IASWG Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups: Development, Application, and Evolution

Abstract

This article focuses on the International Association for Social Work with Groups' Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups. It begins with an overview of the Standards and their significance. It reports on three integrated studies conducted by the authors. First is a review of the literature that examines how human service organizations approach the construction of standards. Second is a 2009 study of how the Standards are known, used, and assessed by respondents to an online survey. The findings of this survey inspired the third study, conducted in 2010 utilizing a focus group approach to explore how the Standards could be more applicable in a global context. The article concludes with implications and recommendations for future evolution and dissemination of the Standards.

Keywords:

• IASWG standards
• AASWG
• social work with groups
• focus group research
• group work
• literature review

INTRODUCTION

Professional organizations are challenged to promote their understanding of the values, knowledge, and skills of practice. Associations exert their influence in a variety of ways, including assuming leadership in the broader community to advance their missions, launching campaigns to educate a range of constituents about beliefs and benefits, and developing standards for practice and advocating for their adoption. The International Association for Social Work with Groups, founded in 1979, has engaged in a multifaceted approach to advance its purpose to “promote excellence in group work practice, education, field instruction, research and publication” (IASWG, 2012). First named the Committee for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups, then the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups (AASWG), and now the IASWG, the organization's leaders continue to be known for groundbreaking contributions in social group work theory, practice, research, and education. The Association's 35 annual symposia, companion books of proceedings, affiliated journals and member publications, organizational projects, and their Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups make up an integrated campaign for high-quality social work practice with groups in a global context.

In developing the Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups (AASWG, 1999, 2000, 2006, 2010) the IASWG has attempted to present its vision of sound and effective social work practice with groups. Approved by the Board of Directors in 1998, the first edition of the Standards focused on the “distinguishing features” of social work practice with groups, highlighting the primary role of the worker to help “members work together to achieve the goals that they have established for themselves” (AASWG, 1999, p. 1). The Standards provided “general, rather than specific” guidance for practice across settings, populations, and models of intervention; worker tasks and skills within a stage of group development framework. The second edition of the Standards (AASWG, 2006) built on the existing content and structure, elaborated on values and the democratic process in the introduction, added new material on implications of technology in practice, and included recognition of international ethical codes and practice standards (Abels, 2013). The second edition also included new material on the “responsibility of group workers to add to the knowledge and research foundations of group work practice” (C. Garvin, personal communication, December 9, 2012). The Standards were copyedited in 2010; otherwise no substantive changes have been made since the second edition.

The Standards were initially made available by mail, later posted on the IASWG Website, and often highlighted in Symposia sessions, newsletters, and other IASWG publications. They have been extensively cited in publications related to social work with groups in relation to research (Macgowan, 2008; Magen & Mangiardi, 2005; Pollio, 2003; Preston-Shoot, 2004), practice and theory (Abels & Abels, 2002; Lyons, 2001; McNicoll & Yan, 2009; Meier, 2011), and education (Doel, 2010; Knight, 2009; Muskat & Mesbur, 2011; Prinsloo, 2012).

Key texts on social work with groups have included the full Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups as an appendix. Authors of those texts were informally polled about their rationale for this decision. Ronald Toseland, who along with coauthor Robert Rivas (2012), included the Standards in the seven editions of Introduction to Social Work Practice with Groups replied:

We decided to include a copy of the IASWG Standards for group work practice in the Appendix of the 8^th edition of our group work text entitled ‘Introduction to Group Work Practice' because we thought that this was essential reading for undergraduate and graduate social work students. The Standards clearly spell out what is needed for ethical and effective group work practice. (personal communication, December 6, 2012)

Author of the multiedition Social Work with Groups: A Comprehensive Worktext, Charles Zastrow (2012), commented:

I included the Standards for Social Work Practice in my Social Work with Groups text for the following reasons. First, AASWG (now IASWG) is the primary organization that is advocating for social work with groups in higher education internationally. Second, the Standards are excellent guidelines that every direct practice social worker needs to comprehend. (personal communication, December 6, 2012)

Charles Garvin (personal communication, December 9, 2012) reported that he and Robert Ortega are including the Standards in their upcoming book on group work and social justice (2013), with the following rationale: “I think it is the best compendium of practice principles in social group work that exists.”

