Abstract
Research has identified challenges associated with the implementation of competency-based social work field education in Vietnam. However, there is limited information available from intern supervisors, who have unique perspectives at the crux of social work training and service delivery. An exploratory phenomenological qualitative approach was used to explore their experiences and perceptions through online interviews. Four categories were identified: diverse implementation of a common framework, rudimentary expectations and activities, challenges to implementation, and opportunities for improvement. These findings suggest that a multidimensional approach is needed, including improved collaborations between field agencies and universities to empower students, intern supervisors, and faculty.
Keywords
Competency-based social work education focuses on developing practice skills and behaviors that promote societal well-being and often the human rights of vulnerable groups (Kovacs et al., 2013; MacDonald, 2013; Phillips, 2011). Field education is essential, where students integrate theory and practice to develop competencies under the supervision and guidance of professionals and faculty (Boitel and Fromm, 2014; Council on Social Work Education, n.d.; Kinni, 2021). Bridging the gap between academic and practice settings, field education provides meaningful opportunities to develop professional competencies in a training environment, foster collaborations between students, educators, and social work agencies, and strengthen partnerships between universities and local communities (Ayala et al., 2018; Boitel and Fromm, 2014; Bowles et al., 2021; Cai et al., 2018; Chow et al., 2018; Egan et al., 2021; Hurley and Taiwo, 2019; Kinni, 2021; McGuire and Lay, 2020; Mehrotra et al., 2018).
Social work field education in Vietnam
Vietnam is among the countries worldwide developing a competency-based model to deliver university social work education (Han et al., 2016). Set and approved by the Ministry of Education, national standards for social work education are based on models from other countries and adapted to Vietnam’s unique social, cultural, economic, and political context (Nguyen and Nguyen, 2017). Like other models, Vietnamese social work programs require field education to connect practice settings to academic work (Nguyen et al., 2020). Many course syllabi link requirements to training goals specific to each school (Hue University, 2013; Vietnam National University Hanoi, 2019; Vinh University, 2021). While there is no national set of competencies all students must develop, university training goals reflect the general standards of professional competency for official social work practitioners set by Vietnamese law (Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs, 2022). As an example, Table 1 shows training goals from a 2021–2022 undergraduate social work program alongside the national competency requirements. Variations of these four main training goals are standard across all social work programs in Vietnam.
Training goals from 2021–2022 undergraduate social work program at Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City.
Indicating increasing government support for and focus on the development of the social work profession, Vietnamese law explicitly sets forth specific regulations for certain aspects of the profession, particularly to support children. Since 2017, the Ministry of Education has issued decrees developing social work in education settings, including a timeline to create social work systems, guidelines for school social workers, and relevant responsibilities for school leaders (Ministry of Education, 2017, 2018). A 2022 law set forth general standards for social work practitioners, including training and certification, professional competencies, and work duties (Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs, 2022). Nevertheless, the profession is still evolving, and there is a pressing need to prioritize the education and training of key stakeholders, including practitioners, policymakers, and educators, to continue the development of an indigenous form of social work to meet Vietnam’s unique and changing needs (Nguyen and Nguyen, 2017).
In recent decades, Vietnamese social work field education has made progress despite challenges. In fact, a 2018 Ministry of Education circular assigns responsibility to school settings to coordinate field education for social work students (Ministry of Education, 2018). However, although universities include a fieldwork component, implementation differs between universities (Nguyen et al., 2020), and fieldwork is typically of short duration (Nguyen and Nguyen, 2017). Documented challenges associated with field education include limited opportunities for students, limited formal training among intern supervisors, limited practice experience among university educators, and inadequate university procedures and collaboration with agencies (Han et al., 2016; Hugman et al., 2009; Nguyen, 2002; Nguyen et al., 2020; Nguyen and Nguyen, 2017; Tran, 2016). Still, these studies may not fully capture the voices from the field as they do not focus on the perspectives of intern supervisors. Because intern supervisors are responsible for providing students with practice experience that focuses on education and embodies social work knowledge, values, and skills, understanding their perspectives of current field education and identifying feasible methods for improvement is a critical next step toward building competent field education in Vietnam.
