Case Study: The First Israeli BSW Program for Haredi Women Students

Abstract

The article summarizes a longitudinal case study of the very first Israeli program in social work targeted to the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox Jewish) population (1997–1999). The program's success played an important role in the last decade's dramatic change of attitude in the Israeli Council for Higher Education toward social work education and higher education for the Haredi population. Aside from describing an interesting case of intercultural educational encounter, exploring the dynamics of the interaction between the social work faculty and the Haredi students, and investigating changes in the participants' perceptions of themselves, the other, and the situation, the findings provide some theoretical and practical clues for the inclusion of culturally peripheral populations in social work and higher education.

The Haredi (ultra-Orthodox Jewish) population represents approximately 10%–15% of the Israeli population, but, nevertheless, until the last decade Haredi students were almost completely unrepresented both among university students and among social workers. In the 2010–2011 academic year, in contrast, the first two MA programs in social work are being provided by Israeli universities (Bar-Ilan and Haifa), separately for Haredi women and for Haredi men, on two Haredi campuses, located in two major Haredi urban concentrations (Jerusalem and Bnei Brak), following a decade of similar BSW programs. This last development is an additional significant stage in the implementation of the Israeli Council of Higher Education's new policy to promote the accessibility of higher education for the Haredi population, with the aim of facilitating the integration of the Haredi population into the Israeli system of higher education (Dehan & Aviram, 2010).

This article summarizes a longitudinal case study of the very first Israeli program in social work targeted for the Haredi population (Dehan, 2004; Garr & Marans, 2001; Radoszkowicz, 2003). The preliminary program (1997–1999) was initiated by the Paul Baerwald School of Social Work of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (PBS) with the involvement of a Haredi college for women, Neve Yerushalayim College (NYC), and the support of the Israeli Ministry of Social Affairs. This experimental program was at the time a major breakthrough in Israel. First, owing to historical, cultural, and economic reasons, the Haredi sector, characterized by its strict adherence to Jewish religious laws, and the larger Israeli society, including the Israeli academic world, were often alien and even hostile to each other. Moreover, the Haredi request for off-campus, nonmixed classes seemed to negate the notion of nonsectarianism, which was unequivocally valued by Israeli universities. The program's implementation and success played an important role in the dramatic change of attitude in the Israeli Council for Higher Education toward higher education for the Haredi population.

The study thus portrays an unprecedented intercultural educational encounter of historical importance for the profession and for Israeli society. The investigated encounter occurred before the institutionalization of such programs could blur the clarity of the issues, reactions, and processes. Its findings are pertinent for the students, teachers, field instructors, stakeholders, and policy makers involved in the ensuing programs. The study furthermore provides some theoretical and practical clues for the inclusion of culturally peripheral populations into higher education.

This article contextualizes social work education for the Haredi population in contemporary Israeli society. It presents the whole case study in a very concise way, with the aim of concentrating the main findings in one place, to enable discussion of the overall issue of inclusive policy in social work education and higher education. This comes somewhat at the expense of greater in-depth focus, left for forthcoming articles, each dealing with one main aspect of the present overview.

HAREDI AND NONHAREDI: AN IDEOLOGICAL DAY-TO-DAY LIMITED ENCOUNTER

The Haredi population is strongly ideologically attached to traditional Jewish values, norms, and knowledge and, therefore, historically dissociated from and, to a certain extent, even antagonistic to secularism, feminism, academia, psychology, and the profession of social work (Ausubel-Danzig, 1986; Greenberg & Witztum, 1994; Gurovich & Cohen-Kastro, 2004; Heilman & Friedman, 1991; Rebibo, 2001). This attitude, however, is especially accentuated in Israel, with Haredi and nonHaredi Jewish streams proposing opposing sociopolitical ideologies and providing rival societal alternatives (Katz, 1986). While the Zionists strived to build a hegemonic, modern, and mainly secular state by constructing powerful institutions with a strong melting-pot social policy, most of the Haredi leadership, including that of the “Old Settlement” (Haredi population living in Israel before Zionist waves of immigration), chose a stance of limited participation in the political sphere and a strategy of separatism in most of the other areas of life, as a way to escape Israeli socialization processes, to ensure cultural continuation, and to preserve and even reinforce rabbinical authority, the importance of Torah (traditional Jewish knowledge) studies, and the compliance with long-established Jewish Law. On a practical level, this means that the Haredi population lives mainly in separate neighborhoods where stringent standards of modesty are the norm; that access to media, such as television, the Internet, and nonHaredi newspapers is strongly criticized and even denied; and that the Haredi educational system is recognized by the state but autonomous (i.e., typically, boys older than 13 study religious subjects full-time in educational institutions and defer military service, and girls acquire secular knowledge but obtain diplomas that allow admittance to religious seminars but not to universities or academic colleges). The culture war, the fact that service in the Israeli army is basically mandatory, and the requirement of state-standardized matriculation to access Israeli higher education explain, to some extent, why the Haredi population was not integrated in Israel as it was in most other Western countries (Gonen, 2000; Lupo, 2005).

