Global standards for social work education and training

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

Correspondence to: Vishanthie Sewpaul, School of Psychology, Centre for Social Work, University of Kwa Zulu Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa. Fax: +27‐31‐2602618; Email: [email protected]. This is a final document, in preparation for discussion and possible adoption at the IASSW and IFSW General Assemblies in Adelaide, Australia, October 2004.

Some colleagues have criticised this definition, expressing the view that it did not adequately cover their contexts. A colleague from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University expressed concern about the lack of emphasis on responsibility and the collective within the western paradigm. He proposed the following additions to the definition (written in bold italics): ‘The social work profession promotes social change as well as social stability , problem solving as well as harmony in human relationships, and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well‐being. Utilising theories of human behaviour and social systems and respecting unique traditions and culture in different ethnic groups , social work intervenes at points where people interact with their environments and where individuals go well with their significant others . Principles of human rights and social justice as well as responsibility and collective harmony are fundamental to social work in various countries ’.

Such concepts lack clear definition. Persons who fall into the categories of being ‘marginalised’, ‘socially excluded’, ‘dispossessed’, ‘vulnerable’ and/or ‘at risk’ may be so defined by individual countries and/or regions.

Self‐reflexivity at the most basic level means the ability to question: What are we doing? Why are we doing it? Is it in the best interests of the people whom we are working with? Such reflexivity is necessary and desirable irrespective of the context one practises in, whether the emphasis is on e.g. liberal democracy, communitarianism, autocracy or authoritarian socio‐cultural systems or democratic socialism.

Field placements take place in different settings, within formal organisations or through direct links with communities, which may be geographically defined or defined by specific interests. Some schools have established independent student units in communities, which serve as the context for fieldwork.

The concepts ‘racial’ and ‘race’ are in inverted commas to reflect that they are socio‐structural and political constructs, wherein biological differences amongst people are used by some dominant groups to oppress, exclude and marginalise groups considered to be of minority status.

‘Minority groups’ may be defined in terms of numerical representation and/or ‘minority’ in terms of socio‐economic and/or political status. It remains an ambiguous and contested concept and needs to be defined and clarified within specific social contexts.

While cultural sensitivity may contribute to culturally competent practice, the school must be mindful of the possibility of reinforcing group stereotypes. The school should, therefore, try to ensure that social work students do not use knowledge of a particular group of people to generalise to every person in that group. The school should pay particular attention to both in‐group and inter‐group variations and similarities.

Such an approach might facilitate constructive confrontation and change where certain cultural beliefs, values and traditions violate peoples' basic human rights. As culture is socially constructed and dynamic, it is subject to deconstruction and change. Such constructive confrontation, deconstruction and change may be facilitated through a tuning into, and an understanding of particular cultural values, beliefs and traditions and via critical and reflective dialogue with members of the cultural group vis‐à‐vis broader human rights issues.

In many countries voluntary national professional associations play major roles in enhancing the status of social work, and in the development of Codes of Ethics. In some countries voluntary professional associations assume regulatory functions, for example disciplinary procedures in the event of professional malpractice, while in other countries statutory bodies assume such functions.

Restorative justice reflects the following: a belief that crime violates people and relationships; making the wrong right; seeking justice between victims, offenders and communities; people are seen to be the victims; emphasis on participation, dialogue and mutual agreement; is oriented to the future and the development of responsibility. This is opposed to retributive justice which reflects: a belief that crime violates the State and its laws; a focus on punishment and guilt; justice sought between the State and the offender; the State as victim; authoritarian, technical and impersonal approaches; and orientation to the past and guilt.

As ‘minimum standards’ appeared to be too prescriptive, the suggestion at the IASSW Board meeting in Chile in January 2002 was that we refer to ‘Global qualifying Standards for Social Work Education and Training’. This was considered a more appealing alternative in view of the main paradigm adopted in the document. Also, while each component of the ‘standards’ may represent a minimum, put together, the document reflects quite a sophisticated level of education and training. As consultations proceeded a preference seemed to emerge for the use of ‘International Guidelines for Social Work Education and Training’. This was on account of linking the concept ‘global’ with ‘globalisation’, with all of the latter's negative connotations and hegemonic discourses. However, on producing the fourth draft of the document as ‘International Guidelines’ and on receiving further feedback, some colleagues reflected a clearer preference for ‘Global Standards’. The pattern that emerged was interesting as the more developed Western schools seemed to prefer ‘International Guidelines’ while developing schools preferred that we retain ‘Global Standards’. This warrants further discussion and research. Colleagues from developing schools expressed the view that ‘Global Standards’ were more substantive and might contribute to the development of their schools and curricula by allowing them more bargaining power within their institutions. Given that we were always mindful of reinforcing a Western hegemonic discourse, and that the standards must serve the needs of developing schools, we decided to revert to the earlier decision and adopt the term ‘Global Standards’. It is unacceptable that a Western hegemony prevails, simply because the west might have more presence and voice at international gatherings. Furthermore, IFSW, representing a practitioner‐based body, was quite categorical in its rejection of the use of ‘International Guidelines’. The concept ‘global’ was debated at different times within both IFSW and IASSW. Both organisations concluded that ‘global’ was an inclusive concept referring to all regions and all countries of the world, while international may refer to two or more countries. As the standards are intended to be applicable to all schools of social work on a global level, the use of ‘global’ is more appropriate. According to Payne (2001) a standard refers to a pointer towards something distinctive or an ideal. A standard is defined as a ‘rallying principle’, ‘a degree of excellence required for a particular purpose’ or something ‘recognised as (a) model for imitation’, ‘recognised as possessing merit or authority’ (Oxford Dictionary). Given that we depict ideals that we aspire towards, non‐prescriptive ‘standards’ would be more appropriate than ‘guidelines’. As ‘qualifying’ is self‐evident and perhaps redundant, it was dropped from the title.