While there have been documented efforts to enhance Vietnamese social work field education (Cohen et al., 2019; Hines et al., 2015), it remains unclear whether these initiatives have resulted in increased opportunities and improved quality. As agencies are at the forefront of addressing social issues, their insights are crucial to improving social work education and developing the profession. This study focuses on the perspectives of agency intern supervisors and aims to answer four key questions: (1) What is the current common field education framework in Vietnam? (2) What are the expectations and activities for field placements? (3) What are intern supervisor perspectives of common challenges? and (4) What are recommendations to address these challenges in the future?
Methods
Research design and sampling
This study employed a qualitative exploratory phenomenological research design. This design uniquely enabled us to explore and gain a deeper understanding of the experiences of intern supervisors working with interns at social work agencies in Vietnam. We also sought their suggestions for improving university field education from the intern supervisors’ perspectives. Participants were recruited through non-probability purposive and snowball sampling methods. By utilizing our personal and professional network, participants were identified, contacted, and asked to share recruitment materials with potential participants. All participants interested in participating in the study directly contacted the first author. After participants confirmed eligibility, an online individual interview was scheduled at their convenient time. Recruitment started in January 2023, and all interviews were conducted from February to April 2023.
Participants and data collection procedure
This study included 12 participants who were employed at social work agencies and had at least 2 years of experience supervising undergraduate social work interns in agency settings. The majority (75%) had university social work degrees, and ten out of 12 worked in non-government settings. Almost all (11 out of 12) provided field education in direct services settings, while only one offered mezzo practice. Table 2 shows additional participant demographic information.
Participant demographic information (N = 12).
Please note that the sum of frequencies exceeds the total sample size because participants selected more than one response.
Semi-structured interviews, lasting about 60 minutes, were conducted over Zoom in Vietnamese, except for one participant who spoke both Vietnamese and English. The interviews explored their experiences supervising social work interns and collaborating with university programs. Questions revolved around implementation, intern training, university collaborations, and areas for improvement. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and translated into English for analysis. Some example semi-structured interview questions are as follows: ‘Please describe your experience supervising interns in your agency’; ‘Please share the outline of the general internship placement process’; and ‘What common challenges do you encounter as a supervisor?’.In addition, some example follow-up questions to further explore the participants’ perspectives and experiences include: ‘Can you walk me through the internship?’; ‘Can you tell me about the training interns receive from the agency?’; ‘What are some areas they could be better prepared in?’; and ‘How can the university better support the agency’s internship program, and what could universities do to encourage more agencies to accept interns?’
Data analysis and credibility of data
We utilized the thematic analysis process by Miles and Huberman (1994), involving data reduction, data display, and data conclusion stages. We independently coded participant perceptions and experiences, compared and discussed identified themes as a group, and organized supporting statements once a consensus was reached. Throughout the data analysis process, we took special care to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data. We conducted interviews in Vietnamese, transcribed them word-for-word, and then translated them into English. After multiple readings of the transcripts, we identified patterns and categories that were relevant to our main research question. We then discussed these significant data patterns, organizing them into main themes and corresponding subthemes. The final themes were collectively defined and explicitly labeled. In addition, we adopted a holistic approach, conducting team conferences before and after interviews and carefully considering personal biases, privilege, and positionality during the analysis. We made a conscious effort to re-examine our assumptions and preconceptions about the study subjects to ensure that our data analysis was rigorous and the results were reliable and trustworthy.
It is noteworthy that while the first author is a Vietnamese-American with proficiency in both English and Vietnamese and ample social work experience in both countries, certain nuances, particularly those related to regional dialects, were verified by referencing Vietnamese dictionaries and consulting with native speakers in Vietnam. The translated quotations were subjected to a meticulous review by co-authors, who are academic professionals in the field of social science in Vietnam, who ensured the accuracy of the said quotes.
Results
Field education framework
Three types of field experiences
Participants were asked about a common framework for field education (Research Question 1). They reported that there was a lack of enforced regulations and standard practice and mentioned a basic undergraduate framework that consisted of three field experiences. This framework was developed through university and agency collaboration to meet university requirements. None of the participants mentioned including service users or students’ voices as stakeholders in field education development. These experiences include a site visit during the first 2 years, single-subject practical in the third year, and a graduation internship in the final year. It is worth noting that agencies may offer combinations of the three experiences. Of the 12 participants, nine offer site visits, 10 offer single-subject practicums, and 11 offer graduation internships.