HAREDIM, SOCIETY, AND SOCIAL WORK IN ISRAEL AND ABROAD

The state of affairs in Israel and abroad as regards the interaction between Haredim and their surroundings is also reflected in the area of social work. In the United States, Jewish communities were, from the beginning, called on to develop Jewish social work services just as other cultural communities were encouraged to develop their own systems (Stein, 1965). In Israel, by contrast, professional social work was state-run and centralized as a deliberate policy (Deutsch, 1970). Social work was mainly an instrument of the Israeli government and its melting-pot policy (Jaffe, 1998). In reaction, the Israeli Haredi population was very reluctant to expose its social and individual problems to social services and preferred, and widely still prefers, to hide problems or to first seek informal help, especially that of rabbis (Firer, 2001). The adoption of a culturally sensitive approach in the Israeli welfare system initially encouraged the mediation of “Haredi askanim,” informal helpers or cultural brokers, to foster the cooperation of the Haredi community with the social services in the 1990s (Lightman & Shor, 2002). However, these cultural brokers could neither fulfill the tasks of professional social workers, nor staff the vacant positions for social workers within Haredi educational establishments. The shortage of professionals from the Haredi sector was indeed the main legitimization for professional training programs in social work targeted for the Haredi population (Dehan, 2004; Dehan & Aviram, 2010).

HAREDIM, SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION, AND SOCIAL WORK KNOWLEDGE

American social work education generally regarded traditional Judaism in a positive light, recalling the Judeo-Christian roots of the profession. Although the idea of promoting the particular knowledge, skills, and self-awareness needed to practice within Jewish communities was initially controversial, the Wurzweiler School of Social Work was established at Yeshiva University with this aim in 1955 (Cardozo Blum, Lefkowitz, & Levy, 1976). American Jewish professional journals, such as the Jewish Social Work Forum, Jewish Social Services Quarterly, and Intercom, already began to be published from the 1960s. Nefesh, the International Network of Orthodox Mental Health Professionals, was founded in New York in 1992 with the aim of encouraging an evolving discourse between religious Jewish professionals and rabbinic leaders.

In Israel, on the other hand, social work education was initially an imitation of German social work education, and only later on, from 1958, mainly of the American social work education system. To reinforce its professional and scientific foundation, the social work profession strongly dissociated itself from the social traditions that had existed for centuries in Jewish communities around the world and that were prevalent in the “Old Settlement” in Israel (Dehan, 2004). Israeli social work education was also almost completely free of Jewish content, although the Jewish tradition has a profound connection with social justice and help (Schindler, 1974). The pioneering effort of the women's religious college Orot in the 1980s to establish an academic program in social work was obstructed, and their journal on the encounter between the social work profession and traditional Jewish sources published only one issue. Despite the strong interest and support of the Research and Development Unit in the Israeli Ministry of Social Affairs in the provision of social work programs for Haredi women and men, several further attempts of specific Haredi circles to collaborate with Israeli universities were also repeatedly impeded until October 1997, when the first program in social work for Haredi women by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem opened in the Haredi college Neve Yerushalayim (Dehan, 2004). This was a turning point that led to a proliferation of programs offered by universities on Haredi campuses in social work and other academic professions (Dehan & Aviram, 2010).

The Case Study's Research Goals and Questions

The study focused on the intercultural encounter that occurred between the teaching staff, the women students, the social work profession, and the Haredi world, in the first Israeli BSW program targeted for the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox Jewish) women. It attempted to (1) describe the program; (2) explore the dynamics of the interaction between the groups; and (3) investigate changes in the participants' perceptions of themselves, the other, and the situation. The main research questions were: (1) What was the constellation that enabled the establishment of the program? (2) What was the framework of the encounter? (3) Who were the teachers, the field instructors, and the students in the program? (4) Did the different characteristics of the encounter engender different teaching and learning experiences in the academic courses and field work settings? and (5) What changes occurred among the participants following the intercultural encounter in terms of an understanding of the other and the situation and in connection to social work and the professional socialization? The broad range of questions on the intercultural encounter under investigation aimed to provide a comprehensive picture of this intercultural encounter.

Research Methodology and Design

This intrinsic and longitudinal case study was based on a combination of five qualitative methodologies: history, biography, phenomenology, ethnography, and grounded theory (Bassey, 1999; Flick, 1998; Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). Layder's (1993) “multistrategy” for the conduct of studies of social phenomena informed the conduct of this research with a five-level map of the intercultural encounter: (1) the participants; (2) the activity; (3) the organizations (the Hebrew University and the Neve Yerushalayim College); (4) the macro context (the Israeli academic and Haredi societies); and (5) the dimension of time and power linking the four previous levels. This “multistrategy” research approach was chosen to promote a better understanding of the encounter at each of these five levels with a view to obtaining a deeper and wider understanding of the whole intercultural encounter under study.

