Interprofessional Education for Practice: Some Implications for Australian Social Work

Abstract

Social workers work with many other professionals in the workplace and being able to work in a team is both a practice standard for professions and a desirable graduate attribute of most universities. However, student learning about teamwork is often inconsistent and serendipitous, albeit some attention may be given to it as part of field education and work preparation. Students and new graduate social workers usually adopt the teamwork approach that prevails in the agency in which they work and teamwork behaviour is often a result of socialisation and acculturation. Internationally, over the last two decades, interprofessional education for interprofessional practice has achieved prominence in social work curricula. This article covers recent Australian initiatives in interprofessional education and the involvement of the social work program at a leading Australian university in an interprofessional education project. Implications for social work student education and social work practice are discussed.

Abstract

Keywords:

• Interprofessional Education
• Social Work Education
• Practice Standards

The importance of working in teams is often taken for granted in professional education; yet, in the workplace effective teamwork is seen as an essential requisite of professional practice. A recent review of practice codes of the majority of human service professions in Australia, including social work, found that all contained statements about the importance of teamwork (Nisbet, 2007). Looking specifically at social work, the value of teamwork is embedded in a number of professional practice documents including the Code of Ethics (Australian Association of Social Workers [AASW], 1999) and the Practice Standards (AASW, 2003). The Code of Ethics includes statements about social workers' responsibilities to work colleagues (Section 4.3) and the responsibilities of social work managers in promoting effective teamwork and communication (Section 4.4). Similarly, the Practice Standards contain a number of references to the importance of teamwork and the role of the social worker (Standard 1.8) and the role of the social work manager (Standard 2.5).

Notwithstanding the importance of such statements in setting expectations and standards for practice, the challenge for educators is how to give these elements of good practice more than opportunistic prominence in social work curricula. It might be argued that “being a good team player” has to date been a somewhat virtuous trait of the student and their ability to work in a team. It is usually one of the qualities assessed during the student's field placement or practicum and indicates that the student is “work ready” for professional practice. In recent times, the demands of industry and the workplace have included the importance of graduates being able to work together to progress the objectives of their particular field of activity (Department of Education, Science & Training, 2007). Along with similar demands from service users and clients of professional practitioners, teamwork has been given renewed emphasis in practice.

Paradoxically, the importance of teamwork is not recognised as highly by students, although once again, a superficial appreciation of being able to get along with others and work together is acknowledged as part of being “a professional”. In a study of university students' perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes, (Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons, 2002) the strongest predictors of student satisfaction with their courses were those related to “the development of higher order cognitive capabilities” (i.e., analysis and problem-solving). The second set of predictors to a lesser extent related to “levels of confidence and competence to function autonomously” (i.e., planning their own work and confidence in tackling unfamiliar problems). The weakest predictor of student satisfaction was the development of teamwork skills. These findings require further consideration in the light of workplace expectations that employees demonstrate abilities to work together to achieve tasks and to be “team players”. The researchers linked the findings to three possible factors: (a) “students are socialized into patterns of individual learning” (Candy & Crebert, 1991, p. 42); (b) students may not have had opportunities to learn collaboration and team participation skills; and (c) group learning has mixed outcomes. Further analysis of the literature suggests that team learning is difficult to implement and to assess and that outcomes are not clearly demonstrated or articulated within a learning framework (Centre for the study of Higher Education [CSHE] & Australian Universities Teaching Committee [AUTC], 2007; Thorley & Gregory, 1994).

Interprofessional Education (IPE)

Although teamwork is not a new concept in professional literature (Dyer, 1987; Payne, 1982; Pritchard, 1995; Weber, 2005) interprofessional practice (IPP) and interprofessional education (IPE)1 are new iterations of learning how to work with other professionals for the benefit of clients and services. The broader, contemporary concept of interprofessional education can be attributed to the World Health Organization's publication “Learning Together to Work Together for Health” (WHO, 1988) and the more recent publication “Frameworks for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice” (WHO, 2010) in which interprofessional education was both identified and named as a prerequisite for improved healthcare outcomes. The elements of IPE identified in the WHO report included a process of interaction between groups of students at certain times during their education that required them to work collaboratively in health related services.

The Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE) in the United Kingdom has used the following definition: “Interprofessional education occurs when two or more professions learn with, from and about each other to improve collaboration and the quality of care” (CAIPE, 2007). Interprofessional education leads on to interprofessional practice and both have been identified as providing a way forward in addressing a number of key issues facing the health and social care2 fields. Some of these issues include: demands from employers and service recipients for increased accountability by professionals; greater transparency in service delivery and improved quality and safety; moves away from acute care to community-based settings; the ageing workforce and the ageing population; the devolution of some health care responsibilities from medical professionals such as general practitioners to nursing and allied health professionals; and the needs of rural and remote communities (Stone, 2007). Each of these issues presents significant challenges to public policy, to professions, and to the health, social care, and higher education sectors.

Working interprofessionally reflects global initiatives in higher education and professional health and social work practice. The implementation of IPE is comparatively well advanced in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Canada. The Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry in 2000 built momentum for IPE in the United Kingdom as the inquiry found that a substantial number of preventable errors were attributed to “institutionalized, poor interprofessional communication and practice” (Stone, 2007, p. 337). Initially, IPE was located in a risk management, patient safety discourse. However, this has broadened to include other elements such as sustainable outcomes for patient/client care, the readiness of students to become professional practitioners, and their ongoing job satisfaction in the workplace. Similarly, IPE has been embraced in social care agencies in the UK, particularly in child and family services (Marsh, 2006; Payler, Meyer, & Humphris, 2007).

In Australia, there have been a number of small scale IPE projects located in the health field. However, until recently there has been no overarching mandate to proceed (Dunston et al., 2009). International networks such as CAIPE, the European Interprofessional Education Network in Health and Social Care (EIPEN), the International Association for Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice (InterEd), the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC), and the Japanese Association for Interprofessional Education (JAIPE) have been modelled in Australia with the establishment of the Australasian Interprofessional Practice and Education Network (AIPPEN).3

The employability of new graduates is a significant issue not only for the workplace but also the higher education sector. High achievement in this area ensures that universities maintain their competitive edge to secure their funding and reputation, particularly in the international domain. Over recent years in Australia, universities have developed and promoted “graduate attributes” that draw distinctions between educational programs and outcomes and are demonstrated in each individual university's cohort of graduating students. Recent Commonwealth government initiatives have prioritised this further, providing funding for several national projects that aim to scope graduate attributes generally and the elements of “work readiness” of graduating students. IPE is located within a cluster of initiatives identified loosely as Graduate Attribute Projects (GAP) that have been funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council for Higher Education. GAP projects are currently underway in such areas as: Work Integrated Learning (WIL); e-Portfolios; and Curriculum Development and Student Assessment.4

Interprofessional Practice: Multidisciplinary and Interdisciplinary

Most health professionals are familiar with the concept of multidisciplinary team approaches that use the skill and experience of individual professionals working in a co-located domain (Jessup, 2007). Much of the early literature on teamwork is based on this concept. In more recent times, interdisciplinary has replaced multidisciplinary. Interdisciplinary perspectives are about a more active integration of skills and experience in patient-centred or client-centred episodes of care. This perspective aims to share understandings and ways of working and professionals seek common ground rather than difference (Ovretveit, 1995).

This conceptual shift presents both opportunities and challenges to established ways of working and to the status quo of professional practice. Arguments are made that interprofessional education should be both embraced as means of improving patient care and safety and rejected as it compromises that same care. Those who reject the movement towards interprofessional education and practice argue that it has the potential to dilute the knowledge and skill base of individual professions (Lymbery, 2006, cited in Smith & Anderson, 2007). Professional rivalries, “boundary crossing” and role delineation have been significant preoccupations of many of the newer health professions. In an attempt to shed light on this perceived threat of interprofessional education to the integrity of individual professions it is useful to reflect on the sociology of professions and the history of development of the health professions in Australia.

