & Sawyer, J. (2014). Critiquing and analyzing the effects of neoliberalism
on community organizing: Implications and recommendations for practitioners and educators. Journal
for Social Action in Counselling and Psychology, [e-journal] 6(1), 36–60. Available at York University Librar-
ies website www.library.yorku.ca/web [Accessed 14 May 2015]
Canadian Association for Social Work Education (2015). Commission on accreditation resources: Student
and faculty numbers 2008–2013. [online]. Available at http://caswe-acfts.ca/commission-on-accredita-
tion/coa-resources/ [Accessed 14 May 2015]
Chi-leung, L., & Hoi-kin, T. (2013). Adversity and resistance: Neoliberal social services and social work
in Hong Kong. Critical and Radical Social Work. [e-journal] 1(2), 267–271. Available at York University
Libraries website www.library.yorku.ca/web [Accessed 14 May 2015]
Corak, M. (2013). Income inequality, equality of opportunity, and intergenerational mobility. [online] Dis-
cussion Paper No. 7520, July 2013. Bonn: The Institute for the Study of Labor. Available at http://ftp.
iza.org/dp7520.pdf [Accessed 14 May 2015].
Credit Suisse (2014). Global wealth report. [online] Zurich: Research Institute. Available at https://
publications.credit-suisse.com [Accessed 14 May 2015].
Decker, J. T. (2011). Developing sustainable graduate social work at Ilia Chavchavades State University
in Tbilisi, Georgia. In S. Stanley (Ed). Social work education in countries of the East: Issues and challenges
(pp. 103–116). New York, NY: Nova Publishers.
Desyllas, M. C., & Sinclair, A. (2014). Zine-making as a pedagogical tool for transformative learning in
social work education. Social Work Education:The International Journal, [e-journal] 33(3), 296–316. Avail-
able at York University Libraries website www.library.yorku.ca/web [Accessed 14 May 2015]
Dobbin, M. (2003). The myth of the good corporate citizen: Democracy under the rule of big business (2nd ed.).
Toronto: Stoddart.
Doostgharin, T. (2011). Social work in Iran. In S. Stanley (Ed.), Social work education in countries of the East:
Issues and challenges (pp. 151–170). New York, NY: Nova Publishers.
Duchrow, U., & Hinkelammert, F. J. (2004). Property for people, not for profit: Alternatives to the global tyranny of
capital. London: Zed Books.
391
Dudziak, S. (2002). Educating for justice: Challenges and openings at the beginning of a new century.
Critical Social Work, [e-journal] 3(1). Available at York University Libraries website www.library.yorku.
ca/web [Accessed 14 May 2015]
Epskamp, K. P. (1989). Theatre in search of social change:The relative significance of different theatrical approaches. Trans-
lated by G. Hooymans.The Hague: Centre for the Study of Education in Developing Countries (CESO).
Forbes (2014). Inside the 2014 Forbes billionaires list: Facts and figures. [online] Available at www.forbes.
com/sites/luisakroll/2014/03/03/inside-the-2014-forbes-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures/ [Accessed
15 May 2015]
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Translated by M. Bergman Ramos, 30th Anniversary ed. New
York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and freedom (2nd ed.). Chicago University of Chicago Press.
Galinsky, A. D., Hugenberg, K., Groom, C., & Bodenhausen, G. (2003).The reappropriation of stigmatizing
labels: Implications for social identity. In M. A. Neale, E. A. Mannix, & J. Polzer (Eds.), Research on man-
aging groups and teams. Greenwich, CT: Elsevier Science Press.
Garrett, P. M. (2010). Examining the ‘Conservative Revolution’: Neoliberalism and social work education.
Social Work Education: The International Journal, [e-journal] 29(4), 340–355. Available at York University
George, P., Coleman, B., & Barnoff, L. (2011). Stories from the field: Practicing structural social work in
current times: Practitioners’ use of creativity. Critical Social Work, [e-journal] 11(2), 13–27. Available at
York University Libraries website www.library.yorku.ca/web [Accessed 14 May 2015]
Glyn, A. (2006). Capitalism unleashed: Finance, globalization, and welfare. London: Oxford University Press.
Graham, M. (2006). Black studies and the social work paradigm: Implications of a new analysis. In M. K.
Asante, & M. Karenga (Eds.), Handbook of black studies (pp. 304–316). Thousand Oaks, CA and London,
UK: Sage Publications.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Houston, S. (2014). Beyond individualism: Social work and social identity. British Journal of Social Work,
[e-journal] Advance access, 1–17. Available at York University Libraries website www.library.yorku.ca/
web [Accessed 14 May 2015]
International Crisis Group (2015). Back from the brink: Saving Ciudad Juárez. Latin America Report No54.
[online] (25 February 2015). Available at www.crisisgroup.org [Accessed 14 May 2015]
International Federation of Social Workers (2015). Global definition of social work. [online] (Last updated 6
August 2014) Available at http://ifsw.org/policies/definition-of-social-work [Accessed 14 May 2015].
Khachatryan, A. (2011). Social work education in Armenia. In S. Stanley (Ed.), Social work education in
countries of the East: Issues and challenges: Social justice, equality and empowerment (pp. 1–12). New York, NY:
Nova Science Publishers.
Klein, N. (1918). Address to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Available at www.csmonitor.
com/USA/Politics/2011/0603
Levinas, E. (2006). Entre nous: Thinking-of-the-other. Translated by M. B. Smith and B. Harshav. London:
Continuum.
Lightman, E. (2003). Social policy in Canada. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.
Litonjua, M. D. (2010). International free trade, the WTO, and the third world/global south. Journal of Third
World Studies, [e-journal] 27(2), 45–70. Available at York University Libraries website www.library.
yorku.ca/web [Accessed 14 May 2015]
Liu, M., Sun, F., & Anderson, S. G. (2013). Challenges in social work field education in China: Lessons
from the Western experience. Social Work Education:The International Journal, [e-journal] 32(2), 179–196.
Available at York University Libraries website www.library.yorku.ca/web [Accessed 14 May 2015]
Llewellyn, K., and J. Llewellyn. (2015). A restorative approach to learning: Relational theory as feminist
pedagogy in universities. In T. Light, J. Nicholas and R. Bondy (Eds), Feminist pedagogy in higher education:
Critical theory and practice (pp. 11–32). Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Macey, D. (2000). Frantz Fanon: A life. London: Granta.
Mandela, N. (1995). Long walk to freedom:The autobiography of Nelson Mandela. London: Little, Brown and Company.
Marx, Karl. (1996). Capital: A critique of political economy, vol. I (trans. by B. Forkes). New York: Penguin/New
Left Review.
Merkel-Holguin, L. (2004). Sharing power with the people: Family group conferencing as a democractic
experiment. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, [e-journal] 31(1), 155–173. Available at York University
Mitchell, L. E. (2010). Financialism: A (very) brief history. Creighton Law Review, [e-journal] 43, 323–334.
392
Social Work Education: The International Journal, [e-journal] 32(2), 141–156. Available at York University
Murphy, B. K. (1999). Transforming ourselves, transforming the world: An open conspiracy for social change. London:
Zed Books.
Nadkarni, V. V. (2011). Social work education in India: Complexities and challenges. In S. Stanley (Ed.),
Social work education in countries of the East: Issues and challenges: Social justice, equality and empowerment
(pp. 117–133). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Panitch, L., & Gindin, S. (2012). The making of global capitalism:The political economy of American empire. Lon-
don:Verso.
Papadaki,V. (2001). Studying social work: Choice of compromise? Students’ views in a social work school
in Greece. Social Work Education: The International Journal, [e-journal] 20(1), 137–147. Available at York
University Libraries website www.library.yorku.ca/web [Accessed 14 May 2015]
Parada, H.,Todd, S., Barnoff, L., Moffatt, K., Panitch, M., Mucina, M., & Pyne, J. (2012). Friend or foe: Progres-
sive social work and the neoliberal university in Canada. Paper Presented at the Social Work Social Develop-
ment 2012: Action and Impact Conference, Stockholm, Sweden. Available at www.newmanagerialism.
com/ [Accessed 15 May 2015]
Preston, S., & Aslett, J. (2014). Resisting neoliberalism from within the Academy: Subversion through an
activist pedagogy. Social Work Education:The International Journal, [e-journal] 32(4), 502–518. Available at
York University Libraries website www.library.yorku.ca/web [Accessed 14 May 2015].
Reisch, M. (2013). Social work education and the neo-liberal challenge: The US response to increasing
global inequality. Social Work Education:The International Journal, [e-journal] 32(6), 715–733. Available at
Siddiqui, K. (2012). Developing countries’ experience with neoliberalism and globalisation. Research in
Applied Economics, [e-journal] 4(4), 12–37. Available at York University Libraries website www.library.
Sinclair, T. J. (2005). The new masters of capital: American bond rating agencies and the politics of creditworthiness.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Standing, G. (2011). The precariat:The new dangerous class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Stanley, S. (Ed.) (2011). Social work education in countries of the East: Issues and challenges. New York, NY: Nova
Publishers.
Stewart, J. (2007). Teaching resistance: An exercise in critical pedagogy. Radical Pedagogy, [e-journal] 9(1).
Stiglitz, J. (2012). The price of inequality. New York, NY: W.H. Norton & Company.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2009). Moving beyond market fundamentalism to a more balanced economy. Annals of Public
and Cooperative Economics, [e-journal] 80(3), 345–360. Available at York University Libraries website
www.library.yorku.ca/web [Accessed 14 May 2015]
Sulistyowati, A. (2011). Case studies for social work education from Indonesia – Examples of Farmers Field
School in LESMAN and FIELD. In S. Stanley (Ed.), Social work education in countries of the East: Issues and
challenges (pp. 135–150). New York: Nova Publishers.
Sung-Chan, P., & Yuen-Tsang, A. (2008). Bridging the theory–practice gap in social work education:
A reflection on an action research in China. [e-journal] Social Work Education, 27(1), 51–69. Available at
Tanga, P. T. (2013). The challenges of social work field training in Lesotho. Social Work Education: The Inter-
national Journal, [e-journal] 32(2), 157–178. Available at York University Libraries website www.library.
Thompson, N. (2002). Social movements, social justice and social work. British Journal of Social Work,
[e-journal] 32(6), 711–722. Available at York University Libraries website www.library.yorku.ca/web
[Accessed 14 May 2015]
Wall Street (1987). [Film] Directed by Oliver Stone. USA: Twentieth Century Fox Film.
Ward, S. C. (2012). Neoliberalism and the global restructuring of knowledge and education. NewYork, NY: Routledge.
Wong, Y., & Pearson, V. (2007). Mission possible: Building social work professional identity through field-
work placements in China. Social Work Education: The International Journal, [e-journal] 26(3): 292–310.
Yazbek, M. C. (2014). Changes in capitalism and challenges to social work: A view from Brazil. Critical
and Radical Social Work, [e-journal] 2(3), 275–285. Available at York University Libraries website www.
library.yorku.ca/web [Accessed 14 May 2015]
393
34
THE PLACE FOR A GLOBAL AND
HOLISTIC ENVIRONMENT
International challenges and opportunities for
social work education in the twenty-first century
Shari E. Miller, R. Anna Hayward-Everson, and Joel Izlar
Portions of this chapter have been reprinted with permission from the original source: Miller,
S. E., & Hayward, R. A. (2013). Social work education’s role in addressing people and a planet
at-risk. Social Work Education:The International Journal, 33(3), 280–295.
Introduction
Since the 1990s, increasing attention has been paid to the relevance of environmental issues
for social work. A number of international scholars have suggested the need for a wholesale
paradigm shift that reorganizes the environment for social work as a more holistic, global one,
rather than a largely anthropocentric and social one (Berger & Kelly, 1993; Besthorn & Canda,
2002; Coates, 2003; Mary, 2008; Miller, Hayward, and Shaw, 2012). Concurrently, others have
suggested the need to overhaul social work education transnationally to accommodate to this
shift ( Jones, 2010; Hayward, Miller, & Shaw, 2012). Texts focused on social work and the envi-
ronment have been proliferating at an increasing rate in recent years, including the publication
of Green Social Work: From Environmental Crises to Environmental Justice (Dominelli, 2012) and
Environmental Social Work (Gray, Coates, & Hetherington, 2012) in one year alone, as have special
issues of journals focused on social work and the environment, including Social Work Education:
The International Journal (2015), Critical Social Work (2010), 10(3) and the International Journal of
Social Welfare (2012), 21(3). As the nature of the earth’s ecological crisis becomes increasingly dire
and impossible to ignore, social work, with its investment in issues of justice and its commitment
to the person-in-environment perspective, needs to firmly locate itself in efforts to address the
crisis.
Global concern for the environment has increased substantially over the last several decades
with current discussions on global climate change, increases in the frequency of large-scale
natural disasters, drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve, controversy over a proposed tar sands
pipeline to run through Canada and the United States, and the health effects of pesticides
and pollution seen daily in the popular media. Hurricanes impacting small island nations and
coastal areas in the United States have brought attention to the short- and long-term effects
of climate change. As the impacts of climate change are experienced – by rising sea levels and
394
A global and holistic environment
more extreme weather events – opportunities for more productive dialogue across political and
national boundaries on the impacts of climate change are created.
As awareness of environmental impacts on our global society has expanded, it has become
apparent that the ecology of our environment cannot be ignored. Exponential population growth,
pollution, pesticide production and use, food insecurity, lack of access to potable water, toxic
waste dumping, and the depletion of the earth’s natural resources pose profound dangers to
the global community and direct threats to the urban and rural poor in the United States, and
to people in developing and third world nations in disproportionate numbers. The need to
understand the impacts of these environmental issues and injustices, and to develop practice
approaches to address them, lies squarely within the purview of social work’s commitment to
social justice and social welfare.
Social work as an international profession has a long record of responding to social, political,
and economic changes with flexibility and agility; built into the fabric of the profession is its ties
to environmental context.The current mounting ecological crisis presents the same call for agil-
ity as have other large-scale historical happenings, but this time the call is a transnational one.The
emphasis on a paradigm shift evident in the writings of a number of global social work scholars
(e.g. Besthorn, 2002, 2012; Coates, 2003; Mary, 2008; Miller et al., 2012) as means of exercising
this characteristic agility along with critically necessary changes in social work education will
require a comprehensive professional soul searching – social work will need to look closely at its
humanistic values center to determine if and where these issues fit; questions of environmental
justice present a good starting point (Miller et al., 2012).
Current research directions

