“Personally, I like it. Professionally, it does not make sense” – social work students in South Africa and Sweden making sense of internationalization

ABSTRACT

Internationalization of higher education and international social work are commonly accepted as positive developments. However, the quest for creating international knowledge and programmes is not free from difficulties. In this article, we problematize the process of internationalizing social work programs through the perspective of social work students. With two study sites, one in Sweden and one in South Africa, we discuss the meaning and challenges associated with internationalization by drawing on the emerging disparity between personal and professional points of view. We conclude by reflecting upon the role of social work educators in translating the ideas of internationalization to the future social workers.

KEYWORDS:

• Internationalization
• international social work
• students

Introduction

The idea of internationalization seems to be widely accepted as natural and an obvious consequence of the changing realities of a contemporary social world. On the other hand, the idea itself and its content are scarcely discussed in terms of meaning they bring to different settings and meaning that is given to them in different settings. Therefore, knowledge and research about reception of the idea of internationalization is needed. In the literature on the internationalization of the higher education systems, studies researching people’s views and opinions about internationalization tend to focus on international exchange programs and how they are viewed and experienced by students and staff (e.g. Bartram 2007; Daly 2011; Daly and Barker 2005; Van Hoof and Verbeeten 2005). However, research on international education is broad and invites many perspectives and points of entrance (Dohlby and Rahman 2008). Internationalization at Home (IaH) is one such perspective that encourages thinking about internationalization beyond physical mobilities focusing instead on the education process that is underpinned by values related to international, global and cross-cultural knowledge. As a concept, IaH serves as a reminder that internationalization is not only about physical mobilities available to few, but it incorporates various initiatives that make local environments supportive of inter-cultural and global values and these are made accessible to all students regardless of their ability to participate in mobility programs (Beelen and Jones 2015). With this article, we aim to contribute to a discussion on the local reception of the idea of internationalization encompassing both internationalization abroad and internationalization at home in the institutional context of a university. Our focus is on social work programs at two universities: one in Sweden and one in South Africa.

With this study, we aim to draw attention to the internationalization and its various uses in the context of a university life. The main objective of this article is to discuss the idea of internationalization in the Social Work programme from the perspective of students. However, contrary to the dominant approaches which focus on the experiences of exchange students, in this study, we focus on all students regardless of their actual experience of international mobility programs. We are interested in exploring the ways in which students relate to a variety of internationalization activities permeating social work programs nowadays, such as classes with exchange students, lectures by visiting scholars, introduction of global and inter-cultural knowledge to various social work topics. The following questions guide our examination: How do social work students conceive of an idea of internationalization within the context of their education? How do social work students experience ongoing internationalization efforts at their universities? Our focus is on the ways in which students make sense of internationalization, especially how they perceive it from the perspective of their own lives and professional development.

Internationalization in social work – discourse with material consequences

Contemporary social workers are expected to be educated in international social work and to gain a perspective on social problems that goes beyond the local contexts of everyday practice (Lyons 2006; Nagy and Falk 2000). The activities of organizations, such as the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) and International Federation of Social Workers (IFWS) serve as examples of agents that strongly promote the idea of global social work and international social work education. Presented by them standards of international social work aim to combine both global and local concerns into a social work discourse (Sewpaul and Jones 2004). Many see a potential in global social work that could encourage social justice criticism and human rights-based practice (Hugman, Moosa-Mitha, and Moyo 2010; Ife 2001).