During the site visit, which usually occurs in 1 day, students visit agencies in groups to gain their first exposure to a field setting. One participant stated: ‘They just come here to understand the activity model’ (Participant 1) and ‘It’s a presentation to learn about the organization . . . We don’t have to go deep’ (Participant 12). During the single-subject practicum, which usually occurs over a period of 1 week to 1 month, students typically focus on one area of practice, such as individual work, group work, counseling, and so on. While taking a full course load, students implement or observe a short-term intervention or learn through employee presentations. This is the first opportunity for students to gain hands-on experience in a field setting. The graduation internship, which usually lasts for one and a half to 4 months with no concurrent coursework, is intended to allow students to work as full-time practitioners. During this period, they are expected to carry out all stages of the intervention process in individual, group, or community development work. All participants reported that students had the option to intern either as individuals or as a group. However, the type of internship – individual or group – is determined each internship cycle, depending on the number of placement requests and agency capacity. If the agency accepts a group of students, students may be offered group work opportunities (either task group or psychoeducational group) to help them develop group work skills. Participant 7 explained, ‘One intern doesn’t do [group work], can’t do it. That’s the reason why I will supervise a group . . . I will let them work together in a group to do group social work’.
A variety of internship requirements
The analysis revealed discrepancies across agencies regarding hours and scheduling. Their statements underscored the diverse range of field hours and regulations (e.g. six participants allow interns to work more than 50 hours, while the other half work less than 50 total). For example, Participant 1 remarked, ‘We don’t control their minimum number of hours . . . they can also sign up for more time and more clients for them to understand better’, and Participant 3 emphasized, ‘Students should work a certain number of hours at the organization so they can learn. But hours will be actively left to the students to arrange for themselves’. On the contrary, Participant 10 outlined, ‘Typically, we will have a very detailed schedule to ensure students intern at least the full duration required by the school . . . The students will have time to interact with clients eight hours daily to ensure a mutually beneficial experience’, and Participant 11 stated, ‘We request full time, but . . . if they are busy, they can be flexible’. In addition, the number of interns accepted varies depending on intern supervisor preference and recruitment method (e.g. three participants accept less than 10 interns per year, while the other nine accept up to 30).
Processes and procedures
Despite variations in models, participants described similar internship processes for recruitment, intern supervision, and university partnership, which are described below.
Recruitment
Participants identified three primary methods for recruiting interns. First, universities may initiate and select students based on agency availability. Participant 2 elucidated, ‘[Universities] contact us with an introduction letter, outlining the purpose clearly and providing a list of students. There’s the school introduction letter, followed by the student roster, and then they arrive’. Second, agencies may request interns, often for specific projects. Participant 1 explained, ‘We communicate our needs to the schools, and they select suitable students’. Third, students may independently seek placements, as Participant 5 noted, ‘The students . . . reach out to us via the hotline, email, or visit the center directly to request’. Some participants pointed out that recruitment can happen informally through existing relationships with field professors. For example, Participant 9 ‘There are people who have worked with us for a long time already, so those teachers usually call directly . . . It’s really more of a friendship’. For all three field experiences, participants confirmed that all students were given equal opportunities for internship placements during the university recruitment process. However, the selection process focuses more on matching the agency’s availability or needs with the student’s interests and willingness to participate.
Intern supervision
Most participants reported similar supervision practices aimed at discussing internship goals and practicing skills such as confidentiality, assessments, and intervention plans. Students are assigned one supervisor within the agency only. None of the participants reported students having multiple or external supervisors. While the majority mentioned holding weekly meetings, the frequency could vary depending on the internship stage. Participant 5 noted, ‘We typically meet them once per week . . . initially, it could be more frequent. The frequency gradually decreases as they become accustomed to working with their supervisor’. In addition, many participants offer both individual and group supervision. Furthermore, all emphasized the significance of performance evaluation. Evaluations are typically conducted as part of the university collaboration rather than an internal system at the agency. As a result, the frequency and content of evaluations vary, and service users are not involved in intern evaluation. For example, Participant 7 described the mid-internship evaluation and final internship evaluation, while Participant 11 described only final evaluations. Notably, Participant 2 highlighted changes in evaluation standards, stating, ‘Previously, supervisors assessed student knowledge, behavior, and attitude. Now, universities embrace new international standards, evaluating additional professional competencies like students’ initiative and their ability to connect with and support clients during the internship’.