Over the last two decades, social work scholars internationally have called for the inclusion
of environmental issues in the social work curriculum and in practice, identifying the need
to acknowledge the growing ecological crises from a social work perspective (Berger & Kelly,
1993; Besthorn, 2002; Coates, 2003; Mary, 2008; Jones, 2010; Dominelli, 2012; Hayward et al.,
2012). Various approaches to achieving this integration have been suggested, including trans-
formative learning ( Jones, 2010); addressing environmental justice within the social justice
(Hayward et al., 2012), equalitarian (i.e. non-Western), and human rights-focused frameworks
(Pulla, 2013); adding additional content on environmental issues within the current social work
curriculum through service-learning (Lucas-Darby, 2011; Hayward et al., 2012); expanding our
understanding and use of the environment in clinical or direct service practice and advocacy
(Norton, Holguin, & Manos, 2012; Peeters, 2012; Shepard, 2012; Stehlik, 2012); a wholesale
reformulation of the dominant social work paradigms that place focus on individual and small
social environments (Besthorn, 2002, 2012; Coates, 2003; Mary, 2008; Jones, 2010; Gray &
Coates, 2012; Miller et al., 2012; Peeters, 2012); and the inclusion of gender as a critical compo-
nent in this emergent area (Alston, 2013).
However, there has been scant empirical investigation related to the intersection of environ-
mental issues with social work education and practice; through a comprehensive search of the
literature, four studies that explored this intersection were located. In 2001, Marlow and Van
Rooyen surveyed practicing social workers in the United States and South Africa to determine
level of commitment to environmental issues personally and professionally, and if/how practi-
tioners incorporated these concerns in their professional practice. They found that both groups
(92.8%) reported high levels of personal commitment to environmental issues, but that only a
quarter of participants reported membership in an environmental group (the means by which
the authors operationalized personal environmental action). Fewer respondents (71%) reported
395
Shari E. Miller et al.
that environmental issues were important to social work, and even fewer (43.2%) reported that
these issues were important in their own professional practice. When asked if they incorporated
environmental issues in their social work practice, 46% indicated they did, and most noted per-
sonal activities such as volunteering, political activity, cleaning up and recycling, or contact with
nature (Marlow & Van Rooyen, 2001: 249).
Three additional US studies directly explored social workers’ attitudes and behaviors related
to environmental issues. Using a cross-sectional survey design, Shaw (2011) queried practicing
social workers in California about their environmental knowledge and attitudes. Hayward and
colleagues (2012), in a 2007 study, used similar measures of environmental attitudes among a
sample of Master of Social Work (MSW) students from one large university in the Mid-Atlantic
region. In both studies, findings indicated that social work students and practitioners have an
awareness of, and interest in, environmental issues generally (although not at rates that differ
from the general population) (Shaw, 2011; Hayward et al., 2012), and acknowledge the role
that social work could play in addressing environmental issues (Hayward et al., 2012). Students
and practitioners in these two studies did not differ on environmental attitudes or beliefs. Shaw
(2011) and Hayward and colleagues (2012) did not explore the actual environmental practices
of social work practitioners and students. Though Marlow and Van Rooyen (2001) did, they did
so by asking one open-ended question about how social workers incorporated the environment
in their practice.
A recent study by two of the authors (Miller & Hayward, 2013) expanded on this small
body of empirical literature by exploring attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of both Bachelor
of Social Work (BSW) and MSW social work students in two geographical US locations
(N = 205). It focused on education by examining social work students’ interest in environ-
mental issues as a part of education, training, and practice, and it included categorically specific
information about participants’ environmental practices (ranging from recycling at home or
work, to efforts to reduce carbon footprints, to direct action and advocacy). Miller and Hay-
ward (2013) found that attitudes toward the environment among social work students were
similar to Shaw’s (2011) sample of social work practitioners and Hayward et al.’s (2012) earlier
sample of social work students. And, like Dunlap et al. (2000), these attitudes were consistent
with the general US population. Among the respondents, MSW more so than BSW students,
those students who specified plans for macro careers and students with higher scores on the
New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale tended to report a greater number of environ-
mental practices.
Almost 80% of students (n = 162) agreed or strongly agreed that environmental issues were
important for social work. A majority of students also agreed or strongly agreed that envi-
ronmental issues are an important aspect of social justice (n = 148, 72%) and that content on
environmental issues should be included in the social work curriculum (n = 130, 63%). Despite
reporting interest in the topic and strong support for its necessary inclusion in the social work
curriculum, only 8% (n = 16) of students reported that there is “enough” content on environ-
mental issues in the curriculum, and only 21% (n = 42) reported that they had been exposed to
environmental issues during their social work education. Of these students, most indicated they
had been exposed to this content in courses in social welfare policy (n = 35, 9%) or Human
Behavior in the Social Environment (HBSE) (n = 27, 13%). Smaller percentages of students
indicated they had been exposed to environmental issues in their coursework in macro practice
(n = 19, 9%), field education (n = 14, 7%), micro practice (n = 10, 5%), research (n = 7, 3%),
other courses (n = 8, 4%), or electives courses s (n = 7, 3%). About a third of the students (n = 72,
31%) reported not having been exposed to content on the environment in any of their social
work courses.
396
Students were invited to leave comments at the end of the survey. These open-ended state-
ments suggested that US social work students may already be taking a more expanded view of
the environment than what is currently supported by the social work curriculum. For example:
The belief that humans are products of their environments goes beyond . . . socioec-
onomic status and family structures. The physical environment is very influential in
helping to shape how the individual acts and interacts with others . . . ecological fac-
tors, along with others, contribute to the overall wellness of the individual and there-
fore . . . should be taken into account when developing a curriculum that is intended
to prepare students to understand and assist others in reaching maximum potential.
Students also expressed interest in the integration of environmental issues in their social work
education:
A course in environmental issues that directly effect [sic] disenfranchised groups would
greatly help. These issues should be incorporated into public policy as well as social
work in health classes.
I think offering a [sic] SW and environment class would be great. I think especially
one that draws the links between poverty, racism, classism with issues like transporta-
tion, access to fresh food, and air/water quality would be invaluable.
Not all students, however, were fully convinced that environmental issues should be, or could
be, integrated into social work education and practice, as evidenced by these comments:
. . . I do believe that environmental issues in general are relevant to social work because
it can affect the lives of us as human beings. However, I am not sure if every environ-
mental issue is relevant to social work.
. . . I think it would be difficult to integrate environmental awareness into the nature
of the Social Work profession, however I think it is possible on a Macro level. . . . We
have the power as Social Workers to initiate positive change and therefore advocate
more readily than many would. . . . I would be very excited to see environmental ad-
vocacy courses offered in Social Work. . . . I think that would be a great move toward
positive change.
In general, students were hopeful about the ability of social work as a profession to make
space for the inclusion of environmental issues. This marks a shift from Shaw’s (2006) study
conducted fewer than ten years earlier wherein students were skeptical about the idea that social
work as a profession could adapt to include environmental concerns, although they thought the
profession should. This difference is notable, and it points to what might be a large-scale context
shift that makes now an opportune moment to establish best practices in widening the scope of
environment in social work curricula.
Weaving environmental issues into an international

