Dilemmas in international and cross-cultural social work education

1 Dilemmas in International and Cross-Cultural Social Work Education Géza Nagy (Mid-Sweden University, Őstersund, Sweden) and Diane Falk (The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Pomona, NJ, USA) Publlished in 2000 in International Social Work, 43 (1), 49-60. 1. Introduction Television brings dramatic images of social unrest, terrorist actions, ethnic conflicts, and brutal wars into our homes daily. The Internet makes possible instantaneous person-to-person communication of the human dramas associated with such events. Social problems (such as poverty, uncontrolled population growth, drug traffic and abuse, human rights violations, and environmental disasters) flow back and forth unimpeded across national borders. Such problems lead to increased international migration, which brings with it additional upheavals (see Castles and Miller, 1993). It has become impossible to separate economic forces within nations from global economic forces. Similarly, there is increasing international cross-fertilization of social policy ideas and approaches. We cannot escape our increasing interdependence. These processes are having a dramatic impact on the social work profession and on the educational needs of students preparing for that profession. Clearly, this requires some reformulation of social work knowledge, approaches, roles, and methods. Social work educational programmes need to include more international and cross-cultural content, both across the curriculum, within specific courses, and in specialized programmes. We wondered how social work educational programmes around the globe are responding to the changes in the world situation. To satisfy our curiosity, we surveyed approximately 800 baccalaureate and master’s level programmes in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. We are currently completing an analysis of the responses to our questionnaire and the course outlines we received. In preparation for our study, we examined what others have written on this topic. This paper summarizes some of the discussion that has taken place in the social work literature on international and cross-cultural social work education and then offers some suggestions about possible future directions. 2. Rationales for introducing international and cross-cultural content into social work education There is no lack of persuasive arguments for including an international perspective and international content in social work education. Healy refers to a statement made as early as 1965, stressing the professional responsibility of social word educators: ‘We neglect our responsibility in social work education when we do not provide a world view to our students and we neglect our responsibility to our profession and our government when we do not contribute to international service’ (Stein, 1965, quoted in Healy, 1986: 135). In 1980 Boehm suggested that educators adopt the view that there is a link between domestic social welfare developments and international events and processes, recommending that schools include an international and comparative dimension in a variety of courses across the curriculum. A Swedish book about internationalization of university education in general (Opper et al., 1981) puts forth a similar argument. Opper’s argument is that internationalization is necessary for three different reasons, which all have to do with survival: first the survival of the world, stressing global responsibility, especially towards poor and oppressed peoples; second the survival of the nation, stressing the necessity to adapt to an increasingly interdependent world economy and labour market; and third the survival of science, which cannot thrive and develop if limited by 2 national borders. Applying this argument to social work education, we can add a fourth point of survival: the survival of the profession, meaning that social work depends on knowledge and influences gained from other societies. More recently writers have presented a variety of rationales for introducing an international perspective to all who are preparing to be social workers. Some have pointed out that the study of international social work can better prepare students for working with diversity (Estes, 1992; Healy, 1992; Midgley, 1994). Other recent writers have noted that social workers are increasingly addressing social problems that are being precipitated by international events and forces (Estes, 1992; Healy, 1988, 1992, 1994; Mary and Morris, 1994; Prigoff, 1996). Still others have mentioned that social workers can expand their repertory of skills by learning about the approaches, programmes, and methods used in other cultures (Healy, 1992, 1994; Hoefer, 1996; Midgley, 1992, 1994; Prigoff, 1996). Some writers have suggested that the social work profession should play a unique role in participating in and leading struggles toward creating a better, more just world, a new social order (Estes, 1992; Healy, 1988, 1992; Hoefer, 1996; Mary and Morris, 1994; Prigoff, 1996). A few writers have suggested that the study of the ideologies, values, cultural groups, patterns, and processes in other countries will enable social workers to prepare for the future (Healy, 1994; Mary and Morris, 1994; Midgley, 1994). Finally, at least one writer has suggested that social work as a developing profession can do much to consolidate its position as a profession by establishing international linkages (Midgley, 1992, 1994). There is also a need to prepare some social workers for careers in international social work practice. Such specialists should have the opportunity to develop special competence to work in diverse international settings, in international organizations, agencies and projects (see Estes, 1992; Healy, 1992). 