The Chair of the committee consulted with Faculty from Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan; representatives from Michigan State University, Hope College and Calvin College, Michigan; representatives from Social Work and the Social Welfare Training Institute—University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Jamaica; and with the Joint Universities Committee (JUC) on Social Work Education, South Africa. The document was shared with colleagues at a seminar in Santiago, Chile in January 2002. A plenary consultation session was held at the IASSW conference in Montpellier, France in July 2002, with educators and practitioners in New Zealand in January 2003, and in February 2003 a consultation session was held at the CSWE conference in Atlanta. A consultation session was held at the Association of Caribbean Social Work Educators in Barbados, July–August 2003, with colleagues in Estonia in August 2003 (by Lena Dominelli), and a plenary consultation session at the JUC conference in South Africa in October 2003. Since the development of the first draft the document has been available on the IASSW and the IFSW websites. In addition both IASSW and IFSW colleagues have discussed the document at various forums in the Asia Pacific Region, Eastern Europe, the UK, North America and Canada, Africa and in Latin America. In an effort to broaden consultation the fourth reviewed document was sent to all delegates (who had e‐mail addresses) that attended the IASSW conference in Montpellier (2002). The document has been translated into French, Spanish, Swedish and Italian and is available in these languages on the websites. The publication of the document in International Social Work and Social Work Education is a further attempt at consultation and inclusion. The document has been sent to various colleagues in different parts of the world requesting their input and comments. All feedback was considered and, as far as was reasonable and possible, was reflected in the reviews of the document. The overall response to the document has been overwhelmingly positive, with some colleagues commenting that as a global standards document, it is the best it could be. All responses received, from very diverse contexts such as Mexico, Chile, Mauritius, China, the Philippines, Russia, Armenia, Croatia, Australia, Africa and the UK indicated that the standards support, and would strengthen, national initiatives and would not negatively impact on the development of locally specific social work education, training and practice.

These concepts are problematic as they reflect the traditional bio‐medical model, which supports the notion of the service user as a passive recipient of social work services with the social worker as ‘expert’ who knows best, and an implication of a hierarchical worker–client relationship, characterised by a so‐called neutrality. It is antithetical to the holistic biopsychosocial, spiritual model which views people as active agents in change processes and structures, and to empowerment‐based practice, which calls for active involvement, rather than a detached neutrality, on the part of practitioners. A suggestion has been made for the use of ‘participants in social services’. However, this alludes to an ideological position that is inconsistent with current realities of practice, which is indeed based on skewed power relationships, where service users are not fully integrated as equal participants in social work processes, delivery mechanisms and structures. Given the contemporary ethos of practice it is perhaps more ethical and realistic to retain the concepts ‘service users’, ‘clients’ or ‘consumers’, despite their limitations. An alternate suggestion was for the use of ‘people who access social services’. But this is too awkward and cumbersome for consistent use.

For the purpose of convenience, the document shall refer to ‘the school’ or ‘schools’ even where the context of study is a faculty, centre or department.

Given the limitations of dichotomies, and the linear modernist implications of the use of words ‘under‐developed’, ‘developing’ or ‘developed’ there is preference for the use of the concept ‘Two Thirds World’. The concept reflects, numerically, themajority of the world's population that live in poverty and deprivation, and it does not imply any evaluative criteria with regard to superiority/inferiority.

It is envisaged that such quality control will not be instituted at the international level, but at local, national and/or regional levels.

See e.g. Pozutto (2001) who in comparing the possible lessons that South African social work has for other parts of the world, concluded that, ‘… (For) the most part, US social workers envision the social order as a given, largely unchangeable entity … Much of the American social work profession has accepted the “knowledge” that legitimates the American social order. The drive to professionalism was … an early step in that direction … (The) function of much of contemporary social work is to “normalize” the population … (Social) work is a form of social control contributing to the legitimisation of the current social order’ (Pozutto, 2001, pp. 157–158).

For a discussion on this and debates around totalising discourses, representation, the universal and the particular, and knowledge, power and discursive formations see Williams and Sewpaul's article on ‘Modernism, Postmodernism and Global Standards Setting’ in this issue.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Vishanthie Sewpaul (IASSW Chair)

Correspondence to: Vishanthie Sewpaul, School of Psychology, Centre for Social Work, University of Kwa Zulu Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa. Fax: +27‐31‐2602618; Email: [email protected]. This is a final document, in preparation for discussion and possible adoption at the IASSW and IFSW General Assemblies in Adelaide, Australia, October 2004.