The field work of this study started in November 1997, a few weeks after the beginning of the academic year. It began following the agreement of the management of both institutions involved—PBS and NYC—to the overt presence of a researcher in the setting. The data collection was almost completely concluded by the end of the program, in June 1999. The data were gathered using various methods, including semistructured in-depth interviews; visits to the setting; direct observation of the class interaction and staff meetings; participatory observation during class breaks (especially in the dining room); and the collection of such documents as protocols, questionnaires, course syllabi, etc. An informants' sample was purposively chosen. It included all the participants in the encounter—students, teachers, and field work instructors—along with some key informants at the management levels of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Neve Yerushalayim College and the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. In this way, 88 interviews ranging from half an hour to more than 2 hours in length were conducted, recorded, and transcribed. Some 360 hours of activity in the field covering the four semesters of the program were described. Some lectures and the seven staff meetings about the program were recorded and transcribed.

The data were gathered and organized in a computerized database that included five basic folders, each including subfolders: (1) interviews (administration, teachers, field instructors, women); (2) interactions (courses, workshop, special encounters); (3) intragroups (teachers' meetings, field instructors' meetings, women's discussions); (4) the researcher (field notes, field reflectivity, literature reflectivity); and (5) background (empirical data linked to the research). The data were read and refined into a parallel database. They were then analyzed, using three main procedures: (1) A global analysis was used to grasp the range of themes contained in the data, over time; (2) a thematic analysis helped classify the data according to the main themes, formatting profiles and building matrices helpful for summaries and comparisons; and (3) a content analysis was conducted to enable the reduction, explication, and structuring of the data. The interactional data were codified piece by piece, and the intercultural components filtered. Some units were chosen for in-depth analysis and subject to a long process of refinement and classification, where no relevant verbatim quotes were left out, and the chronology was respected. Subsequently, a few encounters were depicted systemically, with a title reflecting the special character of the encounter, an explanation why the specific encounter was chosen, a map of contents, including the main sections and subsections, thus revealing the unfolding of the encounter, and the story of the encounter, with titles, labels, typologies, and verbatim quotes. In a similar way, all seven staff meetings were presented and summarized, allowing an additional longitudinal comparison of the participants' attitudes and debates, with a 2-year span perspective.

The study provided findings on the three levels of analysis optional in case studies (Bassey, 1999; Flick, 1998; Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995), namely (1) analytical statements, that is, direct answers to the study's questions (Bassey, 1999) or, in other words, the description of the case (Merriam, 1988); (2) themes and typologies that construct, explain, or comment on the data. The findings of the study on the third level of analysis, and (3) the proposition of a theory (Merriam, 1988), or propositional generalizations or assertions (Stake, 1995), are not included in the present article.

An effort was made to adhere to the criteria for ethical research and to maintain a balance between the study's commitment to capturing the truth and its concern to protect the participants. To assure that the study met the criteria of trustworthiness, numerous strategies were planned and implemented, such as the researcher's engagement in the field for the entire duration of the program; persistent observation of the activity; triangulation of various methods of data collection and of sources of information; member checks in the course of the investigation; a broad and thick description of the interaction, locations and occurrences; purposive sampling; the keeping of a reflexive journal to record the feelings and emerging insights of the researcher; checking of the processed data in light of the raw data; the laying down and maintenance of an audit trail to enable the tracking of the stages of the research. Some key informants were provided with parts of the report, and some with the final report for feedback. They found that the data were accurate, and the analysis coherent.

FINDINGS: AN OVERVIEW OF THE CASE STUDY

Live Preamble: Selected Stakeholders' Quotes on the Initiation of the Program

During the initial contacts with Neve Yerushalayim … my first reaction was “they can come and study here.” Their answer was: “the women might not because the campus is co-ed.” To tell the truth, at first I thought: “If no, then no. No need.” At a later stage, I realized that the Haredi community has social problems like any other, so it may be worthwhile to search for ways to train social workers from that community as well … and that here is a tiny window of opportunity to build a bridge for mutual interaction and understanding. (The Head of the School of Social Work, 25.12.1997)

The request from Neve Yerushalayim was not the first we received [in the area of social work education for the Haredi population] … Each time the subject came up, the [PBS] School [Council], including myself, rejected the idea out of hand … We met with them for a preliminary meeting … [which] was very interesting … but I was not in favor of [our running] the program, and … I was in the majority. (The Head of the BSW program, 19.06.1998)

At the staff meeting, the reactions were very anti … including a huge opposition to Haredim … I spoke about tolerance and one of the staff became furious … in the end, he [the director of the school] succeeded in persuading them … not on behalf of tolerance, that was not popular then, but rather in terms of advantages and gains. (The Head of the Fieldwork Training Program, 5.11.1998)

You recall the Wild West; people arranged their wagons in a circle [for protection when they camped]. Let's say that the Haredi community circled their wagons and that we are within. And now we move a wagon aside, and you [the social work school's staff] come in. (The Head of Neve Yerushalayim College, May 1996, reported by the Head of the School of Social Work, 25.12.1997)

It's a long saga [20 years of abortive attempts]! … The day I'll see the first [Haredi] graduates of a three-year program in social work, I'll know that we have crossed the bridge! (The Head of the Research and Training Department, the Ministry of Social Affairs, 26.01.1999)

The Constellation That Enabled the Establishment of the Program

The investigated program was made possible by a unique constellation, in which the Hebrew University of Jerusalem—its president, rector, standing committee of the senate, and the director of the social work school (PBS)—the Neve Yerushalayim College (NYC), and the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs simultaneously shared a commitment to establish a professional social work education program for Haredi women.