Since 2009, there has been a concerted effort by the Practice Committee and Commission on Group Work in Social Work Education of IASWG to further disseminate the Standards, promote their further study, and encourage their use and creative applications (Cohen, Macgowan, Muskat, & Olshever, 2010; Cohen & Olshever, 2010; Macgowan, Cohen, Muskat, McArdle, & Leeman, 2011). This article is part of that effort and includes reports on three studies related to the Standards current use and revision process. First is a review of literature that examines how organizations approach construction of standards. Second is a summary of the 2009 study of how the Standards are used and evaluated by members and supporters of the IASWG. The third study was inspired by the findings of the survey and used a focus group approach to explore how the Standards could be more applicable in a global context.

LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND REVISION PROCESS OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

In preparation for a new round of assessment of the IASWG Standards, this literature review was conducted with the goal of finding information on the processes by which professional groups developed and revised their standards of practice. Databases of peer reviewed journals and Websites of professional social work associations with published standards of practice were searched for information on the process of how they came to develop or revise these standards. However, it appeared that most often only the Standards themselves were available. Although originally limited to social work, the search was broadened to include other types of human service and related professionals. Ultimately, 53 documents were identified, contained in the appendix, including journal articles and electronic documents obtained from organizational Websites that refer to the process of development and revision of the standards of professional practices. Twelve organizations were represented, including those in social work, counseling, medicine, nursing, psychology, diet/nutrition, psychotherapy, accounting, and public relations.

Literature Review Findings

Consensus was found across professional disciplines that development of standards is important, as embodied by Lifson and Padwe's comment in relation to accounting that “practice standards are the hallmark of calling one's self a professional. Members should fulfill their responsibilities as professionals by instituting and maintaining standards against which their professional performance can be measured” (as cited in Karlin, 2008, p. 35). There was also general agreement that standards development is an evolutionary process. “The process of developing global standards for social work education and training is as important as the product, the actual standards that have been developed” (Sewpaul, 2005, p. 2). The need was made clear that practitioners must “critically evaluate and challenge current practice standards and guidelines and be willing to explore new avenues to improve both processes and outcomes of … care. Similarly, the scope and standards … have and will continue to evolve to meet the needs of … professionals” (Martin, Daly, McWhorter, Schwide-Slavin, & Kushion, 2005, p. 511). Frisch (2001) encourages reflection on current professional standards as well as thoughtful dialogue to provide revisions that reflect the values of the profession, with the activity of revision actually incorporated as an integral part of the standards.

The methods and processes of standards development and revision varied across the different disciplines and documents, but most agreed that defining goals and purpose were important, as in the following: “Clarity of purpose is critical to the process of standard's development” (AASW, 2001). Although all agreed that a planned process for development of standards is necessary, organizations varied in the types of processes in which they engaged or suggested regarding participants and information-collection strategies. Task forces were engaged by several organizations to develop practice standards (Frisch, 2001; Gardner, Willey, & Eide, 2000; Huston, 2012; Nelson et al., 2007; Sewpaul & Jones, 2005). When task forces were used in developing standards, the composition of these task forces varied, such National Association of Social Workers' (NASW) team of experienced professional members and Northern Ireland's Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) blended work groups of “experts by experience,” which included service users, social work educators, students, and workers (CASW, 2005; Clark, 2004; Duffy, 2006).

A variety of methods of information and data collection were utilized in standards construction. In Australia, the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) circulated documents by mail, newsletters, and at professional gatherings to obtain feedback from their membership, along with focus groups with professional members as well as with consumers of social work services. In England, the General Social Care Council (GSCC) used in-person public forums as well as online questionnaires and mail surveys to reach their membership, employers of social workers, and social work clients. In Ireland, Duffy (2006) described extensive information-gathering measures that included literature reviews, face-to-face meetings, focus groups, and paper and online surveys conducted with a wide variety of stakeholders including service users, educators, social workers, and policy makers. In addition, Canadian social workers conducted a literature reviews and a comparative analysis of standards in similar disciplines (CASW, 2005).

Another area in which views differed among organizations and authors regarding development of practice standards is the relative emphasis placed on outcomes of practice versus an emphasis on the process of practice. Nelson et al. (2007) describe how a set of marriage and family therapy competencies was compiled utilizing a task force of “experts,” who participated in brainstorming during conference calls, literature reviews, e-mail discussions and ultimately an educational summit. Competencies were selected, in part, on their “measurability” to enable collection of empirical data that can be useful to connect practice standards with the reality of client outcomes and for future revisions.