3. Barriers to Incorporating International and Cross-Cultural Content Despite the rhetoric, the world’s social work educational institutions do not appear to have moved steadily in the direction of incorporating a new vision of social work in global context. A number of studies, dating from 1956 (most of them conducted in the United States and only including US Master’s programmes) have examined the degree to which international content has been incorporated into the curriculum (Stein, 1957; CSWE, 1967; Boehm, 1980; Estes, 1987; Healy, 1986; Healy, 1995). According to a review article done by Healy (1995), the percentages of US schools that offer separate courses in international social work has ranged from 22% (in 1956) to 36% (in 1982), and the percentage of schools that offer at least some international content in other courses has ranged from 44% (in 1956) to 21% (in 1982) (Healy, 1995). This does not reflect a pattern of responding to the increasing globalization of our lives. In fact, Healy argues persuasively that there has been a retreat from internationalization of the curriculum in the US (Healy, 1995). Healy’s global study, conducted in 1989-90, found that 42% of the 214 Master’s programmes she heard from had specialized courses in international social work, and 30% included some degree of such content in other courses. She concluded, however, that ‘there is little or no evidence of well-planned, comprehensive international curriculum development’ (Healy, 1995: 431). We now explore some possible reasons why social work educators and schools have not acted to assure that all students acquire a new global vision of the profession. a. Imprecise Definitions as a Barrier: There seems to be, even in the most initiated literature on the subject, some lack of agreement about what it means to internationalize social work education (see, for example, Healy, 1995; Estes, 1992; Hokenstad et al., 1992). There is no explicit differentiation made between internationalized social work education (social work education with international content and concerns), and education for international social work (training to become an international social worker). Evidently, international and comparative 3 content in social work education does not necessarily build a sufficient foundation for international social work practice. In the social work literature, there are a number of terms used to describe the phenomenon that we are considering in this paper. These are: international, cross-cultural, inter-cultural, comparative, and global social work/education. Writers have defined and used the term international social work in different ways along a continuum from narrow to broad. When it was first used, in 1943, the term international social work was narrowly defined as social work within agencies that worked internationally (Hokenstad et al., 1992). This type of definition prevailed into the 1960’s. At the other end of the scale we find broad definitions of international social work, which seem to be the most prevalent since the 1970´s. According to Healy (1995: 422) the best use of the term international is ‘as a broad, umbrella term referring to any aspect of social work involving two or more nations.’ The editors of the recently published book Profiles in International Social Work, also seem to prefer a broad definition, stating that international social work ‘should focus on the profession and practice in different parts of the world, especially the place of the organized profession in different countries, the different roles that social workers perform, the practice methods they use, the problems they deal with, and the many challenges they face.’ The authors further state that ‘the emphasis is on a cross-national or global examination of what social workers do’ (Hokenstad et al., 1992: 4). In a recent article, Healy suggests that there has been a shift of definition. Referring to the global survey of the member schools of the International Association of Schools of Social Work that she conducted at the end of the 1980’s, she comments: ‘The emphasis on organized, internationally sponsored programmes of social services suggested in the 1950’s is no longer at the core of international interest. Instead, three separate threads are dominant--comparative social policy, cross-cultural understanding, and global social problems’ (Healy, 1995: 423). Healy indicates that many social work educators consider these concepts to be essential to their conceptualization of international social work. It hardly clarifies matters if the definition of international social work primarily refers to what educational programmes include. A better point of departure for an adequate definition might be a distinctive field of practice. Such a definition would include a wide variety of professional social work practice/activities that transcend national borders, such as in programmes carried out by inter-governmental agencies (e.g., the United Nations), as well as by governmental and nongovernmental agencies with international programmes. The three threads mentioned by Healy would remain foundation studies necessary for preparing students to work internationally and, in less depth perhaps, for giving all students the necessary global perspective to enable them to work effectively with diverse groups in local communities. Some definitions of international social work, such as that of Sanders and Pederson, appear to include social work practice with immigrants, refugees or ethnic minorities, in the social worker’s own country (Sanders & Pederson, 1984). The focus of such practice is on cultural diversity and encounters among cultural groups. This kind of domestic social work practice occurs in multicultural, multi-lingual or multi-racial environments, such as urban areas with large ethnic concentrations, which exist all over the world. We suggest that this kind of social work practice be distinguished from social work across national borders. There are several terms used by practitioners, educators, and writers, to designate this kind of social work: cross-cultural, inter-cultural, or multicultural social work. Though cross-cultural is perhaps the most frequently used term internationally, European writers widely use the term inter-cultural, while those in the United States, Australia, and Canada most often employ the term multicultural. In Great Britain writers sometimes use the term anti-racist social work (e.g., Dominelli, 1988). This, however, has a somewhat different focus and connotation. 