Early work in the sociology of professions (Etzioni, 1969; Freidson, 1970; Greenwood, 1957; Marshall, 1939) identified attributes of practice and behaviour that distinguished “dominant” or “established” professions from other groups variously described as “semi-professions”, “dependent professions” or “aspiring professions”. The elements of a profession were identified as: the existence a systematic body of knowledge; professional authority and credibility; regular control of members; a professional code of ethics; and the existence of culture, values, norms, and symbols (Greenwood, 1957). Despite their relatively long histories, social work and nursing, unlike medicine, were identified by Etzioni (1969) as semi-professions as they each had intrinsic weaknesses when judged against the identified elements. In Australia, social work is the oldest of the allied health professions5 with the first hospital social workers or almoners being employed in the 1930s in both Sydney and Melbourne. A little over a decade later, the first university qualifications in social work were available at The University of Sydney and The University of Melbourne (Lawrence, 1965; Pockett, 2000). In the 1960s, many other health professions began to be established, such as physiotherapy, but it was only in the late-1980s that they began to be clustered together as allied health professions (Pockett, 2000). In the 1970s, nursing repositioned itself from hospital-based apprenticeship style training to university training.

Nursing, social work, and other allied health professions have a shared history in their efforts to develop distinctive and individualised elements that set them apart from each other and independent from medicine. In the last 50 years, most of these health professions have worked systematically towards developing their professions in ways that meet the elements identified by Greenwood and Etzioni. Similarly the one “true” profession in the health field, medicine, has worked systematically to sustain its elements against perceived encroachments by other groups and the demands of the organisational structures in which medicine is practiced. Thus, the nuances in meaning between “interdisciplinarity” and “interprofessional” are loaded with complexities. Interprofessional education and interprofessional practice can be seen as challenging the very structures that have been crafted over the last 50 years to distinguish professional groups from each other.

Theoretical Underpinnings of IPE

One of the key criticisms of interprofessional education in the higher education sector is that it lacks a clear theoretical base. Critical reviews of the literature on IPE suggest that the educational theories that underpin IPE can be linked to adult learning theory, reflective practitioner theory, social psychology theory, group work theory, and biopsychosocial theories (Craddock, O'Halloran, Borthwick, & McPherson, 2006). Craddock et al. (2006) agreed with Barr, Koppel, Reeves, Hammick, and Freeth (2005) that the theoretical underpinnings of IPE continue to evolve. However, they went on to state that “greater conceptual clarity, empirical evidence and integrative theoretical development are clearly required before a unifying paradigm can be expected to emerge” (2006, p. 237). Further conceptual work is being undertaken in this area. For example, the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning: Interprofessional Learning across the Public Sector (CETL: IPPS) at the University of Southampton has developed an evaluation model to assess the impact of interprofessional learning on practice. The model is dynamic and multifaceted and underpins research initiatives at the Centre (Payler et al., 2007).

A way forward in theoretical development may include an improved understanding of the iterative processes of knowledge building discussed by Couturier, Gagnon, Carrier, and Etheridge (2008). Interdisciplinarity involves the “transformation” of disciplines and the emergence of new knowledge and “hybridization, where the encounter with difference provokes a transformation of the self and the other” (p. 342). The relationship of interdisciplinarity and knowledge was discussed from the practice perspective where shared understandings that are brought to a situation will be greater than singular approaches and secondly from the epistemological perspective where the knowledge constructions of the situation recognise complexities beyond the contemporary positivist deconstruction. They went on to argue that interdiciplinarity involves the intersection and participation of all knowledge claims and all knowledge holders including practical knowledge. Similarly, in attempts to theoretically conceptualise the process of practice change as a result of interprofessional learning, Payler et al. (2007) argued that “learning” involves “boundary crossing” and “personal trajectories of participation” within contextual fields of meaning. New forms of practice result from collective movements that question accepted methods (Engestrom, 2004). These processes draw on epistemological understandings about how meaning is created and followed by action. These two approaches demonstrate the lack of constancy in the state of all knowledge, including professional knowledge, and the dynamic synergies of meaning and application that can in turn be used in interprofessional practice.