Literature Review Implications for the IASWG Standards

This literature review, although not exhaustive, reveals a consensus across disciplines and continents that developing professional standards of practice does occur and is an important process. Sewpaul and Jones (2005) caution that development of practice standards should not yield a finite, static end product. Professionals need to consistently question the value of what they are doing and how they are doing it. Based on this review, it is recommended that professional organizations should not stop at simply posting their standards but go further and make public their methodology for development and revision of those standards, in the interest of educating their own members, consumers as well as other professionals. This level of thoughtful planning and transparency in developing standards seems critical for the IASWG, given the increasingly diverse nature of social work practice with groups and international membership of the association.

Within the literature, the debate between having standards that are “process” or “outcome” focused is salient, as the IASWG approaches possible revisions to its Standards. It appears that the current IASWG Standards attempt to bridge this dichotomy, including process items such as values and aspirations, as well as outcome items that can be considered measurable competencies (Macgowan, 2012). However, explicit discussion of the relative emphases of process and outcome will be important in preparing future editions of the IASWG Standards, as for all professional associations approaching this task.

In moving forward with review and possible revision of the IASWG Standards, careful consideration of stakeholders' use and feedback is critical. It is important to consider who is part of the deliberation process, and who will have a “seat at the table” as the Standards are reviewed. Decision makers may want to consider the inclusion of “experts by experience,” group members and practitioners, in addition to academic and research experts. This inclusive approach enables greater outreach to the IASWG membership to incorporate their knowledge, impressions, utilization, and suggestions for revision of the Standards in a global context.

SURVEY ON THE IASWG STANDARDS FOR SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

With the support of the IASWG Practice Committee and Commission on Group Work in Social Work Education, a survey was conducted in 2009 to gather IASWG constituent input regarding familiarity with the Standards and opinions regarding the usefulness, understandability, comprehensiveness, personal, and cross-cultural relevance. Respondents were also asked how they have used the Standards, how the Standards could be further disseminated, and how they might be changed in a third edition.

The online, voluntary study used Survey Monkey software, and can be viewed at http://www.surveymonkey.com/AASWGStandardsRevision. Methods and preliminary findings were posted on the IASWG website and reported in Montreal, Canada, at the 32nd International Symposium of the AASWG (Cohen & Olshever, 2010).

Potential respondents were recruited through a series of e-mails to IASWG members and associates. Visitors to the survey site were first presented with consent documents, explaining the purpose, content, confidentiality protections, and Institutional Review Board approval. After consent, they were able to enter the survey and were encouraged to review the Standards as they continued. Sixty respondents completed the survey. Quantitative statistical analysis included frequencies and cross tabulations, sufficient for the study's purposes. Qualitative responses were analyzed for themes by the authors and discussed by the IASWG Practice Committee members.

In response to the two demographic questions at the end of the survey, respondents overwhelmingly described their professional identity as social work (92.9%), with the remaining participants identifying education (5.4%) and psychology (1.8%). In addition, regarding their primary professional role, the majority (61.4%) identified themselves as engaged in practice, including categories of direct practice (26.3%), supervision (10.5%), administration (8.8%), and other types of practice (15.8%). University and college instructors made up 36.8% of respondents, and 1.8% reported a primary role in politics.

Survey Findings

The first set of survey questions related to respondents' familiarity and exposure to the Standards. Of the 60 respondents, 38.3% reported knowing the Standards very well, 48.3% reported knowing them very little, and 13.3% answered that they never saw them before that day. The low level of familiarity with the Standards by more than one half of the respondents was disturbing, especially given that one might expect a greater response to the survey from those who knew the Standards well. Next, respondents were asked where they had seen the Standards before. A large proportion reported seeing the Standards on the AASWG Website (69.1%) and at an AASWG meeting (40%). Approximately one half of the respondents reported seeing the Standards at a college or university (47.3%), and in textbooks (18.2%).