The shared acknowledgment of the prevalence of social and personal problems among the ultra-Orthodox population and of the acute need to educate Haredi social workers, who would be better accepted by the secluded Haredi community and would be more capable to deal with them, was the basis of the cooperation. The expansion of employment opportunities for Haredi women was a main additional concern of NYC, while the potential promotion of social interaction and cohesion was a supplementary incentive for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The development of knowledge about the ultra-Orthodox sector and of adapted skills for social work intervention was a goal shared by some members of both institutions.

The joint program was established on the basis of an irrevocable agreement, essential to the Hebrew University, to preserve all of the features of the regular social work retraining course offered at the Hebrew University, in terms of all of its components—admission procedures, curriculum, teaching staff, field work practicum, course requirements, and diploma. The program's location in NYC was the only exception, aimed to provide a setting acceptable to women from the Haredi sector.

The program was at the time very controversial at the Hebrew University and the Israeli Council for Higher Education. The main opponents questioned the legitimization of an off-campus program given to a special population, arguing that such a concept and its implementation would somewhat undermine the basic assumption that the Hebrew University is open to all and negate the political–regulative principle that all its programs should be given on one of its campuses as a means of promoting integration, social openness, and academic equality. Because of a mixture of ideo-political, organizational, and administrative barriers, it took more than 3 years of intense informal processes and official procedures to get complete approval, obtain the promised budgets, and overcome some obstacles that opponents created. As part of the formal process, the program was defined as experimental, and a follow-up committee was appointed.

The Framework for the Encounter: A Retraining Program for Haredi Women

In Israel, the BSW is the certificate that provides the state's authorization to engage in professional social work. The BSW education program consists of 3 years of academic courses and field work practicum in social services, and includes a workshop aimed at integrating those two components. The “retraining” program is offered to students who already possess a recognized bachelor degree in any discipline and who are interested in a social work degree, with a view to working in this area. At the time of the study, it was a BSW program shortened to 2 years.

The program's founders decided to run a retraining program that would save the need for at least one additional year of “preparation” required for those who do not have a regular matriculation diploma, characteristic of most Haredi women. Moreover, women with a bachelor degree would have had previous experience with academia, and the length of the program would be reduced to its minimum. Furthermore, some academic graduates of NYC programs were interested in a BSW degree, and they provided the initial pool of candidates: the scholastic difficulties and intercultural challenges anticipated by the faculty staff would be reduced and the chances for positive student recruitment and success in this first critical experience would be increased.

The retraining program for Haredi women was constructed in the exact same way as the retraining program of the Hebrew University. However, the late initiation of the program, the physical location of the academic courses, and the Haredi orientation of the student group engendered changes in the learning environment and in the way the classes were conducted, as well as in the field work training settings.

Regarding the staff, there were differences between the lecturers and the field work supervisors: Most of the lecturers were just beginning their academic careers and had been assigned to the program as part of their position at PBS. Most of them were secular and had no intimate knowledge of the Haredi world; some of them even had reservations about the very establishment of the program. In contrast, the field work supervisors chose to participate in the program of their own initiative. For some, it was an opportunity to supervise or to expand their supervisory positions; for others, it was a personal or organizational matter. The field work supervisors differed a great deal in terms of their field work experiences, their supervision experiences, and their ages. Most of them were religious, American-born, had previously worked with the Haredi population, and understood the need to offer a separate off-campus program for Haredi students.

The group consisted of 20 religious Jewish women students and was heterogeneous. There were almost equal proportions of Israeli-born students and students born abroad. The students differed in terms of age, marital status, and length of time since previous studies. The English-speaking Haredi students were Haredi from birth or had been religious at least during the last 25 years; most of the Israeli-born students were from a religious background and, except for two who entered the program for practical reasons, had became Haredi less than 10 years prior to the introduction of the program. Only two of the students in the group were newly religiously Haredi from a traditional–secular background.

The students had bachelor degrees from universities and colleges abroad, “Neve Yerushalayim” academic programs, Bar-Ilan University, or “Michlala Yerushalayim.” Two of the women had a bachelor degree in psychology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; one, Haredi from birth, received her degree 30 years before, and the other had became Haredi while studying for her degree only the previous year. The women who were Haredi from birth attended institutions of two kinds: those who had studied more than 20 years before enrolling in the programs did so at regular universities, whereas those who had studied in the previous decade did so at American Jewish institutions that offered gender-separated classes. The vast majority of the students worked in fields related to social welfare—one as a community social worker, one as a paraprofessional at a welfare office, and the others as volunteers in their own communities. Reports from the students emphasized the symbolic, practical, personal, and social importance of an academic program in a Haredi environment.