social work curriculum
As Orr (2004) suggested, “all education is environmental education. By what is included or
excluded, students are taught that they are part of or apart from the natural world” (p. 12). Given
the state of local and global ecological affairs and injustices, of the earth and its resources, and
397
the shifts in social work’s acknowledgement of its place in this ecologically expanded environ-
ment, the time is opportune to determine how social work education can be a more inclusive
version of environmental education. How we educate our students and developing practitioners
to understand humanity’s relationship to the environment will inform how effectively they will
be able to engage with clients, multidisciplinary colleagues, and stakeholders in addressing needs
and crafting approaches to change locally and globally; these approaches can be more or less
comprehensive and sustainable, depending upon how “part of or apart from the natural world”
the environment is conceived.
Jones (2010) noted that social work education is at something of a crossroads in determining
how it will meet the challenge of the contemporary global ecological condition in creating its
place in education that is focused on ecological sustainability. Rather than an add-on approach
that simply identifies “the natural environment as one of the core issues with which the pro-
fession is concerned” (p. 71), he advocated for a transformative approach that focuses on the
“development of environmental awareness, or ecological literacy” (p. 73). He called upon the
critical reflection, dialogic, and praxis-based opportunities presented by transformative learning
theory as a proving ground for building this ecological literacy among our students, and offered
up pragmatic suggestions which emanate from his own well-considered approaches to teaching
toward ecological literacy and justice.
It is our sense that the kind of ecological literacy that Jones and other social work scholars
writing in this area (see Besthorn, Coates, Dominelli, Gray, Mary, and Rogge, to name some)
possess may not be representative of the ecological literacy of all social work educators; before
we can facilitate the ecological literacy of our students, we need to consider where our resources
are. Capra (2002) critically questioned the heavy reliance upon a long-standing model of higher
education that divides disciplines, cutting some off from knowledge and understanding in oth-
ers. He suggested that in order to truly engage with and address the ecological crisis, we would
need to move away from this disciplinary-division type model (Capra, 2002). Considering Jones
and Capra together, we suggest that if social work education is going to become more inclusive
in its environmental education, we must embrace the profession’s long-standing approach to
valuing knowledge from other disciplines and integrating it. We further suggest that we need
to build upon that spirit by systematically inviting educators with knowledge from other dis-
ciplines relevant to the environment (e.g. environmental scientists, educators, engineers, public
health practitioners, sustainability educators, and horticulturalists, among others) to join with us
in inter- and transdisciplinary, collaborative, and reciprocal educative relationships. These types
of collaborations can serve to ultimately enhance our students’ ecological literacy and our own
ecological literacy (and therefore our approach to social work education), but also serve to
enhance our colleagues’ disciplines with knowledge and perspectives that emanate from social
work; the gains are, in the very least, bidirectional. As Freire et al. (1994) suggested, we need to
locate those “minimum spaces” in higher education that essentially allow us to work within the
system while effectively emancipating it – in this case, removing the limiting divides that cordon
off disciplines and professions from each other.
When we use the language of inter- and transdisciplinary approaches it is essential to clarify
how they are distinct. Interdisciplinary approaches are understood as involving the integration of
material and perspectives from two or more different disciplines; “Interdisciplinary integration
brings interdependent parts of knowledge into harmonious relationships through strategies such
as relating part and whole or the particular and the general” (Stember, 1991: 4). An interdis-
ciplinary approach could be visualized as a simple to complex Venn diagram, depending upon
the number of involved disciplines. Whereas, transdisciplinary approaches can be understood
as integration at a more complex or abstract level, with an emphasis on specifically blurring
398
disciplinary boundaries and creating “intellectual frameworks [that move] beyond the discipli-
nary perspectives” (Stember, 1991: 4). Transdisciplinarity emphasizes a holism that differentiates
it from interdisciplinarity – it can be visualized as the melding of two or more distinct shapes
into one completely different shape (where none of the original forms are distinguishable)
borne at the intersection of the component parts.
Service-learning as an approach can take the abstract elements of both inter- and trans-
disciplinary learning and render them pragmatic and applied. Service-learning by definition
relies on the reciprocity of the service and the learning such that all stakeholders (e.g. students
and community partners) benefit in equal measure. According to Phillips’s (2007) definition,
“Service learning not only enhances students’ knowledge . . . but also requires that they apply
that knowledge to the practice of addressing social problems in collaboration with community
partners” (p. 4).
With these ideas encapsulating a universe of conceptual and applied frameworks, we will
describe here examples of a few different approaches to locating environmental issues in social
work education that each of the authors of this paper have taken, or are taking. These exam-
ples capture interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and different versions of service-learning. In
addition, we will discuss opportunities to locate content and experiences in the already existing
social work curriculum.
A course on environmental and ecological justice

Hayward-Everson created a discrete course focused on social work and the environment. The
course serves as an advanced elective for second-year MSW students, and focuses on environmen-
tal social work practices including advocacy for communities affected by environmental injustice,
the use of nature and ecology in individual practice, and interdisciplinary service-learning expe-
riences.The course is grounded in the social work literature and emphasizes social work practice,
while also incorporating interdisciplinary perspectives via guest lectures and service-learning
opportunities. Guest speakers from different university departments provide key context for the
focus on environmental issues including food and food security (department of nutrition at the
medical school), water issues including drinking water pollution, shore deterioration, and ocean
pollution (school of marine sciences), and sustainable practices and advocacy in the community
(departments of sustainability studies and environmental humanities). Along with being steeped
in this content in the classroom, students have opportunities for service-learning experiences
throughout the semester via community garden programs, marine wildlife conservation, and
environmental justice initiatives through these departments. With these interdisciplinary mech-
anisms, students from social work who are learning in, about, and through social work have the
opportunity to enhance their content- and practice-informed knowledge base; they are exposed
to the content by experts who emanate from different disciplinary cultures, and they then apply
their understanding of that content (now part of their developing social work knowledge base)
via community-based service-learning experiences.
An interdisciplinary service-learning course

Miller, in collaboration with colleagues from Horticulture and Foods and Nutrition, created an
elective course for both undergraduate and graduate students that hinged on a semester-long
continued service-learning experience. The course relied heavily on the local community con-
text, as it fit within a larger, more global context. Students from all three participating disciplines
were exposed to content that focused on issues of poverty, food security, racial, ethnic, and age
399
disparities, and some aspects of the social determinants of health (Blane, 1995). Students worked
in interdisciplinary teams of three with groups of children ages 5–11 to grow and maintain
food gardens in the children’s school environments. Learning in this experience emerged at the
intersection of reading, applied experiences, community engagement, interdisciplinarity, and
reflection. Key social work issues were highlighted, as were key horticulture and foods/nutrition
issues. These issues were presented, rather than as separate bodies of knowledge, as integrated
concerns and opportunities to work collaboratively with communities for ecologically and just,
sustainable change.
A transdisciplinary approach to educating reflective practitioners

Miller has also established a long-standing collaboration with colleagues who are engineering
educators and engineering education researchers. The collaboration has yielded an ongoing
education and research program focused on educating reflective practitioners for just work in a
global society. This approach includes elements of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work,
both recognizing the unique contributions of each professional discipline and also creating a
reciprocally beneficial relationship between all involved stakeholders, which fosters a different
type of opportunity for thought, action, and change. Justice issues and systems thinking in the
context of environmental and social sustainability function as focal points for students’ learn-
ing and inquiry. The educational approach draws on the knowledge, values, skills, norms, and
attitudes of each respective profession and combines them to afford meaningful opportunity to
more effectively and collaboratively effect change.
This approach includes content and experiential modules for both engineering and social
work students which are delivered collaboratively by instructors from both departments at four
points throughout the semester. Engineering students receive modules focused on enhanced
communication, empathy, roles, collaboration, social systems, and relationship development,
and social work students receive modules focused on understanding the natural environment,
socio-technical systems, and sustainability. In the step-wise plans for this experience, case stud-
ies, written collaboratively by the instructors, hinge on issues of ecological and environmental
justice with local applications (food security, for example) and are utilized as a launching point
for students to collaborate, share perspectives, and problem-solve. Future steps will involve the
development of a service-learning component that places the transdisciplinary student groups in
the local community, doing small-scale needs assessment, developing collaborative relationships
with community stakeholders, and in collaboration with them, proposing sustainable approaches
to community-based environmental change.
Other opportunities within the social work curriculum

In addition to the development of discrete courses, service-learning experiences, or modules
as discussed above, the social work curriculum is rich with opportunities for infusing content
relating to sustainability and environmental justice.
Human behavior in the social environment (HBSE)

or theory courses/modules
These courses provide opportunities to expand students’ conceptual capacity, which has trans-
ferable potential in relationship to other curricular areas, providing expanded understanding
of systems thinking that redefines the very notion of environment as one that reaches beyond
400
the social, fits to the objectives in this curricular area. Concepts can then be applied more expan-
sively, for example, eco-maps shift to include physical environmental systems with which client
systems interact (e.g. client access to nutritious affordable food, disparities in exposure to envi-
ronmental contaminants in poorer communities globally, etc.). Students would then be poised to
consider, assess, and engage a system beyond its constructed social borders to include the daily
and far-reaching reciprocal impacts of the global ecological system.
Policy courses/modules
Similarly, courses or modules that focus on social policy and its relevance across the micro-
macro continuum could expand a focus on justice and human rights issues to those associated
with local and global environmental policy. Opportunities are rich, then, to enhance students’
understanding of advocacy and to inform the development of a repertoire of advocacy practices,
perhaps by linking with local environmental organizations. Linking these organizations to work
in the classroom broadens the potential capacity for students to truly see how policy is present
in the moment-to-moment frontline functioning of organizations.
Practice courses/modules
Courses or modules that focus on practice across the continuum can provide students with
opportunities to incorporate a more ecological understanding of the global environment. In
direct and/or clinical practice courses, students can engage with modalities like nature therapy,
wilderness therapy, and holistic healing approaches to working with clients. Direct practice
courses can and should also invite students to recognize the necessity of factoring physical and
natural environmental circumstances into assessment (e.g. disparities related to Superfund sites,
lead exposure, air quality, access to potable water, access to food, etc.). Courses focused on more
macro aspects of practice can build on what students learn in their expanded theory and policy
courses, and involve students making links with local organizations and facilitating community
needs assessments, opportunities for community empowerment through micro-enterprise (e.g.
community gardens, community farms), and advocacy.
Field education/practice placements

