Is the Glass Half Full?: How Macro Practice Matters in a Global Context

“Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledge, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing. The above definition may be amplified at national and/or regional levels.”

– Global definition of social work (see International Federation of Social Workers, 2014, July, para #1)

Earlier this summer, several thousand educators, researchers, and practitioners from across the globe converged in Ireland to attend the World Community Development Congress 2018 and the Joint World Conference on Social Work, Education and Social Development to share knowledge about the latest innovations contributing to the health, wellbeing, and sustainability of communities worldwide. In sharp contrast to recent discussions in the United States that have lamented the marginalization of macro practice (i.e., community practice, social administration, policy practice) within the social work profession (e.g., Fisher & Corciullo, 2011; Reisch, 2016, 2017; Rothman, 2013), conversations at these meetings underscored that macro practice, in particular community work, retains a central professional role for social workers in the development and implementation of programs and policies throughout the world. The pivotal role of community practice in global development was accentuated by dozens of macro-themed sessions across both conferences, as foreshadowed by Smith (2013).

What this suggests is that relevance of macro practice is in the eye of the beholder. Kretzmann and McKnight (1996) posed this question to community practitioners about their attitudes toward their communities: “Is the glass half full?” Do we ask this of our own professions? Indeed, community practice is an interprofessional activity that also includes community residents in planning and delivery of interventions. For nearly a century, those of us in the United States have engaged our professional organizations repeatedly in conversations about the legitimacy and long-term viability of macro practice within social work (for recent examples, see Austin, Anthony, Tolleson Knee & Mathias, 2016; Abramovitz & Sherraden, 2016; Hill, Erickson, Donaldson, Fogel, & Ferguson, 2017; Rothman & Mizrahi, 2014). In contrast, others (see for example, Bhuyan, 2018; International Federation of Social Workers, 2014; Reisch, 2016; Truell, 2018) primarily outside of the United States, focus on the essential role of macro practitioners in creating purposive social change and transforming human-rights-based legislation into institutions and structures that strengthen communities. Although both types of conversations may be necessary, as they stem from particular contexts, it important to focus these conversations on the global issues warranting radical social change and the strategies that facilitate such change (Bhuyan, 2018). The authors in this volume of the Journal of Community Practice have engaged in these conversations.

Why macro matters is encapsulated by the global definition of social work used by the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) and International Schools of Social Work, noted previously. In the words of IFSW Secretary-General Rory Truell, social work, which outside of the United States is almost exclusively macro practice, flourishes worldwide in large measure because of “sound evidence showing a positive economic return when governments invest in social services” and when “social workers are active in a community” (Truell, 2018, para 3). Yet, it is not merely the return on investment that appears to drive macro practice within this larger global context. One of the most striking differences in the conversations that occurred in both research and practice-oriented sessions at these conferences was the emphasis on human rights as a justification for community-level interventions and policies that shape them.

In our final issue of the year, we look at how macro practice matters to communities and organizations in local and global contexts. How does our work matter in the lives of community residents, particularly those who possess identities often identified as other? How do the methods we use for research or practice matter to the ways in which our communities and organizations address public concerns? How does our work contribute to advancing human rights locally, nationally and globally?

Our lead article, “Making Tarefero Pride: The Collaborative Construction of Portable Photomurals for Farmworker Empowerment in Misiones, Argentina,” describes the value of a collaborative, “strengths-based” art intervention that emerged during ethnographic fieldwork conducted among the tareferos, i.e., agricultural workers, residing in rural communities in Misiones, Argentina. Bowles demonstrates how “culturally grounded collaborative practice” can be employed to fight the structural violence and historical trauma experienced in vulnerable communities. She documents how the creation of two portable photomurals illustrating the work, life and the struggle for justice of the tareferos—the making of tarefero pride—became a tool supporting farmworker organizing efforts in Misiones and empowering tarefero communities to rebuild community psyches by addressing historical patterns of exploitation, stigma and trauma. Moreover, Bowles underscores the need for social work scholars to “turn away from extractive models of research and instead seed and nurture long-term relationships with communities to fight inequality and heal historical trauma” (pp. 407–408). Macro matters for Bowles because this sense of pride emanates from the community and not from the professional.

In “Promoting Constructive Conflict from a Conflict Transformation Perspective: The Case of Community-Based Collaboration in Korea,” J. Kim, Jang, and S. Kim use conflict transformation theory to analyze data from five Korean organizational case studies to examine how nonprofit collaborations manage organizational conflict. Specifically, they examine the dynamics of coalition development and the extent to which open communication, network governance, and collaboration coordination serve as pathways that convert conflict into successful problem-solving and the development of innovative services. They found that the effect of open communication systems (e.g., enabling members to respond to different interests within the collaboration and facilitating the sharing of information and resources) on promoting constructive conflict within community-based collaborations is through two moderating structural conditions. These include (a) equal decision-making processes that allow all voices to be heard and (b) responsive coordination that guarantees mutual benefit for all members. The article provides timely information of importance to macro practitioners in organizations that are increasingly being asked to work together to address complex community problems.