These findings suggest that though a majority had seen the Standards, this exposure was insufficient in building familiarity among many respondents. Also, the low level of familiarity may indicate that many respondents based their answers to the next set of questions (related to usefulness, relevance, and applications) on a significantly low level of familiarity when entering the survey, along with on the spot reading of the Standards while completing the survey.

Table 1 presents responses to the questions asking for an assessment of the Standards' usefulness, understandability, comprehensiveness, as well as relevance personally, culturally, and geographically.

TABLE 1  Respondents' Assessment of the IASWG Standards (N = 60; all data in percentages)

	Useful	Understandable	Comprehensive	Relevant in Own Practice	Relevant Cross Nationally and Cross Culturally
Extremely	61.0	60.3	55.9	58.6	20.7
Moderately	33.9	34.5	40.7	34.5	56.9
A little	5.1	5.2	3.4	6.9	17.2
Not at all	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5.2
	100	100	100	100	100

Findings indicated that more than 95% of respondents found the Standards either extremely or moderately useful, understandable, and comprehensive. Their extensive comments supported their rating with specific instances of the Standards' attributes in education and practice, as well as ways in which they could be strengthened. Similarly, when asked about the relevance of the Standards in their own practice, more than 93% answered extremely or moderately relevant. Numerous comments followed this question, with some noting that the Standards were a “starting point” and provided “guideposts,” rather than a full “road map” to group work practice. Many respondents thought the broad scope of the Standards and use of group stages was useful, whereas others identified some areas where the Standards were underdeveloped in areas that included ethics, multidisciplinary practice, financing, and unusual settings and group models.

In contrast, 77% of respondents reported the Standards were either extremely relevant (20%) or moderately relevant (57%) on a cross-cultural and cross-national basis. Some narrative responses described the Standards as relevant and appropriate, although most elaborated on why and how they could be strengthened. In this regard, responses indicated that the Standards were written from a specifically North American perspective. Many shared that changes were needed to enhance the cultural relevance of the Standards. Respondents also raised the question of whether the Standards could be used across cultures with differing orientations to group process and group outcomes. In addition, some respondents raised the question of whether cross-cultural relevance could ever be achieved in a single set of standards.

The final survey questions asked for narrative responses about challenges to using the Standards and additional ideas to gather feedback on the Standards. Respondents shared that the Standards should be included more universally in academic curricula and practice settings, along with additional evidence and reports of their use and efficacy. Others shared that challenges to implementing the Standards differed by organizational settings and levels of agency support for group work. Respondents offered many ideas for further data collection and involvement, including convening focus groups of students, practitioners, AASWG members, and agencies with diverse cultural and faith group representation; making the Standards more visible through libraries, Websites, and classrooms; increasing distribution of the Standards and feedback surveys at conferences; presenting workshops and forming panels of practitioners, educators, students, and consumers/service users to meet regularly and review the Standards; and expanding focus on sharing the Standards with international groups.

Survey Implications for the IASWG Standards

Overall, the low level of familiarity with the Standards reported by this relatively small group of respondents should alert the IASWG to a considerable threat to the organization's purpose to promote excellence in group work practice, research, and education. It suggests continuing and expanding IASWG's campaign to increase visibility and use of the Standards. A core of IASWG constituents who are “very familiar” with the Standards (38.3% in this survey) could be immediate advocates in this effort and might be enlisted to work alongside those who are practitioners and members just learning about the Standards. Respondents provided a wealth of suggestions for increasing the Standards dissemination, familiarity, analysis, and incorporation in group work practice.

Survey results also indicated a great deal of satisfaction with the usefulness, understandability, comprehensiveness, and personal practice relevance of the Standards in practice and education. On the other hand, findings suggested that IASWG has substantial work ahead to ensure that the Standards reflect the organization's growing international and diverse cultural identity. Qualitative answers to the survey question on cross-national and cross-cultural relevance raised the issue of whether the Standards could be used across cultures on a continuum of process to outcome orientations (Mayadas, Smith, & Elliot, 2004), echoing the challenges raised in the literature review.

FOCUS GROUP STUDY ON IASWG STANDARDS IN A CROSS NATIONAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL CONTEXT

The IASWG has evolved into an organization with members in 20 countries, and IASWG Standards, first published in 1999, have been translated into Spanish and German, with additional language versions underway. However, as highlighted by the relatively low assessment of the cross-cultural and cross-national relevance of the Standards by survey respondents in 2009, simple translation is not sufficient to internationalize the IASWG Standards.