The Intercultural Encounter in the Academic Studies

Four of the encounters between the lecturers and the students were selected as test cases, and led to the definition of four types of intercultural encounters, each characterized by a special way of dealing with cultural contents, and each related to a special way of coping with incidents: (1) parallelism—the lecturer set some rules that were accepted by both sides and enabled the students to expose their cultural paradigm on a parallel level with the content of the lectures; (2) avoidance—the lecturer gave almost no consideration to the students' Haredi culture; (3) incorporation—both the lecturer and the students considered the intercultural encounter and coped together to accommodate both cultures; (4) integration—the lecturer integrated the cultural contents into the professional contents, considering the complexity of the identities and life situations.

The findings showed that the cultural content was combined with the academic course material in different ways: in and out of the classroom (e.g., through papers that the students wrote, or through an exchange of reading material); at the students' request or at the teachers' initiative; concerning the students, or concerning the clients; aiming at self-clarification, at conveying information, or providing explanation.

Analysis of the students' learning experience reveals a range of attitudes toward learning, and a progressive socialization. The first encounter generated a continuum of coping strategies, which the students used to deal with what they might have defined as “heretical” academic material. The second encounter was characterized by standard learning interaction. The third encounter generated a continuum of various relationships between the teacher and the students. The fourth encounter revealed several signs of the students' professionalization.

The encounters provide numerous examples of occurrences that generated changes in the participants' perceptions of themselves, the other, the profession, Haredi culture, and the encounter, and their comparison led to the designation of several interactive variables that appeared to be linked to the nature and the scope of the intercultural encounter.

The Intercultural Encounter in the Field Work Practicum

The workshop dealing with the field work experience of the students during the 2 years of the program was selected to investigate the teaching and learning processes of the field work training. To address the cultural issues related to training Haredi women students, and even though the program was at first intended to be completely similar to the regular retraining course, the School of Social Work added two components: (1) appointment of a cultural mediator during the first year of the program, who attended the workshop, and (2) expansion of the workshop from bimonthly to weekly sessions during the second year of the program.

The findings show that the cultural mediator was an important addition to the program. He was appointed by PBS at the request of both the faculty and the students, as they initially experienced a culture shock and needed mediation between them. The cultural mediator was a rabbi and professional psychologist able to relate to the contents, language, values, and obligations of both the social work profession and the Haredi world. He facilitated the professional training of the Haredi women students, by focusing on how the social work profession is, most of the time, consistent with the Jewish culture, regarding the goals, ethics, and requirements. He also innovated strategies to overcome ostensible gaps between the instructions of the field work coordinator leading the workshop and certain conducts and perceptions of the students, such as consultations with rabbis regarding the field work, difficulties in respecting the client's right to “self-determination” in case of conflict with the Jewish Law, and the initial reluctance of some students to work with men—whether a field work supervisor or client. The study reflects the changing role that the mediator assumed during the program. Indeed, his image was mainly rabbinical during the first year and became predominantly professional during the second year.

The findings reveal that the students acquired the social work skills in several stages: (1) entering new professional-Halachic situations, which engendered the need for rabbinical consultations; (2) stressing potential value conflict situations between Jewish Law and the social work profession; (3) dealing with the dual religious–professional self-identity, and trying to reconcile both components; and finally, (4) dealing essentially with professional issues, while only a very few religious–professional conflicts remained. The occurrences in the workshops reflected the formation of an integrative culture based on professional skills, values, and knowledge that suit the world of the Jewish Law, and refer to the social work profession as holy work.

Some Encounters in the Context of Contemporary Society

Three types of incidents, only indirectly connected to the program, and mainly due to the social relationship between the Haredi sector and the rest of the Israeli society, occurred during the professional training process: the screening of modern movies disturbed many students and created some mutual tension; a Haredi newspaper report, accusing a welfare officer of intentional misconduct toward a Haredi family, led some students to question their vocational choice; and current social events of a Haredi-secular antagonistic nature challenged the encounter. These kinds of encounters represent additional cultural challenges during the educational encounter.

The Overall Intercultural Encounter as Reflected in the Teachers' Meetings

An overview of the staff meetings indicates that an overall intercultural encounter indeed occurred during the program. The findings reveal a sharp distinction between the ways that the teachers and the field work supervisors experienced the encounter, as well as a gradual change in the way the faculty members related to the group of students during the two years of the encounter. During the first year, the lecturers tended to enjoy teaching at NYC, whereas the field work supervisors tended to complain about the slow and arduous training process. At first, the faculty members—especially the field work supervisors—tended to attribute the difficulty to the Haredi identity of the students. Later, however, they identified other causes such as the structure of the program, the students' age, the students' marital status, and the period of time that had passed since their previous studies, adult education, as well as the transition from charitable activity to professional work.