Critics, however, express their concern about the overtly positive image of such visions that do not attend to the power relations embedded in the process of creating international knowledge. In their analysis of internationalization discourses of major international associations of higher education, Buckner and Stein (2019)(2020) conclude that the dominant discourses of internationalization tend to be a) very vague as to the meaning of internationalization and, b) apolitical in not attending to the questions of difference and inequality hidden beyond various internationalization attempts. This means that for example students partaking in exchange programs are seen as bearers of the international spirit, the ‘national’ students regardless of their personal histories of migration and exposure to difference are portrayed as a homogenous mass. Guo and Guo (2017) demonstrate that being ‘international’ is neither an unproblematic category. Listening to the experiences of foreign students studying in Canada, they show a great array of experiences ranging from positive accounts to very critical voices of how internationalization is assumed to do good and provide quality education. Jones and Miles (2017) demonstrate that positive experiences of exchange students are not to be taken for granted and rather entail careful planning and preparation at both home and host university. Further, students engaging in international exchanges are not per definition free of stereotypes, as Ranz, Nuttman-Shwartz, and Thachil (2015) illustrate. The road from paternalistic attitudes to cultural sensitivity in multinational classroom is predicated on a stimulating learning process that actively engages students and challenges their misconceptions about the other (ibid.). These findings reflect the idea that internationalization in higher education in general is surrounded by many myths (Knight 2011) or paradoxes (Fabricius, Mortensen, and Haberland 2017). Some of these myths and paradoxes concern the taken for granted notions of intercultural understanding, value of pluralism and the fact that internationalization in itself is a warrant of high quality of education (ibid.).

Critical discussions conducted within the context of social work warn about a growing degree of Western Europe imperialism that colonizes local knowledges in other parts of the world and presents one, right version of social work (Beecher et al. 2010; Fox 2010; Huag 2005). Very often, the content of international social work portrays countries of the global South only via the prism of societal ills and deprivation (Razack 2009). In contrast, the global North is seen as a site of progress, development and prosperity (Wehbi et al. 2016). The content of global and international is thus not to be taken for granted within the context of social work knowledge and practice. This does not however imply that internationalization must pose a threat to locally organized and practiced social work. In their reflections upon the indigenization strategies in African countries, Rankopo and Osei-Hwedie (2011) and Osei-Hwedie and Boateng (2018) argue that locally relevant knowledge does not need to be created in the opposition to global or international influences. Just the opposite, it is a blend of the two that provides the most updated and relevant ground for creating a social work practice capable of facing current social challenges. That mixture must however be based on the mutual recognition of worth rather than an unequal relation between differently valued types of knowledge (ibid.). In a similar vein, Gray (2016) contends that both thinking and acting in contemporary social work must occur at global and local levels both in countries of the global North and South.

The commonly held view of internationalization as an inevitable process spreading across various institutions of higher education is further problematized by approaching internationalization as a form of discursive practice that has consequences for the construction of internationalization objects and subjects. Broadly speaking, discourse is conceived as a type of symbolic system including ‘meaningful practices that form the identities of subjects and objects’ (Howarth and Stavrakakis 2000, 3–4). Discourses are not simply appropriated by people, their meaning is rather negotiated, rejected, changed or accepted. Here, it is useful to discuss the notion of various subjectivities that stress the dialectical relationship between being subjected to discourses and acting on them; discourses present available options and subject positions that we can choose to occupy. At the individual level, many subject positions can coexist (Howarth and Stavrakakis 2000, 3–4). These subject positions, or identities constructed around certain qualities, interact with each other to produce differences among individuals. Thus, the lived experiences of individuals are not seen as an essentialist category but as an outcome of moving towards and away from various discourses and subject positions (Søndergaard 2002).

To understand internationalization as discourse is to recognize that it may have various material consequences and implications for individuals who occupy the social space of that discourse. Hence, it becomes relevant to ask questions about the direction of internationalization, main forces through which international practice and knowledge flow, and key agents propagating the idea. It is also important to invite various actors involved in the process and to enable them to voice out their personal and professional experiences (Fox 2010). In our study, the voices of students are therefore not indicative of inner qualities but are rather read as indicative of various subject positions that are made available for them in a given context. It is through those subject positions that students negotiate and relate to the internationalization discourse.

Methods

This study stems from an international collaboration existing between two universities: one in Sweden and one in South Africa. The two universities, more specifically social work departments at both universities, entered into a partnership supported by Linnaeus Palme International Exchange programme between 2011 and 2018. During that formal exchange period, students and staff in social work were regularly sent in both directions. Visiting staff and exchange students were included into ongoing courses and activities at host institutions, implying introduction of new content, perspectives and voices to the already existing courses. Thus, the physical mobilities were only one aspect of the exchange. Internationalization at Home activities comprised even greater part of the partnership. The examples of such activities were joined research seminars, invited lectures and students group work during which home-based and exchange students could work together sharing their various experiences.