4 There is, however, no more unanimity in defining or using these terms than there is in defining international social work. For example, in an article on ‘Education for Cross-Cultural Social Work Practice’(Garland & Escobar, 1988), the focus is on social work practice carried out by American social workers (and students) outside the USA. However, the preliminary model of cross-cultural social work practice described in the article does not exclude domestic practice with immigrants and ethnic minorities. What is important in this context is the emphasis laid on cultural themes and cross-cultural encounters, which are the least common denominators for all crosscultural social work. International social work and cross-cultural social work overlap, but at the same time they differ with regard to emphasis and perspective. So if a cross-cultural perspective is chosen, the most dominant themes are cultural diversity, inter-cultural communication, and cross-cultural understanding; whereas, if an international perspective is chosen, the focus is on themes such as international social development; social work practice, models and methods in different countries; global social problems; comparative social welfare and social policy; and a general world view. However, the inability to discriminate clearly between what is international and what is crosscultural social work adds difficulty to the task of including such materials in the curriculum. In an apparent effort to resolve this problem, three educators recently issued a call to end ‘the international-domestic dichotomy’(Asamoah et al., 1997: 389). They advocate reformulating the profession’s value base and adopting new unifying frameworks for the profession (refocusing the profession around the issues of international human rights, social development, and cross-cultural competence). What about comparative social work and global social work? Some have suggested that the term comparative be used to refer to a research methodology or a way to compare information about societies (Sanders and Pederson, 1984; Healy, 1995). Accordingly, comparative social work is about providing, analysing and comparing facts about social work in two or more countries. The same applies to comparative social welfare and comparative social policy, two common themes in international social work programmes and courses. Global in this context is, according to Healy (1995: 422), a more recent term, reserved for ‘those phenomena affecting the whole planet.’ It is useful when talking about global social problems or a global perspective, but it does not appear to be meaningful to talk about global social work. Closely related to a global perspective on social problems and social work is the developmental perspective. James Midgley, probably the internationally most well known expert advocating the developmental perspective in social welfare, sees the social development approach as an alternative to other established approaches for promoting social welfare. In his book Social Development: The Developmental Perspective in Social Welfare (1995: 25), he defines social development as ‘a process of planned social change designed to promote the well-being of the population as a whole in conjunction with a dynamic process of economic development.’ The other institutionalized approaches for promoting social welfare he mentions include philanthropy, social work and social administration. Social development differs from these approaches in several ways, according to Midgley. Most importantly, ‘social development focuses on the community or society, and on wider social processes and structures,’ instead of dealing with individuals by treating, rehabilitating, or providing them with goods or services (Midgley, 1995: 23). Social development and education for social development focus on poverty, hunger, and inequality (especially in the Third World) and tend to be action-oriented, rather than academic (Healy, 1992). As the above discussion suggests, the lack of clear terminology and the breadth of possible subject matter increase the difficulties of incorporating international and cross-cultural content in the social work curriculum. b. Other Barriers to Incorporating International and Cross-Cultural Content Social work writers have discussed a number of other barriers to incorporating international and cross-cultural 5 content. Estes (1992) has pointed out a number of factors that influence the functioning of educational organizations. These include: competing interests, requirements of accreditation bodies, demands of students and prospective employees, faculty members’ interests, and so forth. With so many possible organizational obstacles it may be difficult to introduce new content into the curriculum, no matter how beneficial. Healy (1992, 1995) has outlined a number of factors that may impede the introduction of international content into the curriculum. These include lack of faculty or student interest, lack of background preparation on the part of both teacher and students, lack of resources, an established curriculum that has little room for including additional topics, and competing educational priorities. Because of these and the other barriers described above, progress in including international content in the curriculum has been quite slow. 4. Models of introducing international content into social work education Healy (1986, 1995) discusses different models of incorporating international content in social work curricula. The two main models that she identifies are the elective courses model and the infusion model. In the first model, schools offer separate courses on international social work or international topics, while in the second model they infuse international content into existing courses. Schools may infuse content in two ways, according to Healy: (a) planned infusion, when the instructor purposefully designs international content into