Social Work Participation in IPE Projects

Social work students at universities in the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, and Australia have participated in a range of interprofessional activities that have included their participation in shared learning experiences with students from other disciplines on university campuses, in health and social care agencies (Cleak & Williamson, 2007; Craddock et al., 2006; Smith & Anderson, 2007), and in research projects that have evaluated the effectiveness of interprofessional education (Nisbet, Hendry, Rolls, & Field, 2008; Pollard & Miers, 2008; Pollard, Miers, Gilchrist, & Sayers, 2006). In a UK study of student perceptions of themselves as pre-qualifying practitioners, Hean, Macleod-Clark, Adams, Humphris, and Lathlean (2006) compared 10 health profession disciplines and found that groups of medical students and social work students were seen by others as they saw themselves, which “implies that these professions will suffer least from a threat to their group distinctiveness” (p. 10). Social work students in the study saw themselves as “distinct and as having better interpersonal skills, leadership abilities and being a team player, but did not see themselves as distinct from other groups on the remaining characteristics of practical skills, academic ability, ability to work independently, decision making, professional competence and confidence” (p. 10). In an investigation of professional identity Adams, Hean, Sturgis, and Macleod-Clark (2006) found that social work students had a lower level of professional identity compared to other students, with physiotherapy students having a higher level of professional identity.

These and other similar studies of student cohorts are significant in the further debate about where interprofessional education should be located in professional training. The uncertainty of professional discipline and role in undergraduate or pre-qualifying students is an argument used to support the location of interprofessional education in post-qualification courses, when there is greater clarity surrounding them (Freeth, Hammick, Reeves, Koppel, & Barr, 2005). Conversely, the key argument for its location in pre-qualifying courses is that students have not been exposed to the socialisation process of their profession or the agency in which they work. Therefore, they do not come to the interprofessional education with stereotypical views of other professions (Herzberg, 1999; Mandy, Milton, & Mandy, 2004).

IPE at the University of Sydney

Under the auspice of the university's Teaching and Learning portfolio, a number of interprofessional education initiatives were undertaken over a 3-year period (2006–2008). Social work students were actively involved in shared learning programs during field and clinical placements with students from other disciplines on placement in the same agency; in single day workshops on interprofessional practice; and in the use of interprofessional learning activities and resources available through interactive e-learning websites. A key initiative in which social work teaching staff were involved was the design, development, and implementation of a teamwork learning module that could be embedded into the existing curricula of participating faculties. The generic design of the teamwork module included on-line learning using an interactive website; theoretical content delivered in lecture format; team-building exercises for student teams; independent work by the teams to complete a specific team project; class presentations of their projects; and the submission of assignments that required students to critically evaluate their team, drawing on relevant theories and their own experiences as team members. The teamwork module was an exemplar of interprofessional education and a vehicle for applied learning in those disciplines with field or clinical education components.

A number of programs have run the module, including Social Work and Policy Studies, Pharmacy, Health Sciences, and the Indigenous Health Unit. The module itself is part of a wider research project on interprofessional education and will be reported on as part of the larger study (Nisbet et al., 2009). It is not the intention of this paper to evaluate the module as a model for interprofessional education. However reference will be made to certain aspects of its implementation in relation to the broader argument of social work's involvement in interprofessional education. The participation of social work in these interprofessional education initiatives raised some key issues for social work education and the design of social work curricula.

Social Work Course Structure and the Location of IPE

Currently entry level qualifications to practice as a social worker in Australia include both Bachelors degrees and Masters qualifying degrees (AASW, 2008). The Bachelor of Social Work degree at the University of Sydney is a 4-year undergraduate degree and on successful completion, graduates are eligible for membership of the Australian Association of Social Workers. Post graduate study in advanced practice and research is available at the Masters and Doctoral level.