This expanded understanding of the environment’s place in social work education also supports
new opportunities for local and global field practicum/placement experiences. Field placements
with organizations like land trusts, community garden and/or farm initiatives, environmen-
tal justice advocacy organizations, or non-governmental organizations focused on community
empowerment would serve to expose students to these issues in a context that may not be
typical of social work placements but that intersects with issues of social work concern. Oppor-
tunities for field placements in organizations that provide nature therapy, or organizations that
provide child and adult programming that emphasize a shifting relationship to the wilderness,
or to the opportunities to build sustainable access to nutritious foods, also provide social work
students with ways to address the issues of greatest concern but to do so in new contexts.These stu-
dents then inform the peer education aspect of social work education which enhances classroom-
based learning.
These examples begin to scratch the surface of the many opportunities to enhance environ-
mental understanding and environmentally and ecologically just practice through social work
education. Social work education in the context of an increasingly global profession has the
401
opportunity to reorganize the environment for social work and to provide our students with a
perspective and practice approaches that render them more prepared for practice in a (hopefully)
sustainable global society. It seems students are actively expressing interest in and increasingly
recognizing the place for environmental issues in social work education. When considering
social work as a global profession in the context of its global environment, there is no better
time than now to pointedly challenge the limitations of an environment conceived as exclu-
sively social and to move toward a more holistic one for social work. In this space we can locate
innovative, globally engaged approaches to social work education that expand our profession’s
reach into the environment, and also the environment’s impacts on the culture of the profession,
while also enhancing the contributions we can make across practice arenas.
References
Alston, M. (2013). Environmental social work: Accounting for gender in climate disasters. Australian Social
Work, 66(2), 218–233.
Berger, R., & Kelly, J. (1993). Social work in the ecological crisis. Social Work, 38(5), 521–526.
Besthorn, F. H. (2002). Radical environmentalism and the ecological self: Rethinking the concept of
self-identity for social work practice. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 13(1), 53–72.
Besthorn, F. H. (2012). Radical equalitarian ecological justice: A social work call to action. In M. Gray, J.
Coates, & T. Hetherington (Eds.), Environmental social work. New York, NY: Routledge.
Besthorn, F. H., & Canda, E. R. (2002). Revisioning environment: Deep ecology for education and teach-
ing in social work. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 22(1/2), 79–101.
Blane, D. (1995). Editorial: Social determinants of health – Socioeconomic status, social class, and ethnicity.
American Journal of Public Health, 85(7), 903–905.
Capra, F. (2002). The hidden connections: Integrating the biological, cognitive, and social dimensions of life into a science
of sustainability. New York, NY: Random House.
Coates, J. (2003). Ecology and social work:Toward a new paradigm. Halifax: Fernwood.
Dominelli, L. (2012). Green social work. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Dunlap, R. R., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new
ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.
Freire, P., Escobar, M., Fernandez, A., & Guevara-Niebla, G. (1994). Paulo Freire on higher education: A dialogue
at the National University of Mexico. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Gray, M., & Coates, J. (2012). Environmental ethics for social work: Social work’s responsibility to the
non-human world. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21, 239–247
Gray, M., Coates, J., & Hetherington, T. (Eds.) (2012). Environmental social work. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hayward, R. A., Miller, S. E., & Shaw, T.V. (2012). Social work education on the environment in contem-
porary curricula in the USA. In M. Gray, J. Coates, & T. Hetherington (Eds.), Environmental social work.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Jones, P. (2010). Responding to the ecological crisis: Transformative pathways for social work education.
Lucas-Darby, E. T. (2011). The new color is green: Social work practice and service learning. Advances in
Social Work, 12(1), 113–125.
Marlow, C., & Van Rooyen, C. (2001). How green is the environment in social work? International Social
Work, 44(2), 241–254.
Mary, N. L. (2008). Social work in a sustainable world. Chicago, IL: Lyceum.
Miller, S. E., & Hayward, R. A. (2013). Social work education’s role in addressing people and a planet at risk.
Social Work Education:The International Journal, 33, 280–295.
Miller, S. E., Hayward, R. A., & Shaw, T. V. (2012). Environmental shifts for social work: A principles
approach. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21, 270–277.
Norton, C. L., Holguin, B, & Manos, J. (2012). Restoration not incarceration: An environmentally based
pilot initiative for working with young offenders. In M. Gray, J. Coates, & T. Hetherington (Eds.), Envi-
ronmental social work. New York, NY: Routledge.
Orr, D. W. (2004). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect (10th Anniversary ed.).
Washington, DC: First Island.
402
Peeters, J. (2012). Social work and sustainable development: Towards a social-ecological practice model.
Journal of Social Intervention:Theory & Practice, 21(3): 5–26.
Phillips, A. (2007). Service learning and social work education: A natural but tenuous connection. In M.
Nadel, V. Majewski, & M. Sullivan-Cosetti (Eds.), Social work and service learning: Partnerships for social
justice (pp. 3–19). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Pulla,V. (2013). Critical essay: Environmentalism and social work. Rural Society, 22(3), 263–268.
Shaw,T.V. (2006). Social workers’ knowledge and attitudes toward the ecological environment. Doctoral dissertation.
Retrieved on 20 January 2011 from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (3254075).
Shaw, T. V. (2011). Is social work a green profession? An examination of environmental beliefs. Journal of
Social Work. Published online 2 June 2011, doi: 10:1177/1468017311407555.
Shepard, B. (2012). Community gardens, creative community organizing, and environmental activism. In
M. Gray, J. Coates, & T. Hetherington (Eds.), Environmental social work. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stehlik, D. (2012). Social work practice with drought-affected families: An Australian case study. In M. Gray,
J. Coates, & T. Hetherington (Eds.), Environmental social work. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stember, M. (1991). Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. Social Science
Journal, 28(1), 1–14.
403
INDEX
Note: Page numbers in italics indicate figures or tables.
Academic Search Complete 145 ways forward 127; relevance, debate over
academic workforce in UK and US 355 – 68; 121 – 2; stakeholders in 120; supporting social
conclusion 368; current study 358 – 9; development through regional and national
demographic characteristics 360, 361 – 2; networks 127; teaching and assessment,
discussion 366 – 8; introduction 355 – 6; approaches to 125; welfare services in 120, 121
limitations of study 366; methods 359 – 60; The Agenda (Global Agenda for Social Work and
practice qualifications and experience 363, Social Development) 111, 112
363 – 4, 364 – 5; research activity 363, 365 – 6, AIDS 88, 202
366; in UK, overview of 356 – 7; in US, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) 189
overview of 357 – 8 Annual Program Meetings (APM) 271
academisation of social work: case study (Sweden) anti-racism, learning and teaching in 16, 20, 21
51 – 7; definition of 51 – 2; dual legitimacy 57; Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts
future outlook 57; process and inherent tensions (ASSIA) 145
of 52 – 3 Asia and Pacific Association for Social Work
academy in social work, role of 370 – 9; conclusion Education (APASWE) 78 – 9
378 – 9; introduction 370 – 1; nursing and assessment: in Africa 125; of competency 29 – 30;
probation professionals, effectiveness of higher resourcing, in social work education 272; of
education in training of 374 – 6; Praxis model service user and carer (see service user and carer
in 376 – 8, 377; social work education in UK assessment); simulation in (see simulation in
371 – 9; student expectations and realities, teaching and assessing); of skills, OSCE for 185,
mismatch between 372, 373 185, 186; of suitability for social work
accountability, social media and 313 – 15 (see suitability for social work, assessing)
accrediting organizations 27 – 8, 29 Association of Schools of Social Work in Africa
affective (attitudinal) outcomes, measuring (ASSWA) 120
185, 186 Association of Schools of Social Work in India
Africa, social work education in 119 – 28; (ASSWI) 110
conclusion 128; curriculum, design of 123 – 4; Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) 165
fieldwork for social development 124 – 5; Association of Social Work Education in Africa:
fieldwork placements in 200; history of (ASWEA) 119 – 20, 121
119 – 21; indigenisation of social work in Association of Social Work Education in Africa
122, 123, 126; indigenous resources, drawing (ASWEA) 119 – 20
on 125 – 7; introduction 119; models in 122, Association of Specialized and Professional
123, 126; NGOs in 121; poverty in 121, Accreditors (ASPA) 28
123, 124; professionalization of social work Australia: Monash University 209, 212, 213, 217;
in 122; progress on social development and NGOs in 314; postgraduate programmes in 221;
405
Index
poverty in 221 – 2; undergraduate programmes of social work education in 74 – 5;