Our next article illustrates how macro matters for sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth living in nonmetropolitan areas in the United States. In “If Rainbows were Everywhere: Nonmetropolitan SGM Youth Identify Factors that Make Communities Supportive,” Pacely, Thomas, Toole, and Pavocic examine the experiences of SGM youth residing in rural communities and mid-size towns. Concerns about heightened marginalization, hostile community climate, and increased risk of victimization in nonmetropolitan settings led the authors to conduct research about factors that contribute to making these communities supportive to SGM youth. Their qualitative analysis of interviews with youth suggests that supportive community factors include: having community members who were willing to acknowledge SGM people and discuss SGM topics; providing supportive resources such as SGM organizations, clubs or groups; offering education and training to professionals on SGM issues; enhancing the visibility of SGM identities within the community; and enacting antidiscrimination or gender-inclusive policies that were supportive of SGM people.

Our Innovations in Community Research article, “Using Community Members to Collect Observational Data: Observer Training and Data Quality Assessment,” by P. Ellery, Baas, Johnson, and J. Ellery, tackles a common concern in participatory community research—how to prepare community members to accurately and reliably observe and evaluate community assets. They describe an innovative process that can be employed in community-based participatory research to enhance the quality of data collected by community members. Using the example of a property evaluation study completed in Muncie, Indiana, the authors demonstrate how to measure observer accuracy and interobserver reliability to identify observer readiness to collect data. Additionally, they show how to use post-data collection assessments to estimate observer drift and intraobserver reliability. Findings suggest that observer-based survey evaluation tools can be useful for making macro matter by collecting reliable asset information in communities if projects incorporate observer training, retraining and assessment.

Volume 26 concludes with two From the Field articles. In “Your Family, Your Neighborhood: Results from a Feasibility and Acceptability Study of Parent Engagement in Project-based Housing,” Lechuga-Peña and Brisson present the results of a small, single-site feasibility and evaluation study of Your Family, Your Neighborhood, a 10-week manualized educational intervention with families in low-income and project-based subsidized housing communities. The curriculum focuses on strengthening the connections between children and parents; among subsidized housing residents and their families; and between parents and schools. Although further evaluation is needed, preliminary results suggest that the intervention can be feasibly delivered in subsidized project-based housing. This macro intervention matters because it may lead to improved educational outcomes for children, stronger parent-child bonds, and increased parental engagement.

Finally, in “Place Attachment in Community Development and Revitalization,” Phillips, Plunkett, and Ucar Koaoglu report the findings of a case study in Sunnyslope, Arizona that examines how the bonds that people have for the places where they reside influences the formation of social community capacity that, in turn, affects decisions about community-level interventions aimed at improving quality of life. Through analyzing in-depth interviews with community residents and business owners, the authors find that deep place attachment to Sunnyslope has endured, despite the neighborhood’s annexation into the City of Phoenix and decades of economic distress. A strong commitment to making Sunnyslope a better place to live for everyone in the neighborhood is enacted primarily around concerns about public safety and economic development. Place attachment matters because what community members believe is possible to accomplish within the places they value is inextricably linked to what becomes actualized with community development and revitalization efforts.

As we complete another volume of the Journal of Community Practice, we hope that these articles have illustrated the various ways in which community scholars, educators, and practitioners contribute to the body of evidence that our work matters and yields positive results to the organizations, communities, and people whom we serve locally, nationally, and globally. In the final analysis, how our work is viewed now and in the future is truly in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps the more relevent question we need to consider is which beholder is most important when asking if the glass is half full?

We thank all of the authors who continue to see the Journal of Community Practice as an important vehicle for disseminating their scholarship. Additionally, we thank all of the following individuals who so generously contributed their expertise in reviewing the manuscripts that were submitted during the past year: Isaac Albert, Scott Allard, Ann Alvarez, Steven Anderson, Laina Bay-Cheng, Efraim Ben-Zadok, David S. Bieri, Gary Bowen, Shane Brady, Daniel Brisson, Robert Chaskin, Julie Christian, Mark Chupp, Stacy Clifford, Ram Cnaan, Claudia Coulton, Richard Dembo, Mathieu Despard, Michelle L. Edwards, Julia Ekstrom, Annalisa Enrile, Umut Erel, Joseph Galura, Alice Gates, Megan Gilster, Odessa Gonzalez Benson, Jessica Greenawalt, Emily Greenfield, Mark Groulx, Helga K. Hallgrimsdottir, Bernardo Hernández, Patricia Higham, Mark Holton, Te-Sheng Huang, Christopher G. Hudson, Alexis Jemal, Louise Jezierski, Mark Joseph, Mimi E. Kim, Seon Mi Kim, Sacha Klein, Eunlye Lee, Dahui Li, Molly Makris, Lisa Mason, Rebecca Matthew, Bowen McBeath, John McNutt, Megan Meyer, Jennifer Mosley, Adria Navarro, Emily A. Nemeth, Michael O’Brien, Ramona Oswald, Kelly Patterson, Linda Plitt Donaldson, Loretta Pyles, Tayyab Ikram Shah, Micheal L. Shier, Jessica T. Shiller, Robert Silverman, Richard Smith, Joanne Sobeck, Tracy Soska, Lisa Strohschein, Dora M. Y. Tam, Samantha Teixeira, Daniel Theriault, Ioana van Deurzen, David Varady, John Wallace, Suzanne L. Wenzel, Jennifer Willett, Liliane Windsor, Nicholas Wise, Elvin Wyly, and Saijun Zhang. Last, but by no means least, we thank all of you who read the Journal of Community Practice. We hope that our increased international content, as well as new article formats, offer you materials that support your research, practice, and work in the classroom.