At the undergraduate level, the university has several pathways into social work and, as a result, students come from a variety of backgrounds. The curriculum design in the final two years of the course includes different modes of delivery of course content and new ways of learning. Didactic lecture style education is modified to incorporate: small group learning; critical analysis; intensive units of study; skill development; experiential learning; and field education. The teamwork module was integrated into a pre-field education unit of study in semester 1, third year. The social work program has run the teamwork module for 2 years, the first year as part of the inter-faculty teamwork pilot with Indigenous health students and the second year as a single faculty exercise with social work students only.

The Assessment of Students' Abilities to Work Interprofessionally

The teamwork module assessment pieces were designed to reinforce students' learning about team “process”. The learning was focused on understanding the dynamics and challenges of working with others to achieve a common goal. This involved students taking a level of individual responsibility for their team's success or failure. The teams that worked well, had student members who were able to articulate this shared responsibility and translate it into functional team roles that worked towards the achievement of the collective goals of their team's project.

Student learning is supported by suitable assessment tasks (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004) and one key condition that needs to be in place is that the assessment reflects the outcomes that have been identified as desirable. Given attitudes to teamwork skills in the study by Lizzio et al. (2002), it is not surprising that social work students found the focus on the team process rather than the team project task challenging and a departure from the norm of individual assessment.

A literature is developing on the advantages and disadvantages of group assessments for students from both educational theory and practical perspectives (CSHE & AUTC, 2007; Gatfield, 1999; Michaelson, Parmalee, Levine, & McMahon, 2008; SPARK: Self & Peer Assessment Resource Kit, The University of Technology, Sydney, 2007). Ideally, social work educators are aiming for “deep learning” as opposed to surface learning for all elements of the curricula including interprofessional education (Clare, 2007). Social work educators need to be mindful that achieving mastery or proficiency over new tasks and new learning may develop in different stages for students particularly in courses that have field or clinical placements where learning is applied (Sadler, 1998, cited in Gibbs & Simpson, 2004) and this includes experiential classroom learning where theories are applied to a practical situation.

Pedagogical Challenges of Experiential or Applied Learning

Some of the key pedagogical challenges of experiential or applied learning are: to create a learning situation that is relevant and realistic; that meets the learning needs of students and that is perceived by the students as a positive experience. These are the challenges that social work educators must meet in all experiential learning situations including field education:

It is students' perceptions of their learning environment, in light of their motivations and expectations, which determine how situational factors influence approaches to learning and learning outcomes. (Lizzio et al., 2002, p. 28)

Differences between students in semester 1, third year social work were significant as a result of the design of the social work curriculum discussed earlier (Freeth & Reeves, 2004; Prosser, Trigwell, Hazel, & Gallagher, 1994). When the module was run between faculties these differences were further exacerbated by several additional factors, including students' prior work experience in the health sector and the historical relationship between professional groups.

Contemporary relationships between disciplines can be influenced by their shared history, stereotypes, and preconceived understandings of roles and responsibilities. Within the health disciplines these relationships are often influenced by the status, size, and power of the professional groups. With respect to the inter-faculty module with social work and Indigenous health students, historical relationships that involved social work in dominant discourses that were oppressive to Indigenous people became part of the contemporary relationships of some team members. While most social work students had an awareness of these relationships through their Indigenous studies, they were generally unable to translate this to a practical application. Some students commented that they had learned a lot about Indigenous issues at university, but did not feel confident when issues that stemmed from these relationships arose in their team. Similarly, most social work students did not feel confident in their understanding of the scope and role of social work and how this would be applied in the team context. Thus, a further question for social work educators, given their students' lower level of professional identity, is the location of interprofessional education not only in pre-qualifying courses but also in pre-field education classes.