Inspired by the findings of the literature review and survey reported in this article, members of the IASWG Practice Committee and Commission on Group Work in Social Work Education decided to further explore the issue of the Standards' cross-national and cross-cultural relevance. In 2010, focus groups were held at the 32nd International Symposium of the AASWG in Montreal, Canada to collect the perspectives of diverse group workers (Cohen et al., 2010). Approximately 20 Symposium participants voluntarily attended the session, including participants from six countries and from a variety of ethnic and racial cultural groups. Participants came from communities where English, French, German, Hebrew, or Spanish were primary languages. The plan, purpose, and consent documents were presented at the beginning of the session, and all consented to participate. It was acknowledged that neither confidentiality nor anonymity could be guaranteed given the group's setting within a conference community. Facilitators pledged that names would not be used in reporting findings of the session, and members were asked to consider not sharing direct statements by participants.

Consenting participants were divided into two concurrent focus groups, primarily determined by the limited availability of translation services. One group was conducted in French and English, and the other in English. Each group was led by two facilitators, alternating note taking and leadership. With permission, focus groups were audio taped for later transcription. Following the sessions, qualitative findings were shared among the facilitators for review. Themes were identified independently, and then shared and discussed.

Both groups followed the same informal outline, and general questions, including: What are group work values, knowledge, and practices relevant across cultures?; What are group work values, knowledge, and practice that should be modified in future editions of the Standards?; In looking at the Standards as currently written, what should be kept, discarded, or modified?

Focus Group Themes

Six themes emerging from the focus groups are presented, chosen because they suggest critical areas for discussion in “internationalizing” and widening dissemination of the Standards.

Theme of identity

As the focus groups began, members talked about the challenges of identifying globally relevant group work values to underlie the Standards. Many shared that values for practice are constructed within one's own environments and worldviews, which may constrain one's ability to think internationally. As a member pointed out, “How we know what we know, and how we are taught what we believe about group work, influences how we understand the work that needs to be done and how it is organized.” Participants noted that membership in cultural communities and nations, and the ways in which our identities intersect, have substantial influence over the ways we and members of social work groups view the group experience. Moving into specific ways the Standards represented values, one member shared:

I know from my experience [at a symposium] how often the conversation was about the differences in the way that we've learned to do our work. And it wasn't because we had different ideas about how it should be done, but because we understood it in a different way. And I think that the Standards have to at least capture some part of the rest of the world of knowledge, and not be so fully informed by American functionalism, which is what it is. You know, there's constructivism, there's positivism, there's lots of other empirical epistemological ways of knowing. And if we don't at least attempt to capture those we've done ourselves a disservice.

Within the complex web of identities and professional formation, the group discussed the importance to grapple with these issues to develop more inclusive Standards, which would then be more widely known and used.

Theme of language

There was extensive discussion of language; especially how members interpreted commonly used words differently. One suggestion was to address this through more active language in the text. Another member pointed out the power of language and the often mistaken emphasis on a single “identity” that can reinforce separation from others:

When we say country, people here at the table might be focusing on nations as countries recognized legally, but a lot of times nations are groups of people who identify as a nation although they are not recognized or legally recognized as a country. Part of making sure this is relevant is making sure the language is understood and applies across different boundaries and peoples and cultures, etc.

Emblematic of the discussion of language was the proposal that the phrases democratically organized and democratic principles should be deleted because the word democracy was not “even western, but purely American.” Another member presented a different point of view, pointing out the meaning she put to these words:

Because people in a democratic group process have a right to freedom of expression, have a right to belong, to be accepted for being who they are … if you go to a totalitarian system group work is the first thing that breaks down, and what we know as groups that people use to communicate with each other as open places, like what we're doing right now, break down in totalitarian systems.

After appreciating this comment, others in the group stated that words are experienced differently across cultures and nations, and that they send signals of inclusion and exclusion, especially when there are powerful legacies and investments in them. Group members acknowledged that this is a critical, but difficult area of discussion for the IASWG around revision of the Standards.

