Contextual social work and internationalizing social work education: Two sides of the same story?

Introduction

Internationalizing higher education (IHE) is definitely a global trend. ¹ Collaborations between institutions of higher education are increasing, which is also the case with social work education. On a general level, international surveys from 2005 and 2009 confirm a substantial interest in more internationalizing activities, including both the risks and benefits. Some critical arguments assert that IHE is due to globalization processes characterized by commercialization, commodification and marketization trends (Altbach, 2001), with some negative impacts on social work education and social problems as well (Dominelli, 2010; Haug, 2005). More favourable arguments emphasize the importance of internationalization in order to improve the quality of national education, whereas other arguments are altruistic, emphasizing the need to help developing countries.

Despite the controversies, more internationalization will probably continue (Knight, 2007), and this trend will also affect social work and social work educators. Both practitioners and scholars are involved in the debate, and many ‘what’, ‘how’, ‘who’, ‘when’ and ‘why’ questions are being discussed among practitioners and in faculty meetings. This article will focus on two possible reasons for the controversy. The first has to do with the fact that the raison d’etre of social work is contextual; it is hard to imagine that good social work is possible without focusing on the local context. Why then, should the profession be involved in internationalization activities? The second reason is related to the way we are using the concepts. Concepts such as international social work, comparative social work, contextual social work and internationalizing social work are often used in a helter-skelter manner, thus the discourse related to these issues is somewhat blurred since the concepts are being used in a disorderly way.

This article starts with reviewing some core concepts, followed by a discussion of results from an inquiry to professors in social work the world over. ² The professors were asked to define and reflect upon the achievements, dilemmas and pitfalls related to the concepts of international, comparative and contextual social work. Thereafter, I relate to a discourse about how useful global principles, values and ethics might be in approaching dilemmas in social work practices. In a concluding summary, I discuss some of the problems, and argue that more internationalization in social work education while simultaneously emphasizing contextual social work is possible and advisable.

More internationalization – A contested trend

The current definition of social work, agreed upon by the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) and the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) in 2001, reads as follows:

The social work profession promotes social change, problem solving in human relationships and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well-being. Utilising theories of human behaviour and social systems, social work intervenes at the points where people interact with their environments. Principles of human rights and social justice are fundamental to social work. (http://iassw-aiets.org)

Internationalization and globalization are clearly related concepts, though they are not equal. We usually think of the internationalization of education as an implication of globalization processes. On a general level, internationalization includes specific policies and programmes to cope with or exploit globalization (Altbach, 2004). More specifically, this implies an attempt by higher education institutions to integrate an international and intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and service function of the institution. Thus, the flow of knowledge, ideas, values and people (educators and researchers) across borders will affect nations in a wide range of ways, though how and to what degree depends on the nation’s history, tradition, culture and priorities.

Data from a June 2009 and similar 2005 survey (with fewer respondents) from 745 global higher education institutions show that a more internationally oriented staff/students and improved academic quality were among the most mentioned benefits of more internationalization. The institutions also mentioned strengthened research, cooperation and solidarity, internationalized curriculum, enhanced prestige, revenue generation and ‘brain gain’ as further benefits. It is also interesting to note that there are considerable differences between institutions from developed and developing countries. The developed countries are more inclined to mention the benefits of more internationally oriented students and staff, while the developing countries put more of an emphasis on the benefits of academic quality. ³

Knight (2004) summarizes contemporary developments towards more internationalization by emphasizing the differences, complexity and importance of internationalization processes in higher education. Altbach (2004) analyses how globalization affects universities, especially in developing countries. He does not argue against globalization and internationalization, but discusses some of their negative impacts on higher education. Some negative impacts are related to different perspectives on universities’ principal role and function in society. ⁴ Others relate to features concerning the adequacy and relevance of the knowledge and competence offered to students as well as commercialization tendencies implying that knowledge and education are seen as private ‘goods’ which the student should pay for. Hence, there is a possibility that the state is less willing to provide universities with public funding. Higher education institutions have to generate funds by selling knowledge-products, increasing student fees and developing partnerships with private organizations and companies. According to Altbach (2004), the result may be intensified privatization.

Another issue impacting on more internationalization is the growing predominance of English as an academic language. The demand to publish internationally favours scholars who are familiar with English, and essential understandings may be displaced when translated to English. Moreover, it is not obvious that concepts and perspectives developed within an English-speaking context are the most appropriate for understanding issues and challenges in other countries (Harrison, 2007). Askeland and Payne argue that ‘internationalizing social work education creates a Western hegemony in disseminating knowledge’ (Askeland & Payne, 2006, p. 735). They show how the English linguistic hegemony works and they assert that ‘taking education in a foreign language will always make people feel inferior, less fluent and less competent’ (Askeland & Payne, 2006, p. 739), and that ‘there is a close relation between poverty and lack of competence in a dominant language’ (Askeland & Payne, 2006, p. 738). Therefore, as Dominelli puts it, it is important to ‘minimise the privileges that accompany being a member of a dominant language grouping’ (Dominelli, 2004, p. 524).