The exchange motivated the authors to initiate a research project that would follow the process of internationalization in social work programs. The host university in Sweden supported its staff members with an internal research grant. The research project aimed at examining the process of internationalization in social work as seen from the perspectives of students. Contrary to the dominant studies on the staff and students’ experiences of international exchanges, our project involved both those who participated in any international mobilities and those who did not do so but who had been exposed to the changes following investments in IaH activities. In that way, the project aimed at grasping the relevance and importance attached to the process of internationalization in teaching and learning about social work. Internationalization here is understood from the perspective of comprehensive internationalization which ‘seeks to mainstream access of institutional clientele to international, global and comparative content and perspective. (…) The overarching intention is for the integration of internationalization into core institutional ethos, values, and missions’ (Hudzik 2014, 1).

In this article, we draw on data collected in 2014, when both universities conducted their survey among social work students. An open-question survey was conducted with students in their second half of the social work program (years 3 and 4). Those students had already done some practical placements and were advanced in developing their professional identity. Table 1 below summarizes the students’ sample.

Table 1. Students participating in the study at both institutions.

	Swedish University	South African University
Gender:
Male	9	4
Female	78	42
No answer	3	2
Age:
18–29	62	43
30–39	21	5
40–49	3	0
No answer	4	0
Year of study:
3^rd year	46	37
4^th year	44	11
Participated in international mobility:
Yes	10	8
No	80	40
Class/es with exchange students	72	26

The survey was addressed to all students in their respective years. As evidenced in the Table 1, there was a handful of students who took part in any exchange programme abroad. All other students had been exposed to IaH in the form of courses with clear international perspectives (e.g. comparative perspective; course assignments and exams requiring reflection from a global perspective), sharing classrooms with exchange students (compulsory courses including home and exchange students), partaking in sessions with invited guests from abroad. All activities involving contact with exchange students and visiting teachers were conducted in English. That meant a change to students at the Swedish university who were studying in Swedish and students at the South African university who were studying in Afrikaans. At both universities, the majority of students were female and between the ages of 18–29. While at the Swedish university, the share of 3^rd and 4^th year students was quite similar, at the South African university, the majority of students who agreed to participate in the study were in their 3^rd year.

Staff at both universities informed students about the survey and used the same questionnaire although in Sweden this was in Swedish and at the South African university in English. In Sweden, data was collected by one researcher who joined one of the scheduled sessions that students attended. Students were informed about the study in advance and could chose not to attend the first part of the lesson due to the study. In the classroom students were again reminded about the study and that they could return the questionnaire without answers if they did not want to participate in the study. In total, 5 empty questionnaires from the classes in Sweden involved in this comparative study were received. In South Africa, the study was introduced to students in the same way. However, students were also allowed to take the questionnaire home and return their responses the following day. In addition, the staff conducted eight personal interviews with the students who participated in the exchange program. With regard to the questionnaires, forty-eight were distributed of which thirty-seven of the students were in their third year and eleven in their final year of study. Four of those respondents were male, forty-two female and two did not indicate their gender. Although the South African university had forty-eight respondents, they did not all answer all the questions.

In the open question survey students at both institutions were asked about their understandings and experiences of internationalization within the context of their social work studies. All students were assured about the voluntary character of their participation. Student’s responses varied, with some of them containing just a few sentences while others were writing longer reflection pieces. Students could also choose which language they used. In Sweden, that meant that responses were written in both English and Swedish, with the majority in Swedish. In South Africa, the majority of students wrote in English, with a few students writing in Afrikaans.

The initial data coding and analysis was conducted separately by researchers based at the two different institutions. That initial process of analysis aimed at getting familiar with the data and identifying key themes in the material. At that stage, data in original languages was analysed. In the second stage of analysis, researchers from both universities met to collectively examine the empirical material. Prior to the shared sessions, researchers from both universities prepared English translations of students’ responses written in either Afrikaans or Swedish. The initial coding of the material gave us a number of categories that reflected various attitudes to the idea of internationalization, those attitudes ranged from very positive to very negative, with many students demonstrating their ambivalence if not lack of interest in the internationalization.