a course, or (b) informal infusion, when an instructor introduces personal knowledge or experience into a course. Healy advocates the infusion approach mainly because it assures that all students gain exposure to some international content and also because it increases the likelihood that students will perceive the link between international and domestic issues. Other models mentioned by Healy are: internationalization (comprehensive infusion of international topics across the curriculum), specialization (a concentrated programme of specialized courses), and individual study (a specialization developed for an individual student). Evidently, each one of the above described models has a function, depending on the context and aims of the educational programme. For example, if the aim is to assure that all the students gain exposure to some international content, the infusion or the internationalization model works best. If the aim is to train a specific group of specialists who intend to pursue an international career, the elective course or specialization models seem to be the most rational choice. There is, of course, no single model or approach that is generally superior to the other models or approaches. Each social work school may determine which model, or combination of models, it chooses to develop, assuring that there is consistency between the programme objectives and the chosen models. 5. What next? Conclusions and recommendations We live in a ‘global village,’ with a steadily increasing interdependence between the ‘villagers.’ Our ‘village’ has many problems and conflicts that require a great deal of good will and creativity to solve. There is one professional group in the ‘village’ that has the specific qualifications needed to tackle the problems: professional social workers. But in order to be able to handle the rapidly changing situation, with all of the complicated problems, the whole profession must be imbued with a broadened and enlightened vision, one that incorporates both a global consciousness and new types of knowledge and skills. As we move into the 21st Century, the minimum requirement is that social workers are prepared to work locally in an increasingly multicultural society. This requires an international consciousness so that they are aware of the ways in which global events and forces affect the world’s peoples and how people find the strength to endure and grow. Beyond this minimum, some social workers need specialized education that will prepare them to work internationally. This will require the continuation and expansion of specialized programmes in international and cross-cultural social work. As contacts among social 6 workers worldwide increase (through more travel, formal and informal exchanges, and enhanced communication through technology), the profession will deepen its understanding of global problems. The result will be increasing cross-fertilization of social work knowledge, approaches, and methods. Although the models described in this paper give a broad perspective on how to incorporate international and cross-cultural content into social work education, they may not give sufficient encouragement or direction to faculty who have an interest but not considerable expertise in international issues. People and programmes rarely change in response to rational arguments alone. Confirmed internationalists, most of whom have considerable international experience and intimate knowledge of life in other nations and cultures, developed the rationales presented in section 2. Such people are exquisitely sensitive to forces operating in the global realm. They communicate what they perceive about the necessity of reformulating social work education, but their message mainly reaches others who have had similar experiences. The forces that drive the social work curriculum are closer to the daily activities in the schools, perhaps the most pertinent of which are student interests, faculty expertise, and expectations of educational institutions and external programme accrediting bodies. Many students have not had the opportunity to travel internationally or even to have much experience with other cultural groups within their own countries. They focus on immediate concerns: finances, academic workload, jobs, qualifying after graduation for a position in the local community, grades, and personal issues. Although the social work perspective is to view clients in various environmental contexts--family, neighbourhood, community, society, and beyond, students tend to feel more comfortable focusing on the most immediate environments. The broader contexts seem far away and beyond their reach. Students do respond, however, when they are exposed to the drama of people’s lives in different parts of the world, especially when they can draw connections between people’s struggles abroad and at home. The task is to make the global more immediate. One way to do this is to develop case examples that demonstrate how problems can originate in international forces and events. It is vital to bring international perspectives and materials into social work practice classes, as well as policy courses. Now that many students have access to the Internet, it is possible to arrange for students from different parts of the globe to communicate with each other directly and with virtually no expense. Two faculty members in different parts of the world could link their classes and assign them to find out as much as possible about social problems and the social work profession in each other's countries. A fitting climax to such an arrangement would be a study tour, although this unfortunately does not come without expense. Faculty members also experience a number of obstacles that interfere with internationalizing social work education. They have many demands on their time, and they feel most comfortable teaching what they know best. Many faculty members have not travelled widely and may feel unprepared to teach about international issues. They tend to respond primarily to more immediate student needs and interests, as well as