A number of studies evaluating interprofessional education programs have reported a diversity of student responses to the IPE experience. These range from students holding more positive views about working interprofessionally at the beginning of such programs than when they finished (Mandy et al., 2004; Pollard et al., 2006), to those where students articulated more positive responses at its conclusion (Pollard & Miers, 2008; Smith & Anderson, 2007). Differences between expectations and the realities of experience were evident in most studies. The results of research studies into the effectiveness of IPE in achieving the desired outcome were inconclusive. However, the recent longitudinal study of pre-qualifying health and social care students by Pollard and Miers (2008) has been more promising. The benefits of interprofessional education were evident about 12 months into practice with professionals demonstrating more confidence in their own skills and the relationships established with other professionals.

The Need for a Longitudinal View

The achievement of a successful outcome from interprofessional learning in pre-placement course work is contingent on the inclusion of further interprofessional education experiences during social work field education. In both field education placements, elements of team analysis, and skill development need to be part of the structured learning of field education. This needs to move beyond the descriptive, to a level of analysis that has the critical rigor of other elements of theory to practice. This can be incorporated into the learning goals of placement and needs to be actively incorporated by field educators (Cleak & Wilson, 2008; Irwin & Napier, 2004). One social work student who participated in the second teamwork module made the following comment in the final essay at the end of first placement:

I developed many skills over the months of placement in the agency … it was great to be able to apply the skills that I learnt last semester (teamwork module) to a real situation. The tasks allowed me to understand roles in a group … I also enjoyed the sense of co-operation in putting our project together … I feel that it was something I learned in class at university and something that I could apply in this agency … As an organisation, all individuals are working under someone else such as a manager or director, but at the same time we are all working in team where we are seen as equals and we share information and responsibilities. (Third-year social work student)

Challenges of IPE

Challenges for Social Work Educators

The challenges for social work educators in interprofessional education are numerous not the least of which is developing and delivering suitable educational material about teamwork and interprofessional education in already crowded curricula. The logistics of organising interprofessional learning across faculties presents practical issues on campuses as most university systems such as “large room bookings” and “timetabling support” are geared to mono faculty procedures. Faculties considering interprofessional initiatives need to discuss pedagogies, problem-solving approaches, and student expectations along with the more specific course content.

The structural difficulties in organising a teamwork experience for students between faculties led some social work students to comment that their teams could not overcome the structural barriers in the task and that the exercise perpetuated rather than alleviated difficulties. In many respects, the experiences of the teaching staff in aiming to work interprofessionally across the participating faculties mirrored those of the students. For example, some teaching staff were part-time and not always available when needed; faculties and staff were located on different campuses; staff had other teaching commitments that encroached on the time available for the exercise; and there were differing views about the value of the exercise and the importance of interprofessional education.

Challenges for the Social Work Field

The challenges for the field are also significant. Interprofessional practice is generally not well understood or well modelled in the workplace and unless there is an active teamwork culture, students are socialised quickly into professional roles that reinforce some of the difficulties interprofessional education is attempting to overcome. For students on field placement and as new graduates, the established roles in agencies can provide certainty and security (Hall, 2005; Reynolds, 2007). They can also contribute to the new graduate's sense of self-efficacy and self-belief as a new professional. For social work students and new graduates this has a particular relevance as the social work role is usually not as clearly defined as that of other health professionals.

Debates about the involvement of social work in interprofessional education suggest that it may pose significant threats to the profession with social work having much to lose through the potential re-emergence of old rivalries, role overlap, and a blurring of professional boundaries that may result. However, this argument may be challenged by the recent re-emergence of the “social” in health status through such global initiatives as the World Health Organization (WHO) Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH, 2008). Elements of this approach can be incorporated into most social work practice irrespective of whether it is based on bio-psycho-social; ecological; or human rights or social justice discourses, or both. There might also be grounds for optimism in a possible paradigm shift away from the unsustainable costs of high tech acute care medicine in the developed world towards primary and community health care based on cost or utility arguments and resourcing. Interprofessional education is an initiative that has emerged from the global health discourse and for these reasons needs to be part of all social work curricula.