Upon a closer examination of the students’ responses, we could observe various ways of presenting internationalization in relation to the self. Thus, the second stage of analysis was guided by the tradition of discursive psychology that sees language as a resource (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002). Discursive psychology emphasizes the practices of categorization, positioning and identity. These concepts are crucial to a study of meaning making in everyday life and people’s identities, which discursive psychology aims to advance. When attending to stories, discursive psychology focuses both on the details of a story and on the broader social spaces that come alive in the story. This process connects personal identities with group identities; when telling a story about herself, an individual is also telling a story about those who are the same and those who are different. While analysing the students’ responses, we were drawn to the different uses of active and passive voice and the use of nominalizations and social categories to negotiate the meaning of internationalization. That varied use of discursive devices reflected various subjectivities that involved students assuming three different positions: an individual, a student, a social worker. Those different positionings helped students to make sense of the process of internationalization, indicating in this way the complexity involved in relating to the internationalization within the context of social work practice and education.

Findings

We differentiated between three different ways of addressing and discussing internationalization: internationalization in relation to personal development; internationalization in relation to the learning experience; and internationalization in relation to social work practice.

Internationalization and personal development

This theme reflects the dominant narrative of internationalization that presupposes positive influences that cross-cultural meetings enable in relation to the self.

It means exposure to the other parts of the world, beyond our continent. It means experience and personal development-learning through experience. Learning and coming back with information and knowledge that can be used positively. It’s exposure to culture, thoughts, systems that are different. (4^th year student, SA)

I think it [internationalization] is good because you get more knowledge and that you get other views because you have different culture etc. (4^th year student, SE, nr169/T7c)

Internationalization in such responses is about a meeting between the familiar and unfamiliar and that meeting is seen as enriching and positively transforming individuals. In some responses just like the above that meeting was presented in very abstract terms, it was about ‘exposure’, but not necessarily concrete acts of conversation and dialogue. The latter did appear in our material as well, especially when students made very specific references to their encounters with exchange students visiting their universities:

It was wonderful to be able to hold a conversation with people who are from another country and yet have so much in common with. It was an eye-opener and increased my knowledge in a way that no other experience would have (SA, 4b)

and I thought that the discussions we had in the international course with exchange students were one of the most interesting things we have had, though perhaps not directly something I can apply in my profession (3^rd year student, SE, nr 100/T5)

While the previous excerpts focused on the differences, the above excerpts emphasize the similarity that can be discovered while meeting people from different countries and the value of mutual discussion. In this, it is not so much about realizing how different people’s lives are, but just the opposite, reflecting upon the experience to see the similarities existing in spite of country differences.

These two ways of recognizing the importance of internationalization to personal growth and development indicate two different types of sensitivities developed in relation to the same phenomenon. According to one of them, meeting with another culture becomes a source of knowledge about the unknown practices, traditions, etc. The other approach posits that meeting with another culture is above all else a meeting between humans and as such it is a meeting demonstrating the commonality existing between people living in different parts of the world. Nevertheless, both approaches were positive in emphasizing the benefits of meeting people who live in different socio-cultural contexts.

The positive tone of the stories was broken with accounts emphasizing the temporality of the international experiences as well as the limitation to really getting to know the other culture and/or country.

It doesn’t mean much as even though I hope I will be visiting the country someday, but not be part of it (SA, 7)

Seen through the prism of future life, such experiences loose relevance and they only become insignificant occurrences that do not change much about the way people live their lives and their plans. On the other hand, other students emphasized internationalization as a process in which exchange programmes could be the start of something bigger.

(It’s) [Internationalization is] a process that isn’t necessarily noticeable, but I think you start looking at things differently, have a more open mind about things. (4^th year exchange student, SE, nr. 164/T7b)

The above student, on his/her exchange semester in Sweden, and taking part in a course together with students from different countries as well as from Sweden points out the personal development and becoming more minded about things due to the meeting with students from other parts of the world than his/her own.

Internationalization and the learning experience

This theme covers discourses of internationalization in relation to students, student life and university education, in other words, internationalization and social work education. The responses are written through the perspective of university life and related to that positions, such as students.