Moreover, this analysis followed the development of the issues that involved the staff members during the course of the program. The field work supervisors were especially concerned with the encounter between the social work profession and the students' Haredi identity and culture. Initially, they tended to define the encounter as a clash. During the course of the year, previous conflictual assertions were transformed into new questions. During the second year, the women's Haredi identity was no longer the main issue with which the supervisors were preoccupied.

The place of Judaism within the academic curriculum was the main issue that concerned the teaching faculty. Initially, the discussion focused on the value of the students' cultural knowledge in social work education. Subsequently, it dealt with the relevance of integrating Jewish culture and knowledge into the course contents; ultimately, the discussion focused on and questioned the essence of universal training.

The findings revealed a shift from teachers' initial skepticism regarding a program of this nature to enthusiastic justifications of it, and finally to a positive evaluation of the program. At that point, both the teachers and the field work supervisors appreciated the improvement in the interaction between the two sides and noted the professionalization of the students. A hypothetical planning of an additional cycle of the program brought to the surface a basic issue, which had been latent since the very establishment of the program: integration versus cultural homogenization.

Participants' Testimonies of Changes Resulting From the Intercultural Encounter

Participants' testimonies illustrated the changes that occurred as a result of the intercultural encounter under investigation. At the staff meetings, the program coordinator reported that the encounter provided a very important and productive experience for her. She affirmed that it was thought-provoking, that it enhanced her sensitivity toward students from the Haredi sector as well as toward students from other minority populations, that it alleviated her previous feelings of resentment toward Haredi people, and that it enabled her to better understand and communicate with them. Similarly, a student reported that the encounter allayed her anger toward secular Jews and helped her feel more empathetic and connected to them. As a result of the training, she obviously experienced a transition from layperson to professional—although she felt that she was only at the beginning of the professionalization process and that she was on her way toward integrating her professional and Haredi identities. She also noted a newly awakened feeling of distance from the rest of the Haredi society, which she attributed to her professionalization. This testimony, among others, indicated that the professional education may have aroused tensions between the Haredi women's indigenous culture and their newly acquired professional affiliation. A few additional reports attested to changes that resulted from the encounter in the personal lives of the students, in the social work school, and in the professional field work. A student even mentioned a link between the transition from charitable activity to professional intervention and the improvement of social work intervention in the Haredi sector.

Subsequent Changes at the Level of the Stakeholders and Policy Making

The success of the experiment reinforced the stakeholders' stance about the importance of such a program. The reports of the follow-up committee were unequivocally positive, the grades of the class high, and all the participants satisfied. For the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, that experiment was only a beginning and insufficient to cover the need for Haredi professionals in the welfare system. The Hebrew University offered an additional and very successful second course of social work in NYC, but with the almost simultaneous change of personnel at the head of the school and of the university, decided to withdraw. The management of Neve Yerushalayim College was very willing to continue and felt disappointed, especially because politically, organizationally, and financially, they had invested a great deal and taken serious risks in initiating the program.

The most influential and fundamental change was that of the Israeli Council for Higher Education, which decided in July 1999 to initiate a process of academization of the Haredi sector. In December 2003, it recognized two Haredi Colleges, at two main Haredi urban centers as the “correct loci” for university programs, at least at this stage. It additionally chose to support preacademic preparation programs provided in those Haredi colleges as entrance requirement in lieu of matriculation exams. In 2010, a year before master's programs were opened, 320 Haredi women and men were registered as social work students of Bar-Ilan and Haifa universities (Dehan & Aviram, 2010).

DISCUSSION: INCLUSIVE POLICY IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION

The article's literature review dealt with the intersection of Haredim and social work and contextualized social work education for the Haredi population in contemporary Israeli society. The case study of the first program for Haredi women was then presented to serve as a concrete example of the issues and processes inherent in this kind of intercultural encounter and, together with a consideration of what is happening due to the following decade of nearly similar programs in social work and other helping professions, to provide an informative basis for a discussion on inclusive social and educational policy making.

With the increasing pool of academic establishments involved in the academization of the Haredi sector, the growing and ever-changing Haredi student body and the renewal and expansion of their teaching staff, it seems that the relevance of the findings is greater than ever. The findings may also be significant for other cultural minorities in Israel, for whom the challenges encountered in the course of the professional socialization process may have been heretofore overlooked (Roer-Strier & Haj-Yahia, 1998). They may furthermore be of interest for cultural minorities in higher education in other countries, since the integration of many of them remains a problematic issue throughout the world (Benton, 2001; Chang, 1999; Gurin, 1999; Harvey, 2004; Valverde, 2004).

The multistrategy for studies of social phenomena (Layder, 1993), which focuses on the layered relationship between the participants, the activity, the organizations, the macro system, and the binding fifth axis of time and power, and which led the study, has been chosen yet again to inform the discussion.