Social work is also well placed to participate in interprofessional education as a result of the compatibility of the identified theoretical underpinnings of interprofessional education identified by Craddock et al. (2006) with the knowledge base of social work. Examples include small group theory (Bundey, 1980; O'Hara, 2005; Reid, 1997; Schiller, 1997) and reflective practitioner theory (Brookfield, 1995; Fook, 2002; Fook & Gardner, 2007; Schon, 1987) to which social work has made a significant contribution. With a degree of adaptation, the existing rich knowledge base of social work can be applied to interprofessional education. The challenge for social work educators is to teach students to link the theoretical underpinnings of practice to the workplace situation.

Implications for Social Work Education and Practice

IPE and IPP are being championed as ways forward to meet the very real and complex problems that will arise in the health and social care workforces in the next decade and beyond. Social work is already an active participant in these initiatives adding a critical edge to debates concerning the development of policy, the delivery of services and the education of professionals (e.g., the L-TIPP [Aus] Project).

Social work is well placed to maximise opportunities and the sustainability of interprofessional education through the structured learning of field education placements and the active engagement with new initiatives such as e-learning to supplement face to face teaching. Innovations in e-learning have been a feature of social work education, particularly in supporting field education and distance learning (Knowles, 2007; Maidment, 2006; Waugh & Hart 2003). As part of the interprofessional education program at the University of Sydney, social work contributed to educational material for the interactive interprofessional education websites, which further integrated social work students and elements of the social work knowledge base into the shared learning experience of all participating students.

The absence of a well-formed positivist evidence base for IPE may be used as an argument to dismiss it as an educational tool in the higher education sector. However, social work education, along with that of most professions, depends on the formative assessment of behaviours, attitudes, and skills that support the ontological process of students “becoming professional”, in addition to the technical skill set they may require to practice (Rees & Knight, 2007). In addition, for social work students, an ability to deal with the uncertainties of practice in a pluralist postmodern world requires skill, insight, and critical abilities. It is here that arguments for the inclusion of interprofessional education in higher education can be located.

Social work's participation in the interprofessional education initiatives at the University of Sydney was significant in terms of the number of students involved, its role as a research partner, its contribution to curriculum content and design, and to the development of teaching resources to be used by students from all disciplines participating in the various IPE initiatives. These initiatives demonstrated that the desire to work interprofessionally must be supported within the higher education system and the practice context, with field education placements including elements of interprofessional education. Unless there is a coordinated program, interprofessional education will become serendipitous for most students and the narrative of being part of “a good team” will continue to be seen as a lucky break in professional practice.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the following colleagues for their support and commitment to IPE and for their professionalism in approaching the task: Gillian Nisbet, Doctoral student, Faculty of Medicine, formerly Interprofessional Learning Project Leader, Faculty of Health Sciences; Miranda Rose, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine (formerly Yooroang Goorang, Faculty of Health Sciences); members of the IPE inter-faculty committees; and teaching colleagues and students in the Social Work & Policy Studies program, University of Sydney.

Notes

¹IPE and IPP have been used to describe the more formalised approaches in education and practice. Interprofessional education and interprofessional practice have been used to describe the more generalised concepts.

²“Social care” has been used throughout this article and refers to the social and community services sectors in which social workers are employed. The majority of international IPE literature uses this term although it is not widely used in Australia.

³Further information about the network can be found at: http://www.aippen.net

⁴The National Graduate Attributes Project (Institute of Teaching and Learning, The University of Sydney; The University of Queensland; and Griffith University, 2008–9) can be viewed at http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/projects/nationalgap/introduction.

⁵Allied Health profession is a contemporary, collective term used within the Australian health sector to describe non-medical and non-nursing health professions. Its use does not diminish the autonomy and scope of social work practice within the sector or within the many other fields of social work practice.