Following the theme of personal development, we also find that when reflecting on their experience as students, internationalization and exposure to cultures and people from other countries is appreciated.

I think that the possibility for studies abroad make the education more attractive./ … /to study together with exchange students is difficult but also very beneficial because one gets an insight into a different reality (3^rd year student, SE, Nr 120/T5)

In here, it is the general experience of studying at the university that is brought forward. As such, those experiences are seen as positive and enriching. There is however a recognition that those experiences do not always involve only pleasant aspects. It is the latter that many students focused on in their responses when reflecting upon past experiences.

When examining specifically the learning experience in the context of social work programs, internationalization is seen as a potential threat to local knowledge and native understating of social issues.

I don’t think that our university should become more internationalized. I think our university should be unique and sets its standards; they can … . internationalize some of the things, but do not change entirely. Our university should just improve where it lacks so that other universities from overseas can/wish to be become like us, not the other way around (SA, 5ab)

What is emphasized in this and similar responses coming especially from students based in South Africa is a resistance against efforts aiming at unifying the universities and making them alike. Importantly, those efforts are recognized as colonizing forces that turn local practices and knowledge into something that needs to adjust to the standards set by others. According to this scenario, the original voice of the university is lost. The alternative aim should be as stated here to draw on local strengths, uniqueness and use those features to build a strong and confident university. Internationalization here becomes one of the enabling forces, but not the aim in itself.

In data from the Swedish university, hesitations concerning internationalization were also expressed.

I understand that internationalization is good and is needed, but to me, I think it limits me because I think it’s enough to learn about principles and rules in Swedish which is my native language (3^rd year student, SE, nr 145/T5)

the fact that courses are given in English and focus is on global issues it means to me a growing distance and sometimes frustration of not being able to deepen the context I’m interested in learning about and working in. (3^rd year students, nr 139/T5)

The above excerpts are exemplary of critical comments brought up by students from Sweden, to whom internationalization meant learning in a foreign language and about content that was not necessarily relevant to the national setting. In this way, the comments are illustrative of what Fabricius, Mortensen, and Haberland (2017) discuss in terms of a linguistic paradox of internationalization that instead of embracing various languages and cultures pushes forward one type of language and way of communicating as the standard to follow by everyone regardless of their background.

The boundary that is drawn in such quotes is not between various parts of the world, but rather between one country and the rest of the world. According to this vision, a social work program should be taught in the context of local knowledge focusing on what is relevant locally. The undertone of the above excerpts is also very personal in a sense of providing insights into individual experiences. Internationalization is not bad in itself, but if at the practical level it implies a need to learn in a foreign language, then it becomes a limiting instead of enriching force. Internationalization at home, which takes the shape of courses delivered to exchange and non-exchange students, lectures conducted in foreign languages may deepen the divisions existing between various forms of knowledge if not people.

I do not think that social work program should be more international than how it is right now. Those who want to know more about social work in other countries can take up their studies abroad (3^rd year student, SE, nr 128/T5).

Learning about other countries here becomes a matter of personal choice. It is not something that everyone wants and something that should become a standard component of the social work program. More than that, interests in international content do not need to be satisfied at home university as stated here, studies abroad provide a space for that. Learning and studying social work becomes confined to the national borders which appear to provide the desired level of relevance and importance. Anything more than that, it is seen as an elective activity.

Internationalization and social work practice

In their reflections upon the process of internationalizations, students also approached the issue from the perspective of their professional identity and future social work practice, a theme we called internationalization and social work practice. One line of reasoning that we could recognize here was about the importance of intercultural and international exposure to the changing environment of social work.

it’s a good thing, we get exposed to how other countries practice social work, what research methods are used and how they approach their clients (SA, 22)

within social work, we meet many cultures, different norms, etc. that’s why I think it is important with internationalization, it gives a possibility to meet others with different life experiences (3^rd year student, SE, no 106/T5).