The study findings stress that education in social work is neither transmitted nor received in a void, but is rather an activity related both to the macro context and the organizational context (Davis-Russell et al., 1990; Watts & Smolicz, 1997). In the case of Haredi society in Israel, until recently the impact of the macro context on social work education was particularly salient, as it led to a clear-cut exclusion of Haredim from state-sponsored education (Lupo, 2005). This exclusion was long considered by the mainstream to be “self-exclusion,” because Israeli higher education is by definition “open to all.” This case study, however, shows that a campus may be open to all, but not equally accessible to all (Diaz, 1990). Instead of insisting on the necessity of the Haredi cultural minority attending studies on the regular campus and putting the full responsibility for the intercultural coping on the minority students, the school of social work, with the sanction of the university, was ready to relocate the academic activity and take upon itself the challenge of managing a class of students of a different culture. This organizational decision was a major bridge and a turning point from zero activity to a decade of educating Haredi students in social work and additional professions.

The organizational decision was taken within an enabling and changing macro-context characterized by the rise of social pluralism; the development of cultural sensitivity in social work; the trend to promote the inclusion of minorities in higher education; the maturation of social work profession; the growing status of social work schools; and the evolving recognition of the special position of social work as a bridge between academy and society (Dehan & Aviram, 2010).

In addition to the cardinal importance of the organizational bridge, this case study shows that the participants' mutual respect and honesty is a vital factor for success. The mutual respect and honesty demonstrated between the heads of PBS and NYC was the very root of the whole process. Statements and deeds demonstrating a respectful acceptance of the self and the other were in no way trivial, and were highly emphasized in the recounts of the progressive rapport between the two establishments. The respect and honesty shown by the teachers enabled the success of the courses, even in cases where they did not consider or integrate the culture of the students, as the investigation of the intercultural encounter in the academic studies reveals. The cultural mediator, added to the program to help with the intercultural encounter, provided a role model of mutual respect and honesty. Reciprocity and trustworthiness are indeed at the basis of social cohesion, and higher education is in a privileged position to achieve this goal (Moiseyenko, 2005).

The extraneous incidents mentioned in the section “Some Encounters in the Context of Contemporary Society” suggest that the organizational bridge and mutual respect are the basis, but not the full answer to the issue of inclusion. First, it shows the importance of considering the social context for the sake of the activity itself (i.e., social work education). Current events and conflicts may impact the educational relationship. Negative incidents related to social services or social welfare officers, especially if involving the students' cultural affiliation group, may have an especially negative influence, whether they are real cases or merely media fabrications and an expression of prejudice, since they may put the students in a loyalty dilemma and engender a crisis of identity during the socialization process. Moreover, and of no less importance, it may be important to realize that movies and graphic materials are not purely neutral pedagogic means, since they generally reflect the norms of the mainstream culture and thus may easily violate the cultural norms and sensitivities of the particular culture. The case study illustrates the importance of considering the macro societal, professional, and pedagogical layers during the social work education programs, and of openly discussing related problematic issues as a way to improve the professional socialization.

That the organizational bridge is not sufficient is also evident from the sections “The Intercultural Encounter in the Academic Studies” and “The Intercultural Encounter in the Field Work Practicum.” The Hebrew University and PBS were originally categorical in the need to adhere to their universal way of teaching. Part of the staff, however, came to understand that dealing with the encounter of cultures may be essential to a good socialization, while ignoring it could lead to a poor adjustment on the part of the students. The head of PBS initially defined the addition of a cultural mediator as a “gamble,” and ended up stressing his prominent contribution to the success of socialization and the program. The teachers and field instructors individually used and adjusted their cultural sensitivity, and the students progressively integrated their professional identity. From the investigated program, it thus seems that the encounter of cultures, values, skills, and knowledge is a main component that challenges the prevalent universalistic–hegemonic stance toward social work education and profession as well as the particular culture, and at the same time, if openly considered, may enrich the existing academic knowledge about the related political, cultural, professional, and personal sensitivities and issues. Some measures learned from the case study may be effective for social work education among cultural minorities and are worthy of attention: considering the macro-context of the program, including the social and professional relationship, both historical and contemporary, between the minority and the cultural mainstream; checking the pedagogical material with cultural sensitivity; integrating cultural components into the courses and the professional training; including cultural mediators in the programs; encouraging intercultural and intragroup encounters; and allowing a wider range of socialization processes.

Profound changes regarding cultures and minorities require first surmounting the bureaucratic, cultural, and institutional barriers to the inclusion of ethnic students (Diaz, 1990). The sections “The Overall Intercultural Encounter as Reflected in the Teachers' Meetings” and “Participants' Testimonies of Changes Resulting From the Intercultural Encounter” reveal that the effect of social work programs of this kind is wider than the attainment of the official goal (i.e., the professionalization of Haredi students). The group of Haredi students as a whole, indisposed to compromise on their original culture, somewhat obliged the teachers and field work instructors to foster their cultural sensitivity and cultural competence toward the Haredi population. The two-directional gradual transformations at the level of the participants led toward the blurring of stereotypes and dichotomies. Moreover, the intercultural skills of the staff were developed and used toward additional minorities as well.