in 222 internationalization and contextualization,
Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) tension between 81; international support for
62, 221, 223 78 – 9; introduction 73; manpower placement
Australian Social Work Education and system and 80 – 1; models in 78, 79, 81; MSW
Accreditation Standards (ASWEAS) 17 in 67, 74, 75, 76, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80; NGOs in
authenticization of social work 86 78; opportunities and challenges confronting
authentisation 122, 123 79 – 82; overview of 73 – 5; PhD in 74, 76, 78,
authors of dissertations, tracking 332, 334 80; poverty in 75; professionalization of social
automaticity 186 work in 73, 74; social and economic problems
75; stakeholders in 75, 76 – 7, 80; support from
Bachelor of Social Work (BSW): attitudes/ social work education community 78 – 9;
behaviors of students and, study of 396; in undergraduate programmes in 75; at various
Canada 68; in Finland 376; in Georgia 103, levels, overview of 76; welfare services in 73,
105; in Hong Kong 232; in Israel 255; KMb 75, 80 – 1
activities and 334; online course delivery 67, 68, China Association for Social Work Education
325 – 6; practice qualifications and experience, (CASWE) 67, 69, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80
in UK vs. US 363; at UPNG 212 Christ University 113
Batumi University 100 Civic Education Project 99
behavioural changes, measuring 185, 187 codes of ethics 158
Behavioural Social Sciences Ethics Committee, cognitive skills 184 – 5, 185
University of Queensland 234 The College of Social Work (TCSW) 113,
Black and White Pedagogical Partnerships (Nyland) 19 223, 246, 290, 319; Professional Capabilities
borderless university experience see cross border Framework 144, 223, 290
university (CBU) College of Staten Island, City University of New
Boston University 68 York 359
British Journal of Social Work 9 colonialism 5, 15, 16, 276
colonisation 4, 7, 225, 227 – 8
California State University-Northridge 68 Columbia University, New York 99
Canadian Association of Paediatric Health Centres Commission on Educational Policy (COEP) 31, 32
(CAPHC) 339 competence, conceptualizing 265 – 6, 267
Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) Competence and Aptitude in Social Work Scale
332, 339 (CASWS) 186
Care Act 2014 287 competency, assessing 29 – 30
Care Council of Wales 63 competency-based approaches 21, 28, 220, 222, 228
carers: assessment (see service user and carer competency-based education (CBE) 27 – 36;
assessment); defined 287; involving 191; adopting, rationale for 30; assessing competency
measuring outcomes for 185, 187 29 – 30; defined 27; definition of 27; in EPAS
Care Standards Act 2000 289 2008 30, 31 – 4, 35; in EPAS 2015 32 – 5, 36;
Caring for Our Future: Reforming Care and Support overview of 27 – 9; social work education
(DoH) 287 profession, challenges for 35 – 6
The Carnegie Classification 357 Competency-Based Initiatives Working Group,
Carnegie Foundation study 6 NPEC 28 – 9
case study/critical incident: account of 225–6; compilation skills 184, 186
deconstruction of 226–7; reconstruction of 227–8 concept mapping 184 – 5
centrality of field education or placements 304 – 5 conceptualizing competence 265 – 6, 267
Childline India Foundation 114 conscentisation 122
China, social work education in 73 – 82; Constructivist, Emotionally-Oriented (CEO)
1988 – 1998: rebuilding social work education Model of Web-Based Instruction 328
system 74; 1999 – 2005: rapid expansion of contextualization 81, 93
social work programmes 74; 2006 to now: Continuing Professional Development (CPD) 187,
institutionalization of social work education in 246, 287, 288 – 9, 291, 319
China 74 – 5; epilogue 82; factors contributing Council for Higher Education Accreditation
to 75 – 9; fieldwork in 74; government (CHEA) 28
leadership and education autonomy, tension Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) 17,
between 81 – 2; government leadership in 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 39, 44, 62, 67, 68 – 9, 223,
development of 77 – 8; institutionalization 265 – 6, 325, 327, 328, 358, 359, 360, 367
406
Index
criteria, for assessing suitability for social work 139 – 40; culturally competent approach,
299 – 301 limitations to 137 – 9; educational approaches
criticality 93, 185 to 140 – 1; education for cultural competence
critically reflective field education 224 in social work 133 – 7; overview of 133; social
Critical Race Theory (CRT) 19, 20 – 1, 141 work education and research, future directions
Cross-Border Education Research Team for 141
(C-BERT) 62, 68 Doctoral Dissertation Project Decision Tree 333
cross border university (CBU) 59 – 69; collaborative doctoral research 331 – 40; conclusion 340;
approach 67 – 8; curriculum 66 – 7; defined 60; introduction 331; manuscript-based approach
forms of 60 – 1; funding 65 – 6; introduction 335 – 9; moving doctoral student from novice
59 – 60; number of 62, 63, 64 – 5; quality control writer to published author 335 – 9; see also
67; social work education, considerations for 62, knowledge mobilization (KMb)
63, 65; summary thoughts 68 – 9 Doctor of Philosophy see PhD
cultural competence in social work: diversity dual legitimacy 57
and social justice, learning and teaching about
137 – 9; education for 133 – 7; limitations to East and Southern Association of Schools of Social
137 – 9 Work (ESASS) 120
cultural humility, embracing 139 – 40 ecological justice course 399
cultural imperialism 7, 86, 99 educating reflective practitioners, transdisciplinary
culture shock 203 approach to 400
curriculum: in Africa 123 – 4; cross border Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards
university 66 – 7; design, broader educational (EPAS): 2001 31; 2008 30, 31 – 4, 35, 44 – 5, 265;
context for 39 – 42; environmental issues for 2015 32 – 5, 36, 39, 265, 328, 358, 367
social work in 397 – 9; in Georgia 101 – 2; educators see practice educators/field instructors
internationalisation of, arguments for 7 – 8; law e-learning resources 177 – 8; educators’ capacity in
learning outcomes 175 – 6; in Malaysia 91 – 2; evaluating learning outcomes 178; educators’
other opportunities in 400 – 2; suitability for capacity in using 177 – 8; students’ law learning
social work and 305 – 6 outcomes 178
curriculum, globalisation and 38 – 47; curriculum emotional processes, of struggling or failing
design, broader educational context for 39 – 42; students 247 – 8
future actions 46 – 7; global workforce 45 – 6; emotional trauma 203
introduction 38 – 9; methodology for study 42; England: models in 200, 246; partnerships
policy narratives of the problem 42 – 3; social with Georgia, in social work education
work educators and curricula prescription 44 – 5 99 – 100; postgraduate programmes in 246;
curriculum vitaes (CVs), obtaining 332, 334 undergraduate programmes in 246, 288
English fieldwork 245 – 6; see also struggling or
data collection, in KMb 332, 334 failing students
decision making, ethical 158 Enquiry and Action Learning (EAL) 40
decolonisation 3, 7 – 8 environmental and ecological justice course 399
Delhi School of Social Work 109, 113 environmental issues for social work 394 – 402;
democracy, liberty vs. 384 – 5 environmental and ecological justice course
Department for Development of Women ( JPW) 85 399; field education/practice placements
Department for Social Welfare ( JKM) 89 401 – 2; HBSE or theory courses/modules
Department of Education (DOE) 28 400 – 1; interdisciplinary service-learning
Department of Social Welfare (DSW) 85, 362 course 399 – 400; in international social work
Department of Social Welfare, Malaysia ( JKMM) 85 curriculum 397 – 9; introduction 394 – 5; other
Department of Social Work in Madras Christian opportunities in social work curriculum
College 113 400 – 2; policy courses/modules 401; practice
Department of Social Work in the Jamia Millia courses/modules 401; research directions
Islamia 113 395 – 7; transdisciplinary approach to educating
displaced peoples 9 – 10 reflective practitioners 400
dissertation see doctoral research Establishing Social Work Education in Georgia
distance education: in social work 323 – 4; for social (ESWEG) 99 – 100
work education 325, 325 – 6; see also web-based ethical practice in social work, teaching and
education in social work learning for 157 – 67; codes of ethics
diversity and social justice, learning and teaching 158; conclusion 166 – 7; definition and
about 133 – 41; cultural humility, embracing meaning 157 – 60; ethical decision making
407
Index
158; introduction 157; organizational and organisations providing 201; services around
multidisciplinary context 159; personal moral violence and trauma 203; social movements
qualities 158 – 9; socio-political context 159 – 60; 197, 198, 200, 202; socio-economic and human
see also ethics education rights campaigning organisations 202
ethical role modelling 163 – 4, 165 field instructors see practice educators/field
ethics education 160 – 6; ethical reflection as a instructors
skill 162, 163; ethical skills 162 – 3, 163; goals of field learning in field supervision 232 – 40;
161 – 2; learning and teaching methods 164 – 5, conclusion 240; fluidity and, notion of 236 – 7;
165; learning and teaching models 163 – 4; in Hong Kong 232 – 4; introduction 232;
novice-to-expert pedagogy of ethical practice learning space 237 – 40; nature of 234 – 5;
166; in social media in social work education research methodology 233 – 4
313 – 15; when to teach 162 field supervision see field learning in field
European Social Ethics Project (ESEP) 164 – 5 supervision
European Union (EU), partnerships with fieldwork: in Africa 120, 124–5; in China 74;
Georgia in social work education 99 – 100 in India 109, 110, 115; in Israel 255–6; in
EveryChild 98 Johannesburg 200; in Malaysia 91; mixed
evidence-based practice (EBP) 52, 55, 56, 147, methods, analysing 148; in Papua New Guinea
149 – 50, 153, 159, 356, 375, 390 212; study of law learning on 173; supervisor 254
evidence-informed pedagogy 178 – 81 fluidity, notion of 236 – 7
exchanges, international academic 5 – 7 Fordham University 69
experience, in academic workforce 363, 363 – 4, Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) 116
364 – 5 funding, for cross border university 65 – 6
Faculty of Psychology at TSU 99 gatekeeping 298; see also suitability for social work,
Faculty of Social Work in MS University assessing
of Baroda 113 Georgia, social work education in: BSW in
failing students see struggling or failing students 103, 105; challenges to 104 – 5; current state
family planning centre (FPC) 225 of 101 – 3; de-institutionalization process
field action projects, in India 107, 110, 111, in 98; educational curriculum 101 – 2; EU
114 – 16 partnerships, development of 99 – 100; MSW
field education/practice placement challenges in 105; opportunities in 104 – 5; pedagogic
203 – 4; culture shock and emotional trauma approaches and innovations 103; practice
203; lack of resources and helplessness 204; educators/field instructors in, ESWEG
relationships with other social work agencies training programme for 99 – 100; practice
204; in secondary settings 204; slow pace of learning arrangements 102 – 3; undergraduate
community processes 204 programmes in 99
field education/practice placements: case study/ Georgia, social work in: antecedents for 97 – 8;
critical incident 225 – 8; centrality of 304 – 5; beginnings of 98 – 100; NGOs in 98, 101, 104;
competency-based approaches 222; conclusion poverty in 97, 98, 104; professionalization of
228; contesting 220 – 8; critically reflective 224; 100 – 1; social development 96; social work as a
environmental issues for social work 401 – 2; profession 100 – 1; socio-political development
group supervision in (see group supervision 96 – 7; welfare services 101, 102, 104
in field education); impact of global forces on Georgian Association for Mental
220 – 2, 221 – 2; introduction 220; narrowing of Health (GAMH) 98
placement opportunities 222 – 3; opportunities Georgian Association of Social Workers (GASW)
in, narrowing of 222 – 3; OSCE in determining 99, 101, 102, 103, 104
readiness for 270; in Papua New Guinea Global Agenda for Social Work and Social
(see Papua New Guinea); research findings Development (The Agenda) 17, 111
on 214 – 16; as vehicle to affirm or contest global borderless university 59; see also cross border
mainstream conservatism 223 – 4; see also field university (CBU)
learning in field supervision global diffusion of social work see international
field education/practice placements for progressive social work education
social work learning 200 – 3; community global forces, impact of: on social work and social
work, community development and activist work education 220 – 1; on social work field
organisations 203; non-governmental agencies education 221 – 2
or settings 202; organisations with political global growth in higher education see cross border
dimension 202 – 3; services and activities of university (CBU)
408
Index
global workforce, curriculum and 45 – 6 for social work 109; social policy for social
Government of India (GOI) 109 work 109; social work in context of current
Group of Eight (Go8) 212 social realities 113 – 14; social work research
group sessions: content of 257; difficulties during on 115 – 16; stakeholders 114; welfare services
258 – 9; goals of 256 – 7; strengths during 258 108 – 11, 113, 115
group supervision in field education 254 – 61; Indian Association for Social Work Education
conclusions 261; content of group sessions (IASWE) 107, 116
257; difficulties during group sessions 258 – 9; Indiana University School of Social Work 328
discussion 259 – 60; goals of group meetings indigenisation of social work 3, 46; in Africa 122,
256 – 7; in Israel 255; model of 255 – 6; overview 123, 126; defined 86; in India 108, 109 – 10; in
of 254 – 5; strengths during group sessions 258; Malaysia 86, 87; in Papua New Guinea 210,
study 256 211; respectful 8; Western practices and 7 – 8
Indore School of Social Work 113
Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) 42, initial skill acquisition 186
63, 173, 289, 290, 304 Institute of Malaysia (ISM) 85
Health and Social Care Act 2012 289 Institute of Medicine (IOM) 28
Hebrew University of Jerusalem 255, 259 institutionalization: de-institutionalization process
Higher Education Act 28 in Georgia 98; of social work education in
higher education institutions (HEIs): in Malaysia China 74 – 5
88, 91 – 3; monitoring 91; qualified social integration, vertical and horizontal 148 – 51
workers as educators in 92; service user and interactive television (ITV) 323
carer involvement and 289, 292 – 4; social work interdisciplinary service-learning course 399 – 400
education programmes 88; staff exchanges international academic exchanges 5 – 7
across 92 – 3; standards for social work International Association of Schools of Social
curriculum 91 – 2 Work (IASSW) 62, 67, 68, 79, 89, 92, 107, 111,
higher education in training of nursing and 120, 144, 153, 161
probation professionals, effectiveness of 374 – 6 International Branch Campus (IBC) 60
history, neoliberalism and 388 International Council of Social Welfare (ICSW)
HIV/AIDS 88, 103, 113, 201, 202, 250 111, 363
holistic competence 32 – 5, 265 – 6, 270, 272, 273 International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW)
holistic competence model 267, 268 107, 111, 144, 153, 159, 161, 209, 212, 213, 286,
Hong Kong: BSW in 232; field learning in 299, 304, 382 – 3
field supervision in 232 – 4; models in 233; internationalisation: contextualization and 81; of
undergraduate programmes in 232, 233 curriculum 5, 7 – 8; of higher education 7, 45 – 6;
Hong Kong Polytechnic University 74, 78, 79 of tertiary education 59; understanding, from a
Hong Kong Social Workers Registration Board 62 critical perspective 3
horizontal integration 148 – 51 International Monetary Fund (IMF) 113, 383–4, 388
human behavior in the social environment International Non-Governmental Organisations
(HBSE) 396, 400 – 1 (INGOs) 98
human rights campaigning organisations 202 international social work education 3 – 11;
contemporary developments 8 – 10;
Ilia State University 99 displaced peoples 9 – 10; implications for
Immigration Worldwide (Segal and Elliott) 9 10 – 11; introduction 3 – 4; migration 9 – 10;
imperialism: cultural 7, 86, 99; global and transnationalism 9–10; see also Western social work
historical processes of 15; neoliberalism as Israel: group supervision in field education in 255
contemporary form of 384; professional 8, 110, Italy: struggling or failing students in 246 – 7
121; territorial 384 Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University (TSU)
India, education for social development in 107 – 17; 99 – 100, 103, 104
concept of social development 108; conclusion
116 – 17; debate on 110 – 11, 112; field action Jamia Millia Islamia, Department of Social Work
projects 107, 110, 111, 114 – 16; fieldwork in 113
109, 110, 115; indigenization of professional Joint University Council Social Work Education
social work 108, 109 – 10; introduction 107 – 8; Committee ( JUC SWEC) 359
models 109 – 10, 111, 114; NGOs in 115, 116; Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies 9
postgraduate programmes 109; poverty in 110,
113, 115; professionalization of social work 107, knowledge mobilization (KMb) 331 – 5; activities,
108, 109; research 115 – 16; social policy context tracing (data collection) 332, 334; Doctoral
409
Index
Dissertation Project Decision Tree 333; exercise Malaysian Association of Social Workers (MASW)
to practitioners 339; improving 335; limitations, 62, 85, 89 – 90, 92
challenges, and lessons learned 334 – 5; overview Malaysian Qualification Agency (MQA) 90
of 331 – 2; tracking authors and obtaining full Manchester Metropolitan University 359
CVs 332, 334 manpower placement system 80 – 1
manuscript-based approach for social work