to the demands of their programmes and accreditation bodies. Faculty members will need additional support. Although there have been some curricular guides produced to assist faculty members in developing and teaching courses in international social work and social development (Healy, 1992; Estes, 1992), these are only an initial step. Intensive training seminars taught by experienced faculty members would be a welcome addition. International conferences can give educators a taste of the range of global social issues and social work activities. More opportunity for social work educators to participate in study tours that focus on social problems and social work activities in other countries would be helpful. A broader sharing of educational materials and experiences, perhaps through the Internet, could supplement 7 the existing curricular guides. In addition, exchanges--perhaps for short periods as well as longer ones--have the potential to provide faculty members with in-depth exposure to at least one international context and the issues that affect it. Finally, more focus in the literature on the ‘how to’s’ would help, especially how to bring a global perspective into practice classes, as well as policy classes. Especially valuable would be reports on the effectiveness of methods used (for example, see Gordon, 1995). Expectations of accreditation bodies may be one of the most important factors in encouraging schools to revise their curricula. It will be interesting to track the effect of the 1994 US Council on Social Work Education’s policy statement that: ‘effective social work education programmes recognize the interdependence of nations and the need for worldwide professional cooperation’ (CSWE, 1994, Standard B3.6). Such expectations can assist programmes and faculty members to overcome the barriers that inhibit internationalization. There have been voices calling for internationalization of social work education for many decades. We have re-examined some of the reasons why progress has been slow, despite the recent, rapid changes in our world. In addition, we suggest the need to experiment with, and report the results of, using new approaches to bringing a global perspective into the classroom. It is also essential to monitor the progress of making this a reality in social work educational institutions worldwide. In a spirit of international collaboration, we hope that this paper and a subsequent one (which will report the results of our 1995-6 survey of 800 social work programmes in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe) will contribute to this effort. 8 References Asamoah, Yvonne, Lynne M. Healy, and Nazneen Mayadas (1997) ‘Ending the InternationalDomestic Dichotomy: New Approaches to a Global Curriculum for the Millennium’, Journal of Social Work Education 33: 389-401. Boehm, Werner (1980) ‘Teaching and Learning International Social Welfare’, International Social Work 23 (2): 17-24. Castles, Stephen and Mark Miller (1993) The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. London: MacMillan. Dominelli, Lena (1988) Anti-Racist Social Work. London: MacMillan. Estes, Richard (1992) Internationalizing Social Work Education: A Guide to Resources for a New Century. University of Pennsylvania [WWW document]. URL http://caster.ssw.upenn.edu/~restes/intl.html Garland, Diana R. and Donoso Escobar (1988) ‘Education for Cross-Cultural Social Work Practice’, Journal of Social Work Education 24 (3): 229-239. Gordon, Judith (1995) ‘International Social Work: A New Lyric Based on the Old Classics.’ Paper presented at the 13th Annual Baccalaureate Program Directors Conference, Nashville, Tennessee. Healy, Lynne M. (1995) ‘Comparative and International Overview’, in Thomas D. Watts, Doreen Elliott, and Nazneen Mayadas (1995) International Handbook on Social Work Education. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Healy, Lynne M. (1988) ‘Curriculum Building in International Social Work: Toward Preparing Professionals for the Global Age’, Journal of Social Work Education 24 (3): 221-228. Healy, Lynne M. (1994) ‘International Social Welfare: Organizations and Activities’, in Richard L. Edwards, ed. (1994) The Encyclopedia of Social Work (19th ed.). Washington: NASW Press. Healy, Lynne. M. (1992) Introducing International Development Content in the Social Work Curriculum. Washington, D.C.: NASW Press. Healy, Lynne. M. (1986) ‘The International Dimension in Social Work Education: Current Efforts, Future Challenges’, International Social Work 29: 135-147. Hoefer, Richard (1996) ‘A Conceptual Model for Studying Social Welfare Policy Comparatively’, Journal of Social Work Education 32 (1): 101-113. Hokenstad, Merl C., S. K. Khinduka, and James Midgley, eds. (1992) Profiles in International Social Work. Washington, D. C.: NASW Press. Kimberly, M.D. ed. (1984) Beyond National Boundaries: Canadian Contributions to 9 International Social Work and Social Welfare. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work. Mary, Nancy. L. and Teresa Morris (1994) ‘The Future and Social Work: A Global Perspective’, Journal of Multicultural Social Work 3 (4): 89-101. Midgley, James (1992) ‘The Challenge of International Social Work’, in Merl C. Hokenstad, S. K. Khinduka, and James Midgley, eds. (1992) Profiles in International Social Work. Washington, D. C.: NASW Press. Midgley, James (1994) ‘International and Comparative Social Welfare’, in Richard L. Edwards, ed. (1994) The Encyclopedia of Social Work (19th ed.). Washington: NASW Press. Midgley, James (1995) Social Development. The Developmental Perspective in Social Welfare. London: SAGE Publications. Opper, Susan, ed. (1981) Gränslös högskola (University without Borders/Limits). Stockholm: Liber. Prigoff, Arline (1996) ‘International Content in Social Work Education: Global Dimensions in Policy and Practice.’ Paper presented at the Council on Social Work Education Annual Program Meeting. Washington, D.C. Sanders, D.S. and Pederson, P., eds. (1984) Education for International Social Welfare. Manoa: University of Hawaii School of Social Work. !int3ref.doc--sp