University partnership
Participants collectively shared that the approach to university partnership depends on each dynamic, ranging from informal relationships with verbal agreements to official partnerships with signed contracts. Similarly, participants reported different levels of field professor involvement, ranging from daily updates of student progress to minimal contact for procedural requirements. Of the 12 participants, three reported working with up to two universities, seven reported working with three to five universities, and two reported working with over five universities each year.
Expectations and activities for social work field placements
Participants shared their perspectives on field expectations and activities (Research Question 2), providing insights into the objectives and essential competencies necessary for social work field education in Vietnam. In addition, they discussed the diverse range of field engagements that trainees can expect to encounter at their respective organizations.
The goals of field education
Participants shared that field education serves as a crucial platform for training students, providing them with two vital opportunities. First, it aids in honing skills, and second, it offers a real-world glimpse into social work settings. Participants emphasized that this experience facilitates understanding of the disparity between theoretical knowledge in textbooks and practical application at work. Participant 2 articulated, ‘While students learn theoretical concepts in school, the internship period is where they put them into practice’. Echoing this sentiment, Participant 5 remarked, ‘Internships allow students to engage with the client population, exposing them to real-world approaches applicable post-graduation’. Similarly, Participant 6 highlighted, ‘Internships are invaluable for students to learn how to intervene with clients effectively’.
Expected skills for interns
Participants shared their expectations for intern skills, outlined in Table 3 in relation to the key training goals presented in Table 1. Participants acknowledged that they expect interns to have a solid foundation in theoretical knowledge. However, their expectations concerning practical competencies were somewhat limited, focusing primarily on basic engagement, assessment, and interpersonal skills. Nevertheless, participants expressed a desire for interns to arrive at their placement sites with more practical skills. They emphasized that relying solely on fieldwork to acquire these skills may be insufficient and detrimental to both the interns and their clients. Participant 7 articulated this sentiment, stating, ‘If interns are only learning these skills during the internship, it may be too late . . . Mistakes made here not only affect the interns but also impact their clients’. Similarly, Participant 8 echoed, ‘Learning on the job is too late. It can have adverse effects on both interns and their clients’.
Expected skills for interns, field activities, and intern challenges according to training goals: The number of quotes from participants is listed in parenthesis and organized by frequency.
Field activities
When asked about field activities for interns in relation to the key training goals, agencies offered a range of available activities, exhibiting variation. Table 3 delineates field activities aligned with training goals, revealing that many placements appear to offer incomplete skill training. Depending on the placement, students may engage in professional tasks, albeit not always in a comprehensive manner. Expectations are for interns to gain experience in fundamental direct social work skills like documentation, demonstrating empathy, client engagement, needs assessments, treatment planning, intervention implementation, and case management. However, the reality is that only 50 percent (n = 6) to 75 percent (n = 9) of participants reported that their agencies provide students with opportunities to obtain any of these skills as field activities.
Common challenges
Participants discussed various challenges, including limited time, resources, training, and experience, and how these challenges impact intern supervisors, students, and field professors.
Limited time and resources
Participants highlighted the significant challenges due to the limited time and resources available to intern supervisors, field professors, and students themselves. They expressed that supervising interns is challenging for intern supervisors who are expected to take on these additional responsibilities beyond regular job duties without any form of compensation or schedule adjustments. The interns’ limited social work skills often add extra challenges for supervisors. The following statement summarizes this situation:
A social worker may have to take care of more than 20 cases . . . Taking care of an intern on top of that means they will have to work twice as hard . . . If the intern doesn’t work well, it could cause trouble for the employee [intern supervisor] because supporting an intern is no different from supporting a client . . . [this is why] we can only accommodate a limited number of interns. (Participant 9)
Moreover, participants noted that field professors are also affected by a shortage of time and resources. Each university has only one field professor for at least 100 students, leading to limited capacity to offer individual support. One participant also highlighted the financial strain on field professors who receive no aid but are expected to pay for expenses, such as transportation-related costs (e.g. gas and parking) or gifts for agencies/organizations which are common practice in Vietnam (Participant 4). Finally, participants also shared that students especially those who often have jobs and responsibilities outside of schoolwork, may not have the time and resources to serve clients and commit to the internship fully. Participant 2 summarized this challenge, stating, ‘There are also some (students) who face (financial) hardships, so they must work extra to make money (which limits their involvement with internship activities)’.