law learning outcomes, multi-site investigation dissertation 335 – 9
of 174 – 8; educators’ capacity in evaluating massive open online courses (MOOCs) 324, 328 – 9
learning outcomes 178; e-learning resources Master of Social Work (MSW): attitudes/behaviors
177 – 8; impact of teaching and learning of students and, study of 396; in Canada 68;
175; learning styles 175, 179; orientation in China 67, 74, 75, 76, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80;
176 – 7; practice learning 176; students’ law environmental and ecological justice course
learning outcomes 178; time within academic and 399; in Finland 376; for gaining position
curriculum 175 – 6 in academia 358; in Georgia 105; group
learning outcomes of social work education supervision model and 255; integration of
183 – 92; affective (attitudinal) outcomes 186; research teaching in 148 – 9; KMb activities and
behavioural changes 187; cognitive skills 334; online course delivery 67, 68, 325 – 6, 327;
184 – 5; collaboration between programmes 192; practice qualifications and experience, in UK
conclusion 192; engaging staff 192; engaging vs. US 363, 367; at UPNG 212
students 191; evaluating 183 – 92; introduction McGill University 336 – 7
183; involving service users and carers 191; metacognition 185
levels of 183 – 4, 184; practical considerations Methodist College of Kuala Lumpur (MCKL) 90
191 – 2; research designs 187 – 91, 188; for service methodological insights about researching
users and carers 187; skills 185 – 6; specifying outcomes 179 – 81
and measuring 184 – 7, 186 migration 9 – 10
learning space 237 – 40; conceptualising 237 – 9; Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of
decluttering 239 – 40 Georgia (MoLHSA) 101
learning styles: diverse 151, 165; fluidity and student Ministry of Women, Family and Community
learning 237; law learning outcomes and 175, Development (MWFCD) 89
179; learning strategy distinguished from 237 minorities see race equality; racism
liberty vs. democracy 384 – 5 models: in Africa 122, 123, 126; agency-based
Licensed Master Social Worker (LMSW) 358, 363 222; based on anti-oppressive practice 141;
Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences 100 CBU/franchise 61, 65 – 8; CEO Model of
localisation 3, 126 Web-Based Instruction 328; in China 78,
London School of Economics 87 79, 81; community-based 222; competence
Loyola College 113 265 – 6, 267, 268; of critical reflection 223, 224,
225; culturally accommodative or culturally
Madras Christian College 113 integrative 136, 139; culturally pluralist or
Madras Christian College, Department of Social liberal 18; cultural tolerance and cultural
Work in 113 sensitivity 17; in England 200, 246; in ethics
Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda 109, 113 education 163 – 4, 165; for evidence-based
Makerere University 124 practice 375, 376; for field education/practice
Malaysia, social work education in 84 – 93; placements 221, 222; of field supervision 233,
conclusion 93; criticality, developing 93; 237, 238, 239; for focusing on social presence in
curriculum standards, developing 91 – 2; Web-based education 328; of group supervision
development of 87; fieldwork 91; graduate in field education 254, 255 – 6, 258, 259 – 60,
employment 92; HEIs and (see higher 261; holistic competence 267, 268; in Hong
education institutions (HEIs)); historical Kong 233; immersion 251; in India 109 – 10,
context of 84 – 7; indigenisation of social work 111, 114; for international social work 6, 9;
86, 87; introduction 84; models 85 – 7, 93; Kolb’s learning style 237; of learning outcomes
needs in, continuing 91 – 3; NGOs in 85, 92; 183, 184; in Malaysia 85 – 7, 93; for manuscript-
postgraduate programmes 88, 92; poverty in 85; based dissertation 338; market-based 221;
professionalization of 88 – 91; professionalization power-based 19; for practice resilience 346,
of social work 88 – 91; social development 85, 87; 346, 348, 349, 350, 351; Praxis model 371,
undergraduate programmes 87, 89, 91; United 376 – 8, 377; in race equality 17 – 23; for research
Nations and 87; at USM and other Malaysian teaching and learning 149, 150; social justice
universities 88; welfare services 84 – 92 18 – 19; of social media education 320; social or
410
Index
community development, for social media 320; defined 267; in determining readiness for
in teaching ethical practice 163 – 4; in teaching field education 270; five-scenario 270; holistic
with simulation 271, 272, 273; traditional competence model and 267, 268; to identify
17 – 18; UGC Model Curriculum 2001 111; of students at risk 270 – 1; one-scenario 270;
Web-based education 326, 327 – 9 preparing for 272
MOMO (Mind Of My Own) 312 occupational therapy (OT) 28, 40, 244, 356
Monash University 209, 212, 213, 217 Open Society Foundation (OSF) 98 – 9
moral qualities, personal 158 – 9 orientation 176 – 7
Outcomes of Social Work Education (OSWE) 191
National Assessment and Accreditation Council
(NAAC) 113 – 14 Papua New Guinea 209 – 17; conclusion 217;
National Joint Consultative Committee on Social discussion on research findings 216 – 17; field
Work Education (NJCCSWE) 92 education in 210 – 12; overview of 211 – 12;
National Network of Schools of Social Work poverty in 209; practice placement, research
(NNSSW) 107, 116 findings on 214 – 16; social development
National Population and Family Development 211 – 12; social work in, introduction to 209 – 10;
Board (LPPKN) 85 stakeholders 216; welfare services 211–12; see also
National Postsecondary Education Cooperative University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG)
(NPEC) 28 – 9 Papua New Guinea Social Workers Association
National Student Survey (NSS) 371 (PNGSWA) 212
National Universities Commission of Nigeria 60 Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social
National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy Welfare 255
(NaKMA) 100 pedagogic insights about teaching law to social
National University of Singapore 87 workers 178 – 9
National University of the Kiev Moyhla Academy 98 Peking University 74, 77, 78, 79, 80
neoliberalism 382 – 91; conclusion 390 – 1; effects personal digital assistants (PDAs) 324
of, on social work 385 – 6; history and, engaging Personal Responsibility and Welfare
388; introduction 382 – 3; knowing 387; Reconciliation Act 134
liberty vs. democracy 384 – 5; neoliberal state Pew Commission 28
383 – 4; practicum, using 389 – 90; precariat PhD: in China 74, 76, 78, 80; in Finland 376;
384; resistance, building alliances for 388 – 9; online course delivery 68; practice qualifications
skill-building 390 – 1; social activism and 387 – 8; and experience, in UK vs. US 355, 358, 362; in
social work education and 386 – 7 Sweden 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 – 6
neoliberal social work see practice learning policy courses/modules 401
New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale 396 political conflict and education 123, 213, 275–83;
new public management (NPM) 57, 385 consequences of, approaches to deal with 279;
the new racism 16 definitions, difficulties with 275–7; impact
New York University 63 of, on social work practice 278–9; impact of,
non-governmental organisations (NGOs): in Africa teaching students about 280–1; introduction 275;
121; in area of socio-economic rights work 202; Northern Ireland case study 279–83; programme
in China 78; cross border university and 67; evaluation 281–2, 282; role of social work in,
in Georgia 98, 101, 104; in India 115, 116; in theorising 277–8; social work education and
Malaysia 85, 92; neoliberalism and 386; in Papua training programme 280; tutorial process 281
New Guinea 212; Praxis and 377, 378; social postgraduate (PG) programmes: in Australia 221;
care training in UK, provided by 371; Uniting in England 246; ethics education 161; fast-track
Care, in Australia 314; WAVE 280 training scheme 251; in India 109; law learning,
Northern Ireland case study 279 – 83; see also outcomes of 174 – 5, 176; in Malaysia 88, 92;
political conflict and education prior academic achievement and 300 – 1; for
Northern Ireland Context 280 service users, outcomes 187; in UK 356
Northern Ireland Social Care Council (NISCC) post-test only, for evaluating outcomes 187, 188
63, 280 poverty: in Africa 121, 123, 124; in Australia
novice-to-expert pedagogy of ethical practice 166 221 – 2; in China 75; course in environmental
nursing professionals, effectiveness of higher issues and 397; cultural competence and 135;
education in training of 374 – 6 culture shock and 203; eradication 5, 7; ethical
practice and 159; in Georgia 97, 98, 104; group
Objective Structured Clinical Examinations supervision and 259; in India 110, 113, 115;
(OSCE): for assessing skills 185, 185, 186; interdisciplinary service-learning course and
411
Index
399 – 400; in Malaysia 85; neoliberal social work 88 – 91; neoliberalism and 389; resilience
and 197, 198, 200, 203, 204, 205, 386; in Papua and 343, 345; suitability for social work and,
New Guinea 209; social media and 320; in assessment of 300
Sweden 55 Public Service Department (PSD) 91
practice courses/modules 401
practice educators/field instructors 243; Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) 288
struggling or failing students; academy in quality control, in cross border university 67
social work and 372, 379; in building resilience Queen’s University Belfast 280
knowledge base 349; curricula prescription
and 44 – 5; e-learning resources and 177 – 8; race equality 14 – 24; approaches and methods
in evaluating learning outcomes 178; field 17 – 22; Critical Race Theory and 19, 20 – 1,
evaluation and 268; fluidity in student learning 141; discussion and future challenges 22 – 4;
and 236; in Georgia, ESWEG training introduction 14 – 16; key concepts 16 – 17
programme for 99 – 100; in law learning 173, racialization, process of 16
176; political conflict and 281 – 2; Praxis model racism: anti-racism, learning and teaching in 16,
and 377, 377, 378; qualified social workers 20, 21; combating 7; course in environmental
as, in HEIs 92; in secondary settings 204, issues and 397; cultural competence and 133;
205; social media and 313, 315, 319; in UK, defined 16; motivational outcomes and 186;
qualifications of 356; see also group supervision new 16; resilience and 348
in field education radicalisation 122, 123
practice learning 197 – 205; affective (attitudinal) Rajagiri College of Social Work 113
outcomes 186; conclusion 205; cross- randomised control trial (RCT) 56, 57, 189, 190, 192
comparative international research into 251; in reconceptualisation 39, 122, 123, 197, 198 – 9,
Georgia 102 – 3; introduction 197 – 8; in Italy 201, 205
246 – 7; law learning outcomes 176; lessons and recontextualisation 122, 123
cautions 205; practice placement challenges Refugees Worldwide (Segal, Mayadas, and Elliott) 9
203 – 4; practice placements for progressive religion 93, 109, 213, 277
social work learning 200 – 3; reconceptualisation research: academic workforce in UK and US 363,
of social work 197, 198 – 9, 201, 205; site 251; 365 – 6, 366; cross-comparative international,
social work education and practice learning into practice learning 251; doctoral (see doctoral
199 – 200; in UK 245 – 6, 265; in unconventional research); on environmental issues for social
practice settings 197 – 8; see also field education/ work 395 – 7; future directions for 141; in India,
practice placements on social development 115 – 16; methodological
practice placements see field education/practice insights about outcomes 179 – 81; methodology,
placements in field learning in field supervision 233 – 4;
practice qualifications and experience 363, 363 – 4, in Papua New Guinea, on practice placement
364 – 5 214 – 16; on simulation in teaching and assessing
practicum, using 389 – 90 270 – 1; on struggling or failing students 251; in
practitioners, educating resilient see resilience Sweden, on social work 54 – 7
Praxis model 371, 376 – 8, 377 research and scholarship in law teaching
precariat 384 171 – 81; background 172 – 3; evidence 173 – 4;
pre-test, post-test, for evaluating outcomes introduction 171; methodological insights about
188, 188 researching outcomes 179 – 81; outcomes
pre-test, post-test: two groups, for evaluating (see law learning outcomes, multi-site
outcomes 188, 188 – 9 investigation of); pedagogic insights about
probation professionals, effectiveness of higher teaching law to social workers 178 – 9
education in training of 374 – 6 research designs for evaluating learning outcomes
problem-based learning 40 187 – 91, 188; post-test only 187; pre-test,
procedural knowledge 184, 185 post-test 188; pre-test, post-test; two groups
Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF) 144, 188 – 9; time series designs 190, 191; waiting list
223, 290 controls with repeated measures 190, 190
professional imperialism 8, 110, 121 Research Excellence Framework (REF) 357
professionalism, social media and 313 – 15 research-intensive universities 271, 357, 360
professionalization of social work: academisation research teaching and learning 144 – 53; challenges
and 52; in Africa 122; in China 73, 74; in 152 – 3; conclusion 153; integration of,
environmental issues and 397; in Georgia vertical and horizontal 148 – 51; introduction
100 – 1; in India 107, 108, 109; in Malaysia 144 – 5; methodology 145; overview of research
412
Index
field 146; providers of 151 – 2; purposes for Social Development and Administration (SDA) 88
146 – 7; what is taught, differences in 147 – 8 Social Institute of Malaysia (ISM) 85
resilience: conclusion 351; defined 344 – 6; social justice see diversity and social justice,
framework for 346, 346 – 7; introduction learning and teaching about
343 – 4; knowledge base, building 348 – 9; social media in social work education 310– 20;
post-qualification professional development accountability and 313–15; defining social
and 349 – 50; from resilient student to resilient media 310– 12; to enhance teaching and learning
practitioner 347 – 8; social work education and 316– 17; ethical issues in 313– 15; examples of
teaching of 347 – 50 317– 19; next steps for 319– 20; opportunities
resistance, building alliances for 388 – 9 and challenges 312–13; overview of 310;
Resource Centre for Interventions on Violence professionalism and 313–15; safe use of 315–16
against Women (RCI-VAW) 114 social movements 197, 198, 200, 202, 388, 390
role modelling: ethical 163 – 4, 165; by social work Social Networking Sites (SNSs) 311 – 11, 313, 314,
educators in curriculum issues 306 317, 318
social orphans 97 – 8
School of Social Work and Social Welfare at social policy for social work, in India 109
Hebrew University of Jerusalem 259 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Scottish Social Services Council 63 (SSHRC) 332
selection standards, for assessing suitability for Social Sciences Full Text 145
social work 299 – 301 Social Service Agency (SSA) 101
service user and carer assessment 286 – 94; social work: distance education in 323 – 4; dual
challenges of 291 – 2; conclusion 294; initiating legitimacy of 57; education for cultural
involvement in 292 – 4; introduction 286 – 7; competence in 133 – 7; effects of neoliberalism
suggestions for involvement in 292; terms in, on 385 – 6; in a globalised world 209 – 17
clarifying 287 – 8; in UK 288 – 91 (see also Papua New Guinea); impact of global
service users: assessment (see service user and forces on 220 – 1; impact of political conflict on
carer assessment); defined 287; involving 191; 278 – 9; as a profession (see professionalization of
measuring outcomes for 185, 187 social work); in Sweden (case study) 51 – 7; UN
sexual health training 225 recognition of 5
sexual orientation 18, 93, 113, 138, 360 Social Work and Community Development
Sheffield Hallam University 100 degree 88
simulation in teaching and assessing 265 – 73; social work dissertation see doctoral research
challenges in teaching with 271 – 2; social work education: in Africa 119 – 28; in China
competence, conceptualizing 265 – 6, 267; 73 – 82, 74; collaboration between programmes
conclusions 273; defined 267; designing 192; consequences of, approaches to deal with
269 – 70; issues in using 270 – 2; OSCE defined 279; cross border university and 62, 63, 65;
267; overview of 265; reasons for using 267 – 9; distance education for 325, 325 – 6; evaluating
research on 270 – 1; resourcing assessment in 281 – 2, 282; future directions for 141; in higher
social work education 272 education institutions 88; impact of global
Sir Dorabji Tata Graduate School of Social Work forces on 220 – 1; implications for, in global
109; see also Tata Institute of Social Sciences diffusion of social work 10 – 11; international
(TISS) (see international social work education); in
skill-building, neoliberalism and 390 – 1 Malaysia 84 – 93; neoliberalism and 386 – 7; for
skills: automaticity 186; cognitive 184 – 5, 185; nursing and probation professionals 374 – 6;
compilation 186; ethical 162 – 3, 163; initial political conflict and 280; profession, challenges
skill acquisition 186; measuring 185, 185 – 6; for 35 – 6; resilience and, teaching of 347 – 50;
strategic 185 suitability for social work, assessing prior to
social activism 387 – 8 entry to 299; in UK, provided by NGOs 371
Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) 41, 42, social work educators see practice educators/field
44, 49 instructors
Social Care Online 145 social worker, defined 101
social class 18, 138 Social Worker’s Act 89, 90
social development: in Africa (see Africa, social Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) 44,
work education in); in Georgia 96; in India 45, 232 – 3
(see India, education for social development Social Work Task Force (SWTF) 42 – 5, 47, 357
in); in Malaysia 85, 87; in Papua New Guinea socio-economic rights work 202
211 – 12; in Western social work 5 staff, engaging 192
413
Index
stakeholders: in Africa 120; in assessing trauma, services around 203