The aforementioned findings do not signify that all the people concerned by or involved in similar encounters in the education system and in the social work field react in the same way. Not everyone in the Haredi population is ready to take part in such programs, or even to consider it legitimate. Rabbis still diverge in their opinions about the legitimacy of such studies, and even those who are the most positive are nonetheless apprehensive and alert about their contents, the didactic materials employed, and their influence on the students. In the investigated program, the seemingly homogeneous group of students revealed itself as highly heterogeneous, with a wide range of backgrounds, demographics, characters, and reactions in the different situations inherent to the studies and field work training. Haredi students and social workers progressively and differentially adjust themselves in the Haredi community and social work community over the years (Ausubel-Danzig, 1986; Dehan, 2004). In that process, it is noticeable that some may, to a degree, even feel themselves marginal in either or both the Haredi and professional communities. Heterogeneity of attitudes is also manifest among the Israeli academic community, with a scale of proponents and opponents to the insertion of Haredi students in the academic and professional system, a wide range of reactions to the particularities of the Haredi culture, and a divergence of perceptions, focusing on the cultural minority marginality versus plain acceptance of diversity.

The inclusion of minorities into social work programs may indeed be very favorable for the future of the social work profession (Dominelli, 2004), and the Haredi cultural minority is a good example: a nonformal follow-up reveals that most of the 20 Haredi graduates of the first program entered the field of social work in public social agencies, therapeutic services, and religious nonprofit organizations, and that most of the later male and female graduates are quickly, in their words, “grabbed” by the state and community welfare system. During and after their studies, these students become themselves cultural mediators between the two cultures in the once foreign professional world. They facilitate research among the Haredi population, and new professional knowledge is acquired. As they are integrated into social work services, they help improve the professional provision of culturally sensitive social services, and continue their professional development. A few of them already attend one of the new master's programs in social work for Haredi social workers, in which emergent issues such as the reaction by members of the Haredi or Israeli communities to their social work role are raised and discussed, reflecting far-reaching societal changes.

The developments of the past decade subsequent to the program are above and beyond social work education and profession: the increasing number of universities and colleges providing higher education to Haredi students; the development of programs in a growing number of academic professions; the extraordinary rise in the number of Haredi students (Dehan & Aviram, 2010); the change in the way in which both the Haredi and Israeli media relate to these programs, from rejection to acceptance and even praise (Radoszkowicz, 2003; Rotem, 2003); the integration of most of the programs' graduates into numerous professional fields—all validate the statement that initial changes, in a spiral process, may have deep institutional and societal impacts (McHolland et al., 1990). The follow-up of the occurrences during this last decade points to considerable developments and reinforces Layder's (1993) theory that all the societal, professional, and organizational situations and changes are time- and power-related.

In our century, characterized by an over-proportional numerical growth of minorities, the role of higher education institutions in promoting social cohesion is widely acknowledged (Moiseyenko, 2005). However, some confusion prevails as to whether the higher education policy should improve access or success. Fostering both at the same time may be a major challenge but an indispensable goal (Gándara & Orfield, 2010). Making excellence inclusive by promoting diversity in higher education and creating inclusive faculties has become a serious occupation (Metro New York & Southern Connecticut Higher Education Recruitment Consortium, 2008).

What is the best framework for inclusion in higher education remains, however, the topic of serious controversies and deliberations. The Israeli higher education policy, which encourages renowned universities to make their programs available to Haredi women and men at Haredi campuses, provides an interesting solution. In addition to promoting diversity in the general campus, it provides access and success through a combination of encounter-within-separation, and the outcomes are unprecedented discourses and cooperations. The loci of the programs supply a culturally welcoming environment (as the background atmosphere is mainly Haredi), affirmative peer interactions (because of the ethnic composition of the classes), positive faculty–student relationships (as all the participants, teachers and students are part of the intercultural encounter by free choice), and greater representations of minority perspectives in the graduate curriculum (as a natural process on the part of the students, the teachers, and a relatively high percentage of Haredi field work settings and clients). All these components were found to be even more important than direct social integration during the training program (Gasman, Hirschfeld, & Vultaggio, 2008; Henry & Closson, 2010; Lang, 1994). At the same time, however, the programs are entirely those of Israeli universities, and so are the degrees awarded. This main feature ensures the status of the program, its teachers and graduates, facilitates access to advanced levels of higher education and to the whole gamut of social services, thus promoting a most effective integration.

The measures for improved inclusion of minorities that were found in the case study under discussion to be effective for the Haredi students may be adapted to additional minorities in Israel and abroad. They may be especially helpful where social work education, or any other helping profession, is introduced into very different cultures. This may be also thought-provoking and profitable for cultures that are relatively integrated but still experience marginality (Grant & Breese, 1997; Valverde, 2004; Weaver, 2000).

Much ongoing and creative effort is needed to ensure that higher education fulfills its mission of serving the needs of students, communities, and society (Anonymous, 2007). The case of education in social work presented in this article, as well as the subsequent policy of the Israeli Council for Higher Education, are part of this process.

Acknowledgments

The case study was supported by the Harvey L. Silvert Center for Israel Studies, the Israeli Ministry of Science, Culture and Sport, and the Israeli Council for Higher Education.