Limited training and experiences
Participants also reported challenges due to limited training and experience. Participants felt that intern supervisors should have specialized training as a requirement for the role, yet some lack formal social work training, making it difficult to instruct and supervise students based on social work theories and perspectives despite their practical experience. For example, participants stated, ‘Not every intern supervisor has a background in social work . . . some intern supervisors also don’t care much about social work’ (Participant 7) and ‘Mostly I self-studied . . . and asked around’ (Participant 6). Participants also raised concerns regarding field professors’ ability to support intern practice due to limited practical experience. Participants mentioned that field professors have not worked as practitioners, resulting in a focus on theory rather than practical scenarios, leading to challenges supervising and supporting students in practice skills. One participant stated, ‘Field professors have not yet worked in practice. They just stay within theory’’ (Participant 4). Furthermore, participants reported that students often had not obtained necessary skills prior to their field placement, leading to struggles with various activities, highlighted in the quote: ‘When they [interns] come here, there are times that I ask them, and they don’t know anything’ (Participant 2).
Participants shared the perceived challenges faced by interns due to limited skills and a lack of integration between theory and practice. The challenges and difficulties highlighted by participants underscore recurring obstacles in field education in Vietnam. Despite its intended purpose to facilitate application of theoretical knowledge into practical settings, the scarcity of activities and opportunities, stemming from constraints in time and resources, frequently leads to students lacking essential skills and experiences necessary for effective client engagement and intervention. Table 3 below illustrates the challenges interns face during internship activities in relation to the national standard training goals alongside the expected skills for interns and field activities.
Future recommendations
The primary objective of this study was to investigate avenues to enhance field education (Research Question 4). Drawing from past adaptations and leveraging personal experience and expertise, participants offered recommendations to bolster students’ social work professional identity through various practical learning opportunities, establish formal field programs within agencies, and strengthen university-agency collaborations. Despite acknowledged constraints on time and resources, there was unanimous agreement among participants on the benefits of increased interaction and competency among these stakeholders, advocating for concerted efforts to develop a relevant curriculum. In addition, the participants suggested enhancing field requirements to apply theoretical knowledge in practical situations. They also emphasized the significance of focused training for students before working with vulnerable populations to ensure comprehensive preparation. All of these recommendations are explained in detail below.
Bolstering students’ social work professional identity
Participants stated that during the internship, students have the opportunity to learn about the role of social work in society and how they can contribute to the profession. However, there are various obstacles that hinder the development of their commitment to the field. First, many students misunderstand social work as a type of charity, a perception common to Vietnamese society. Participant 4 explained, ‘The students themselves, as well as the community and their families, believe that social work is a volunteering profession’. Meanwhile, Participant 6 added, ‘Some of them think that when they attend university, they will engage in charitable activities. However, when they learn that social work is a field of science and research, they become disenchanted’. Participants repeatedly suggested students actively pursue social work-related opportunities outside of the university’s field requirements, including engaging in volunteer work to acquire practical experience and understand the invaluable work of social workers in the communities, as well as joining community social work discussions to enrich their professional identity.
Establishing formal field programs within agencies
Participants advocate for agencies to establish a purposeful field program centered on three key components: intern supervisor qualifications and training, a structured supervision framework, and student-focused field activities. Intern supervisors should meet minimum qualifications and undergo specialized training in teaching pedagogy methods specific to field setting. In addition, participants propose the development of comprehensive guidelines, outlining step-by-step procedures for recruiting and training interns, supporting those lacking skills, enforcing professional ethics, handling special circumstances, and collaborating with field professors. Such a formalized program aims to inspire and educate the next generation of social workers while contributing to the profession’s long-term advancement. One participant stated ‘We need a guideline instructing interns and intern supervisors at the agencies . . . [agencies should] have criteria to choose interns, the process for receiving interns . . . what the duties of the students will be like’ (Participant 9). Another participant echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the importance of agencies viewing field programs as contributing to the growth of the social work profession, thereby justifying investment in time and resources to ensure proper execution (Participant 7).