The knowledge about other countries and cultures is seen as beneficial for two reasons. First, it creates an opportunity to learn about something else, about different ways of solving similar problems, about various methods used worldwide. Second, it allows to experience different points of view and that prepares future social workers to meet a diverse group of clients. As it came across, the recognition of the globalized world and social problems helped students to see the benefits of meeting people, cultures, practices from different parts of the world. In this, it was seen as a vital preparation for contemporary social work practice – also social work in one’s own country like when working with refugees

I absolutely think that this is important and relevant for social work with a view to globalization and also refugee reception in Sweden. (4^th year student, SE, no. 156/T7a)

Reflection upon social work practices triggered also another type of arguments.

My views are torn a bit. On the one hand, I think it is good to have a broader understating of the world and social work there. On the other hand, I feel sorry that the program develops into a very internationally oriented because, personally, I will want to work in Sweden. That’s why I would like to acquire as much knowledge as possible about social work in relation to the Swedish context. To internationalize too much leads unfortunately to missing a lot about the Swedish context (4^th year student, SE, no 170/T7).

I think that our social issues in our country are different from the ones in Sweden (SA, 23)

SW should not be internationalized entirely because our profession is adapted to the Swedish system and structures (3^rd year student, SE, no. 134/T5)

In these responses, social work is seen as a local practice fit for local problems. There are national regulations, policies and laws that are perceived as crucial for preparing and understanding the social work profession. In their responses, students link their professional practice to the nationally established frames of what is possible to do and what is not. It is the picture of national social policy extension that dominates such responses rather than an image of social work as a global practice. The process of internationalization here is therefore presented as something that can have clear boundaries, it is largely seen as an external force preventing local understandings rather than supporting it.

There were only a few students from both universities who explicitly mentioned being abroad as an exchange student. Nevertheless, their accounts often demonstrated a more positive view on internationalization in general and from both personal and professional perspective.

During my time as an exchange student I learned more (both privately and professionally) than I did in the other semesters in Sweden in total. Partly because I was able to choose courses I was interested in and partly because the point of view was different from Swedish, and also with an international comparative perspective in the teaching. Through the courses I read I also came up with what I want to do after the education. In addition to the education, I also learned a lot from living in another country. Time abroad was the most important, most instructive and most amazing time of all. It has meant a lot because it has given my life a direction, I know what I want to do with my life now and how I want to live. In addition, I have received many nice memories. (4^th year student, SE, no. 159/T7b)

Conclusions

Internationalization is commonly presented as a main strategic goal that many universities identify with, but its content and the process of becoming institutionalized is less often discussed. Likewise, international social work is conceived of as a given standard and direction of development in the field. However, as with any changes, there are always positive and negative aspects that need to be considered. In this article, we listened to the voices of social work students based at two universities: one in the global North and one in the global South to illuminate how internationalization looks like from their perspective. Importantly, contrary to the dominant research investigating internationalization from the perspective of exchange/international students, we listened to all students who were exposed to various internationalization initiatives ranging from an introduction of global comparisons to course contents to mobility programs. Our analysis provides therefore important insights for planning, pursuing and evaluating internationalization within the content of social work programmers. While we do not provide direct solutions, we highlight several key areas that merit further attention both in terms of social research and educational practice.

The main findings of this study point at the various ways in which internationalization speaks to different subjectivities that students expose, ranging from positive accounts of personal development to more reserved if not negative views in relation to professional identities. The quote used in the title: ‘Personally, I like it. Professionally, it does not make sense’ accurately summarizes the main findings. Internationalization, global knowledge and intercultural skills seem to be appealing to the contemporary generation of young people, however there are limits to which the same can be said about the new generation of social workers who are about to begin their first jobs. This is an important insight that social work educators must face. It appears that it becomes much easier to see the meaning of internationalization in relation to individual growth and experience than noticing the meaning and relevance of internationalization efforts in social work education and practice. There is thus a need to help students engage with themselves about the value of internationalization in various domains of life, including that of professional activities. Internationalization as a process of coming together and exchanging ideas might aid students in developing a critical mind that is necessary for effective and efficient intervention. This includes developing greater sensitivities to the specific circumstances in the respective countries, the extent of the different social issues (although similar) they deal with, relevant legislature as well as the availability of resources.