Theme of value orientation

Focus group members actively discussed cross cultural orientations of members and groups, sparked by the current Standards core value of “Respect for persons and their autonomy” (AASWG, 2010, p. 4). Members shared that this value is too individually focused and suggested that a continuum of perspectives, including communitarian orientations where the group as a whole, and sometimes collectives within the group, must be prioritized. One member suggested a way to acknowledge the continuum in a new edition, and within the existing Standards:

People are always saying autonomy is not a communitarian value but she said you can look at it as autonomy of the social unit and so maybe in the definition we talk about empowerment it is not always empowerment of the individual. When we say respect for persons we're not always talking about respect for individual rights but also social unit rights.

Theme of human rights

In examining the current Standards, focus group members noted that though “social justice” was a primary value, the Standards were silent on universal human rights (United Nations, 1948) a frame of reference that has been widely adopted around the world but only beginning to take hold in the United States. As discussed, human rights can be considered more expansive than social justice and self-determination, and exploring this perspective for the Standards might provide global opportunities for application. As a member suggested, this might include “the right to belong, the right to be heard, the right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of expression, the right to decision making, the right to be different in the group, the right to an accountable worker.”

Theme of diversity

Dimensions of diversity in the Standards came up in the focus group discussions. First, some members felt that existing mentions of diversity were insufficient, especially in considering the Standards' international relevance. It was noted that diversity is mentioned 3 times in the Standards. The first mention is in connection with the “Respect for Autonomy” value, as the dimensions of member differences (AASWG, 2010, p. 2); second is part of the required knowledge in the beginning phase, “diversity in relationship to how a group attains its goal” (p. 8); third is in required knowledge for the middle phase, “The impact of diversity: class, race, gender, sexual orientation and ability status” (p. 14). Members suggested that diversity should be woven throughout the document and go beyond uses in discussing and naming marginalized populations. A second view was offered, about the difficulty in mentioning specific groups in discussing diversity, and that the Standards should either expand its list or find another way to acknowledge this concept without having an inventory of specific conditions, statuses and identities, as they can change and differ by communities.

Theme of specificity

During the discussion of diversity, the issue arose of how specific the Standards should be regarding differences among types of groups, including those with members of marginalized populations. The current absence of detailed guidelines left some members feeling that the Standards had little guidance for specific types of groups and particular settings. For example, a member pointed out that groups with members who are mandated posed particular challenges to values of autonomy and justice, yet the Standards do not address this. Another member noted that the Standards seem more applicable to “treatment” groups, with less guidance for groups in community development settings. There was not a consensus around whether the Standards should address specific groups, challenges, or diverse practice models in the future, or whether the Standards should be primarily aspirational or actually achievable. This discussion led to considering the idea of a companion to the Standards, with diverse examples of application, discussion of divergent practice structures, and commentary that could include stories about items, intended meanings of key words, and other elaborative material.

Implications of Focus Groups for the IASWG Standards

These focus groups provided an opportunity for participants to discuss the Standards as an international document, in an atmosphere of collaboration and appreciation of diversity. Although there was no effort to resolve differences in the groups, there were some areas of consensus. These areas of agreement were in terms of a revision process and possible content areas in a third edition. A clear sentiment emerged that a wide range of constituencies within IASWG should be engaged in revision, in parallel to the positive feelings participants expressed about the focus group experience. It was equally clear that this process would not be easy, but as in the focus group, sharing one's own world views, and honoring common beliefs in the power of group work can help in voicing and listening to conflicting perspectives.

In terms of expanded, revised, and new content for a third edition, members proposed a number of items, including reviewing language and reconciling translational issues, exploring the use of a universal human rights perspective as well as other value systems, and looking at using broader concepts of diversity and difference. The idea of a companion document to the Standards emerged and had substantial support from focus group participants.

SUMMARY

The three studies reported in this article provide an integrated view of the current and future challenges in building a strong foundation of support, utilization, and dissemination of the IASWG Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups. The literature review contributes the underlying importance of transparency and inclusion in constructing effective standards. The survey brings alarming news about low familiarity with the Standards, even with growing attention, and provides a wealth of ideas from respondents for how to rise to the challenges ahead. The focus group study goes deeply into the IASWG's international identity and aspirations and suggests ways that the process of deliberation and the evolving Standards can contribute to actualizing a global consciousness.