competency 28, 29; in China 75, 76 – 7, 80; Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) 202
curriculum and 38, 41, 42, 43, 47; in India, field
action projects and 114; KMb and 332; in Papua UGC Model Curriculum 2001 111
New Guinea 216; resilience and 345; service UGC Review Committee 111
learning and 399; Social Work Task Force and undergraduate (UG) programmes: in Australia 222;
42, 43; transdisciplinary approach and 400 in China 75; educational outcomes, assessing
Standards of Proficiency for Social Work, 270; in England 246, 288; ethics education
HCPC 173 161; in Georgia 99; in Hong Kong 232, 233;
State University of New York at Albany, interdisciplinary service-learning course
New York, USA 62 399 – 400; law learning, outcomes of 174 – 5, 176;
strategic skills 185 in Malaysia 87, 89, 91; practice-based classes
struggling or failing students 243 – 52; areas 358; practice qualifications and experience,
for further research 251; conclusion 251–2; in UK vs. US 358, 360, 362; prior academic
differences in findings, reasons for 250 – 1; achievement and 300 – 1; private funding of,
emotional processes 247 – 8; introduction 243; in in UK 371; in Queen’s University Belfast 280;
Italy 246 – 7; literature on 244; practice learning research methods 148 – 9; at UPNG 212
site 251; relational processes 248 – 50; studies UNHCR Global Trends Report 9
244 – 5; in UK 245 – 6 UNICEF 89, 98, 104
student expectations and realities, mismatch United Kingdom (UK): academic workforce
between 372, 373 in (see academic workforce in UK and US);
suitability for social work, assessing 298 – 307; BSW in 363; NGOs in 371; PhD in 355,
centrality of field education or placements 358, 362; service user and carer assessment in
304 – 5; concluding comments 306 – 7; 288 – 91; social work education in 370 – 9
developing and assessing 303; introduction (see also academy in social work, role of);
298 – 9; pedagogy and curriculum issues struggling or failing students in 245 – 6;
305 – 6; prior to entry to professional training undergraduate programmes in 358, 360, 362,
299; selection standards and criteria 299 – 301; 371; welfare services in 245 – 6
standards and thresholds in 303 – 4; tools and United Nations (UN): social work in Africa 4, 120;
testing 301 – 3 social work in Asia 4; social work in Malaysia
Sweden 51 – 7; discipline in, establishment of 53 – 4; 87; social work recognized by 5; social work’s
PhD in 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 – 6; poverty in 55; internationalising project 5; UNESCAP 87
research methods and theory 55; social work United Nations Economic and Social Commission
research in 54 – 7; tasks for research, views on for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) 87, 88
55 – 7, 56; topic landscape 54 – 5; welfare services United States (US): academic workforce in
in 53, 55; see also academisation of social work (see academic workforce in UK and US); BSW
in 363; MSW in 363, 367; PhD in 355, 358,
Tallinn University, Estonia 100 362; undergraduate programmes in 358, 360,
Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) 109, 111, 362; web-based education in social work 327 – 9
113, 114 universalisation 3, 7
teachers see practice educators/field instructors Université de Montréal (UdeM) 336
teaching-intensive universities 357 Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) 87, 88
Teaching Practical Ethics for the Social Professions University Grants Commission (UGC) 111
(ESEP) 164 – 5 University Hospital Kuala Lumpur 85
territorial imperialism 384 University of Botswana 120
testing, for assessing suitability for social work University of Bristol 40
301 – 3 University of Hawai’i at Manoa 69
theory courses/modules 400 – 1 University of Malaya 87
time series designs, for evaluating outcomes 188, University of New England 68
190, 191 University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG):
tools, for assessing suitability for social work 301 – 3 future of field education at 213 – 14; partnership
Towards Advocacy Networking and with Monash University 212, 213, 217; social
Developmental Action (TANDA) 114 work education introduced to 211; social
transdisciplinary approach to educating reflective work field education practicum 212 – 13;
practitioners 400 studies on experiences of field education
transnationalism 9 – 10 program at 213
Transnational Social Work (Furman) 9 University of Queensland 234
414
Index
University of South Carolina 63 welfare services: in Africa 120, 121; in China 73,
University of Southern California 63 75, 80 – 1; fieldwork placements and, in South
University of Toronto 40 Africa 200; Finnish, in Praxis model 377, 378;
University of Windsor 336 in Georgia 101, 102, 104; in India 108 – 11,
Uzhgorod University 100 113, 115; in Italy 246 – 7; in Malaysia 84 – 92;
neoliberalism and 159 – 60, 382, 383, 384, 385,
vertical integration 148 – 51 386; in Papua New Guinea 211 – 12; placement
Vilnius Pedagogical University 100 organisations and 204; post-welfare capitalism
violence, services around 203 and 197, 198; in Sweden 53, 55; in UK 245 – 6;
Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) 245 Western, in postwar colonial era 4, 5
Voice Centred Relational (VCR) method 245 Western social work 4 – 8; international academic
exchanges 5 – 7; internationalisation of
waiting list controls with repeated measures, for curriculum, arguments for 7 – 8; overview of
evaluating outcomes 188, 190, 190 spread of 4 – 5
Washington University, St. Louis 99 Whiteness studies 19 – 20
web-based education in social work 323 – 9; World Bank 113, 388
conclusion 329; implications of 326 – 7; in US, World Trade Organization (WTO) 383 – 4
future trends and challenges for 327 – 9; see also
distance education Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action (YUVA) 114
415