To a great extent, what emerges from the material presented here is that internationalization is still appropriated as a type of sideline story to the mainstream social work education. Thus, we see that the vision of comprehensive internationalization to mainstream internationalization is yet to be achieved. The internationalization partners should therefore be involved to be clear about their respective needs and the outcomes they hope to achieve so that all can benefit equally. This could enhance the personal and professional enrichment of those participating in the exchange. A suggestion could be that internationalization should focus on more collaborative research with the focus on comparative studies. In this way mutual learning could be enhanced. By the same token, investments in long-term effects of international partnerships at institutional levels could also level out concerns about temporality of various initiatives. A great advantage of international partnerships is that they may lead to important improvements at home institutions raising the quality of education and research.

Social work programs by its nature respond to local conditions, but social problems do not have borders, social work is a global discipline, field of practice and field of knowledge. However, it should be taken into consideration that the social work curriculum differs and, in many cases, is adjusted to fit the local circumstances. Language and knowledge of the local circumstances are factors that need to be considered and could be an indication of whether a social worker will be in a position to intervene appropriately or even feel comfortable to render the necessary services. The internationalization component of the social work curriculum contributes to the students’ views of their country as part of a global community where local challenges are often influenced by international trends. Ideally, internationalization should assist social work students to develop a holistic view of social problems as these present themselves.

One of the key threats that internationalization was seen to pose to social work education and practice was the threat of losing local relevance and local identity. Every country is unique in the sense that as stated by Saleeby (2009) all families, individuals, groups and even communities within it has strengths. This would mean that even within the local context knowledge, wisdom and even assets and resources do exist to deal with the particular circumstances and therefor internationalization is not the solution to local problems. Swanepoel and De Beer (2006) continue that as all environments have stumbling blocks to development, it also has resources that must be identified and applied. In this way the threat of imperialism and colonialism can be counteracted as local circumstances are dealt with through the application of local knowledge. If not attended to, the threat of the classroom becoming a colonializing space (Razack 2009) can become real as ‘what is not local’ can become the norm in dealing with the challenge. Local identity can however be protected and strengthened if the local knowledge, wisdom, assets and resource utilization of all partners in the international engagement receive equal recognition and are regarded as learning experiences in a mutual exchange.

Considering the internationalization debate in academic discourses, Stein (2017) develops a typology of internationalization critiques and distinguishes between soft, radical and liminal critique. While soft critique questions the neoliberal forces behind internationalization, radical and liminal critiques bring forward unequal relations embedded in the historicized places and spaces. The latter is reflected in social work in the discourse of indigenization, a debate that is particularly prevalent in the South African context. However, consciousness about the threat of imperialism and colonialism is not something reserved only for some countries. We see that as a starting point for any type of international exchange. Structural arrangements between exchange partners are done between countries that are financially not equal. The wealth difference between the global North and the global South are significant and if not dealt with consciously, can influence the balance of knowledge exchange. A cognizant understanding of these differences between the partners and a concerted effort to equalize the terms of engagement can minimize the risk of imperial dominance. For example, one of the criticisms raised by students from Sweden in our study concerned language. The great part of social work education in Sweden is delivered in Swedish and new courses and assignments introduced in English as a foreign language may pose a challenge to many. In South Africa, students are not only accustomed to operating within at least 2 different languages, they are also more often exposed to numerous dialects on everyday basis. The ability to deal with various languages by shifting from one language to another within the context of the same situation is something that students from South Africa and many other countries from Global South may not only share with students from Global North, but also teach effective ways of managing lingual pluralism.

This article is based on a small-scale study that involves an investigation of the engagements between two exchange partners. However, the focus on students’ voices provided insights that highlight some of the limitations and dangers that can apply to any internationalization efforts in social work programmes worldwide. In line with Guo and Guo (2017), we also emphasize the importance of paying attention to the voices of undergraduate students that are usually seen as the receiving end of the process, but not necessarily an active party shaping the process. Internationalization cannot be taken for granted as a common good and the students’ voices presented here demonstrate some of the reasons for that. The rationale behind, the objectives and outcomes of various exchange programs must not only be carefully designed but also clearly communicated to all parties involved and this includes both staff and students. Further, given the nature of social work as both field of knowledge and practice, internationalization efforts must address social work in its entirety.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no declarations of interest.