Enhancing collaboration between agencies and universities
Participants reported limited formal partnership and collaboration between field professor and intern supervisor. Participants suggested universities increase collaboration with agencies, update the field education curriculum, and encourage students to do more social work activities. In particular, they emphasized the importance of deliberate ongoing collaboration between field professors and intern supervisors to discuss student support. The below statement was echoed by multiple participants:
Universities and agencies should sit down with each other to talk about the various aspects of the internship, including how to support students. It is crucial for the agency to have a meeting [with universities] to discuss any challenges they may encounter when implementing an internship program . . . They should have a serious discussion to determine the agency’s program and how it can align with the school. (Participant 7)
In addition, participants also mentioned that field fairs and seminars would be beneficial for students, agencies, and universities, as such events would provide agencies with a platform to directly interact with students and discuss social work practice. Overall, participants were optimistic and hoped for a more comprehensive and collaborative approach to field education.
Discussion
This research delved into the viewpoints of social work intern supervisors regarding undergraduate field education in Vietnam. Participants collectively defined fieldwork as an opportunity to develop professional competencies and to experience real-life practice. Findings revealed a common field education framework with similar processes and procedures but wide variations in activities and expectations. Common challenges are related to limited time, resources, training, and experience among students, intern supervisors, and field professors. Despite the reported challenges, participants were empathetic to the circumstances creating these barriers to fieldwork implementation. Importantly, participants highlighted opportunities available to students, agencies, and universities to better utilize field education for professional development, including practice opportunities for students, resources and support for intern supervisors, and collaboration between universities and agencies.
Our study revealed that intern supervisors value field education as a core part of social work training and have made adaptations to utilize fieldwork to benefit student training. Nevertheless, participants agreed on the need for increased collaboration between agencies and universities and among agencies themselves to promote field education as a competency-based education tool to provide students with comprehensive understanding of the field, rigorous curriculum, and hands-on training. While some participants noted existing partnerships with universities, they felt that some partnerships do not effectively meet the needs of students, universities, and agencies due to limited communication and formality. Some participants stressed the importance of establishing a network of field agencies and grassroots intern supervisor groups to promote inter-agency collaboration, provide support to intern supervisors, and assist students through collective efforts.
Consistent with previous studies (Nguyen et al., 2020; Nguyen and Nguyen, 2017), there were variations in how agencies implement field education, particularly in relation to schedules, required hours, and professor involvement, which depends on agency capacity, preferences, and university collaboration. Consequently, anticipated competencies for graduation are unstandardized, and field activities and expectations vary substantially between agencies. The differences in implementation between agencies may be intentional to allow universities to localize their curricula to meet regional needs (Han et al., 2016; Nguyen and Nguyen, 2017); however, this flexibility was viewed as a disadvantage by participants as it leads to more work for the agencies overall.
In addition, as previous studies report (Han et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2020; Tran, 2016), limited opportunities for students was noted as a significant challenge, which may be due to ongoing obstacles agencies face to accept interns or assign meaningful tasks as a result of limited resources. Thus, universities may not feel empowered to enforce requirements upon agencies to prioritize meeting the field requirement. Overall, the findings suggest that increased regulation and support would help agencies implement field education more efficiently and improve student outcomes.
Regarding limited competencies, our research, consistent with existing literature (Han et al., 2016; Hugman et al., 2009; Nguyen, 2002; Nguyen et al., 2020; Nguyen and Nguyen, 2017; Tran, 2016), shows that while intern supervisors lack formal social work training, field professors and students lack practice experience. This gap between theory and practice, which competency-based education aims to address, highlights the need to create competency-building opportunities for field professors and intern supervisors themselves. Furthermore, this model does not fully utilize the potential of fieldwork to keep universities connected to community needs, update agencies on research and theory, and train students in specific competencies for practice. One possible explanation is the disjointed understanding of the field of social work itself reflected in previous research about social work development in Vietnam and in the interviews conducted in this study. Although social work programs in Vietnam have been adapted from more established models, the field education requirement is far less intensive than those in the countries from which the models have been adapted, indicating that the concept of field education as the core element of the undergraduate social work education process may be less prominent in Vietnam. This may be related to the predominant higher education model, which commonly leaves practical training for after graduation. To address these issues, increased collaboration between policymakers and education leaders who shape social work training curricula and social work professionals and experts who can provide field-specific insight may help policymakers and education leaders gain a clear understanding of the unique mission and values of Vietnamese social work to create a more effective model that fully utilizes the potential of field education to promote social work development and in turn sustainably address social issues.