When considered together, the studies share many implications and appear to validate and build on each other. The literature review demonstrates that successful implementation of standards often requires extensive member participation. The survey and focus groups with IASWG constituents served as outreach activities and data collection strategies, in that they involved members in learning about, evaluating, and visioning future editions of the Standards. Although not specifically designed as action research, these studies brought people directly into exploring and revising the Standards. It seems reasonable to speculate that this will increase their own critical use of the Standards and possibly lead them to share with others.

This collection of research activities can be seen as part of an ongoing agenda toward expanding the knowledge and use of the Standards. In the spirit of questioning, growing, and challenging ourselves, the IASWG must continue to develop Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups that are dynamic, flexible, and relevant across the contexts of practice. By mobilizing its own values of inclusion, social action, empirical support, and mutual aid, the IASWG can continue to advance an effective agenda to move forward with the Standards as the foundation for the highest quality of practice with groups.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This article builds on preliminary work presented at the International Symposium of the Advancement of Social Work with Groups, Montreal Canada, June 2010, available at http://www.iaswg.org/docs/June%202010%20Full%20Revised%20ReportStandards.pdf

APPENDIX

Professional Disciplines and Documents Represented in this Review

Discipline	Reference	Organization/Type
Accounting	Gardner, J., Willey, S., & Eide, B. (2000)	New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants (NYSSCPA)
Counseling	Dye, A., & Borders, L. (1990)	The Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES)
Counseling	Bauman, S. (2004)Wilson, F., & Newmeyer, M. (2008)www.asgw.org	The Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW)
Counseling	Nelson, T., Chenail, R., Alexander, J., Crane, D., Johnson, S., & Schwallie, L. (2007)	Scholarly article
Counseling	Sue, D., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. (1992)	Scholarly article
Dietician	Steinmuller, P. L., Meyer, N. L., Kruskall, L. J., Manore, M. M., Rodriguez, N. R., Macedonio, M., et al. (2009)	American Dietetic Association
Education	www.nctm.org	National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)
Interdisciplinary: Social work, physician, & nursing	Gingerich, B. (2007)	National Association of Social Workers & American Medical Association, (AMA)
Interdisciplinary psychotherapy: Social Work psychology psychiatry counseling	Pink, D. (2010)Ablack, C. (2008)www.psychotherapy.org.uk	UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP)
Nursing	Martin, C., Daly, A., McWhorter, L., Schwide-Slavin, C., & Kushion, W. (2005)	American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE)
Nursing	Frisch, N. (2001)	The American Holistic Nurses Association (AHNA)
Nursing	www.nursingworld.org/nursingstandards	American Nursing Association, (ANA)
Physician	Shaneyfelt, T. M., Mayo-Smith, M. F., & Rothwangl, J. (1999)	Scholarly article
Psychology	Clinton, J. J., McCormick, K., & Besteman, J. (1994)Hobbs, N. (1948)	Scholarly article
Public relations	Sallot, L. M., Cameron, G. T., & Weaver Lariscy, R. A. (1998)	The Public Relations Society of America
Psychology & social work	Bosshart, H., Bitt, I., Cushman, L., David, M., Deguire, L., & Kleinman, J. (2009)http://psychologists-social-workers.ascipro.org/standards-sci-psychosocial-rehab.html	American Association of Spinal Cord Injury Psychologists and Social Workers (AASCIPSW)
Social work	Giles, R., Laragy, C., Scott, V., & Bland, R. (2004)http://www.aasw.asn.au	Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW)
Social work	www.casw-acts.ca/en (5 separate statements on practice standards, Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Ethical Practice)	The Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW)
Social work	www.gscc.org.uk	The General Social Care Council (GSCC–Great Britain)
Social work	www.iassw-aiets.orgSewpaul, V. (2005)	The International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW)
Social work	www.naswdc.org (13 separate practice standard documents and Code of Ethics)	The National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
Social work education	Sewpaul, V., & Jones, D. (2004)Sewpaul, V., & Lombard, A. (2004)	International Federation of Social Workers Worker, (IFSW) & Work International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW)
Social work education	Duffy, J. (2006)Healy, L. (2004)Juliusdottir, S., & Petersson, J. (2004)Louden, W. (2000)Noble, C. (2004)Scott, V., Laragy, C., Giles, R., & Bland, R. (2004)Williams, L., & Sewpaul, V. (2004) Yip, K. (2004)	Scholarly articles