Routledge International Handbook of Social Work Education-Routledge (2016)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Routledge International Handbook of Social Work Education-Routledge (2016)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK

OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

• social work education in context: the Western drivers

Edited by Imogen Taylor, Marion Bogo,

About the contributors ix

1 ‘Think globally and locally, act globally and locally’: a new

2 Social work education and the challenge of race equality 14

3 Understanding and assessing competence: challenges associated

4 Whose curriculum is it anyway?: globalisation, social work

5 The academisation of social work: Sweden – a case study 51

6 Social work education and the borderless university experience 59

7 Development of social work education in China in an era of rapid

8 Treading the long path: social work education in Malaysia 84

9 Creating social work education in the Republic of

10 Education for social development: the case of India 107

11 Developing social work education in Africa: challenges and

12 Developing learning and teaching about diversity and social

13 Research teaching and learning in qualifying social work

14 Teaching and learning for ethical practice in social

15 Developing research and scholarship in law teaching for

16 Evaluating the outcomes of social work education 183

17 Practice learning: challenging neoliberalism in a turbulent world 197

18 Aspirations and realities in delivering field education in a

19 Contesting field education in social work: using critical

21 Italian and English practice educators’ experiences of working

22 Group supervision in social work field education: the

23 Using simulation in teaching and assessing social work competence 265

24 Political conflict and social work education 275

25 Service user and carer assessment of social work students 286

26 Suitability, gatekeeping and social work education 298

27 Social media in social work education: developing

28 Web-based social work education in the United States 323

29 Artifacts or catalysts? Moving doctoral dissertations from

30 Educating resilient practitioners 343

31 Developing the social work academic workforce: profiles from

32 Back to the future: the role of the academy in social

33 Social work education: the challenge of neoliberalism 382

34 The place for a global and holistic environment: international

Marion Bogo is Professor at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of

R. Anna Hayward-Everson, MSW, PhD, is Assistant Professor at Stony Brook University

Dunstan Lawihin is a Master of Social Work (Research) candidate at Monash University,

Rodreck Mupedziswa, PhD, is a Professor of Social Work at the University of Botswana,

Salome Namicheishvili, MSW, PhD Candidate,Tbilisi State University, is committed to social

Alberto Poletti is a Senior Lecturer in Social Work at University of Bedfordshire. He qualified

understanding internationalisation from a critical perspective enables social work

Setting the context

Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes

Who are the editors and contributors?

1. Social work education in interaction with the context we are in

2. Emerging and re-emerging social work education

3. Neoliberalism and social work education

4. Using evidence in learning and teaching

5. Accreditation, competence, assessment and outcomes

6. New directions in social work education

8. What of the global agenda?

Reference to use of the Global Standards (2004) as programme benchmarks include:

Social work education in context

Critical overview of the spread of Western social work

Post-independence, these nations were increasingly urged towards structural adjustment

International academic exchanges

terrain of social work education is . . . shaped by multiple interests, agendas and

Despite the claimed importance of collaboration and partnership in international academic

Arguments for the internationalisation of the curriculum

Transnationalism, migration, and displaced peoples

About the contributors ix

2 Social work education and the challenge of race equality 14

5 The academisation of social work: Sweden – a case study 51

6 Social work education and the borderless university experience 59

8 Treading the long path: social work education in Malaysia 84

10 Education for social development: the case of India 107

16 Evaluating the outcomes of social work education 183

17 Practice learning: challenging neoliberalism in a turbulent world 197

23 Using simulation in teaching and assessing social work competence 265

24 Political conflict and social work education 275

25 Service user and carer assessment of social work students 286

26 Suitability, gatekeeping and social work education 298

28 Web-based social work education in the United States 323

30 Educating resilient practitioners 343

33 Social work education: the challenge of neoliberalism 382