It is crucial to consider the results of this study in light of the continuous endeavors to enhance social work field education in Vietnam and globally. This research is not the only one to highlight these challenges. In fact, comparable problems have been reported in various countries. For instance, a study in Canada found challenges integrating social work research into field education (McConnell et al., 2023). In Norway, Eriksen and Gradovski (2020) reported challenges due to limitations in student knowledge and experience. In a study in Finland, students reported a significant gap between social work knowledge acquired at university and in practice and, similar to our study, described universities and field agencies as distinct institutions rather than as collaborators in the social work field (Kinni, 2021). A study in China reported similar challenges regarding competency-based field activities and practice experience among social work faculty (Ting and Zhang, 2012). In Australia, Hill et al.’s (2019) and Ross et al.’s (2019) studies documented similar challenges to accepting interns faced by intern supervisors, including limited time and resources, despite their passion for student education.
Many social work universities and national organizations in the social work field have made changes to better prepare students in their respective countries. One such program is the Transforming the Field Education Landscape (TEFL, n.d.) project, a large-scale national research project exploring various ways to enhance field education in Canada. Interestingly, some researchers in Western countries have explored the ways that Western society and culture, particularly neoliberalism and Eurocentric perspectives, creates obstacles and increases inequalities in social work (Ayala et al., 2018; Johnsson and Flem, 2018). While studies in other countries have also concluded that increased university–agency collaboration is necessary to address implementation issues and enhance field education (Hill et al., 2019; Ting and Zhang, 2012), it is important to note that how such collaborations are implemented in Vietnam must remain culturally competent, not mere replications of models from other countries, especially those in the Global North.
The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution due to several limitations. First, the study was conducted with a small sample size using non-probability sampling, which means the results cannot be generalized to the entire population of field supervisors in Vietnam. Second, we recruited participants through personal and professional networks, resulting in a focus on cities in Northern and Southern Vietnam. As a result, the outcomes may not be broadly applicable to other regions of Vietnam. Therefore, the study calls for further research on field education in Vietnam. Finally, although a bilingual/bicultural researcher translated the interviews, the absence of external or professional translators could be seen as a methodological weakness.
Despite these study limitations, this study holds significant implications. First, findings suggest multidimensional factors influencing current field education and underscore the need for diverse solutions to bolster the capacity for better engagement with field education. Enhancing field professors’, intern supervisors’, and students’ capacities through better field education will help increase the social work workforce and advance social work in Vietnam. Our study suggests the need to improve field education partnerships by expanding the university–agency network through formal contracts. Establishing a dual training partnership can create opportunities for faculty and agency staff to provide advanced training to each other. Furthermore, universities should incorporate intern supervisors’ feedback and empower them as consultants in the development, adaptation, and revision of social work curricula, especially regarding fieldwork components. In addition, incorporating feedback from service users at agencies can also provide meaningful insight to ensure field activities meet community needs. In the future, as social work student populations become more diverse, particularly with LGBTQ + and ethnic minority groups, universities may need to consider diversity, equity, and inclusion in field placement selection to support students of these marginalized groups. Future studies should investigate the challenges that field professors face in gaining practical experience and barriers that intern supervisors encounter in acquiring formal training. In addition, more research is required on current grassroots projects for intern supervisors so that they can be replicated outside their individual communities.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-isw-10.1177_00208728241288016 – Supplemental material for Improving field education for social work in Vietnam: Intern supervisors’ perspectives of the current state and potential solutions
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-isw-10.1177_00208728241288016 for Improving field education for social work in Vietnam: Intern supervisors’ perspectives of the current state and potential solutions by Megan Aikawa, Meekyung Han, Trang T Nguyen, Linh Dinh and Minh Thanh Bui in International Social Work
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Author biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