Taken together, the profession of social work should be concerned about the globalization process because it ‘influences and creates the social issues we deal with, it creates the context of our practice and education through its impact on the political and cultural landscape within which we practice, educate and learn’ (Payne & Askeland, 2008, p. 154). As shown, there are benefits as well as risk. The benefits are more knowledge and insights as to how social problems are generated across the world, and more reflection and discussion of how social work as a profession has to relate to this. The risk is that more internationalization may imply the harmonization of education without taking into account that social work per se is contextual. By the use of comparative analyses, it will be possible to dig more deeply into this issue. While globalization is a contested trend, comparative social work is not, even though some writers caution about and highlight the limitations with cross-cultural studies (Payne & Askeland, 2008). Some objections may be due to an unclear use of the concepts of international social work and comparative social work, and the next sections attempt to clarify this difference.

International social work

According to Healy (1995), there is a ‘plethora’ of definitions about international social work (see for instance, Haug, 2005; Healy, 1995, 2008; Hugman et al., 2010; Midgley, 2001; Mohan, 2008; Nagy & Falk, 2000; Payne & Askeland, 2008). Concepts such as cross-national, global and international social work are often used interchangeably (Healy, 2008), including many components and elements without any authoritative consensus among scholars. Probably, the most common comprehension of the concept of international social work is to just refer to ‘a field of practice’ usually conducted by professionals working on an international level in order to identify factors causing social problems, and to analyse and propose remedies to solve the identified problems. Even work with immigrants and refugees in one’s home country is sometimes included in this term (Gray & Fook, 2004; Payne & Askeland, 2008). The focus is on problems emerging on a global level. Thus, the concept is used in a wide sense ‘as a broad, umbrella term referring to any aspect of social work involving two or more nations’ (Healy, 1995, p. 442).

Hugman et al. (2010) identify five elements in the concept of international social work and the authors summarize the various elements by saying that ‘international social work refers to education, practice, research, policy and exchanges concerned with the realities of global processes in human well-being’ (Hugman et al., 2010, p. 634).

Mohan asserts that ‘international social work may be defined as a discursive discipline that employs the knowledge and tenets of social work practice in a diverse, dynamic and interdependent world’ (Mohan, 2008, p. 13). According to Mohan this is not a satisfactory definition, and adding a more normative dimension, he argues that ‘international social work should be redefined as a professional discipline that promotes trans-national knowledge, studies and experiences to foster equality and justice as vehicles of international understanding, collaboration and collective human social development’ (Mohan, 2008, p. 19). The normative aspect is also very apparent with Haug (2005) when she says that ‘international social work includes any social work activity anywhere in the world, directed toward global social justice and human rights, in which local practice is dialectically linked to the global context’ (Haug, 2005, p. 133).

Consequently, some scholars argue that ‘international social work represents a modernity project, a common understanding of problems, that people are much the same, that we are all citizens of one globe and that problems can be understood across borders’ (Trygged, 2010, p. 653). He asserts that this could ‘turn international social work into a critical modernity project’ in order ‘to overcome some of the contradictions between the universal and the local, as well as in its attempts to find a role for social work in the globalization process’ (Trygged, 2010, p. 653). One way of doing this is by preparing students to work with diversity and multiply their skills by learning about approaches, programmes and methods used in other cultures as well as studies of ideologies, cultures and values. Thus, in order to enable students to work with diverse groups within their own communities, more knowledge about comparative social policy, cross-cultural understanding and global social problems are supposed to be useful (Healy, 1995; Nagy & Falk, 2000).

Comparative social work

The term comparative social work is not very controversial within social work literature. There seems to be a well established agreement that the term is describing social work research using comparative methodologies – first and foremost between different national contexts. Nagy and Falk say that ‘comparative social work is about providing, analyzing and comparing facts about social work in two or more countries’ (Nagy & Falk, 2000, p. 54), thus ‘comparative’ merely indicates the use of a method of inquiry commonly used in most social sciences. Comparative social work is less about doing (i.e. practising social work) and more about using a method in order to understand social work issues. Comparative analyses ‘offer an opportunity for the exchange of experiences and understandings at an international level and release social work from the narrow horizons of national constructions and traditions’ (Erath et al., 2001, p. 1) and therefore ‘offers not only a more comprehensive framework for approaching and conceptualizing social work; but also exposes the social conditions and cultural structures within which social work knowledge and action is made possible within different national state welfare regimes’ (Erath et al., 2001, p. 1).

Seen from this perspective, comparative social work is merely a research methodology within the field of social work which is very useful for expanding our understanding of how social work appears in and is affected by various contexts. Accordingly, ‘the value of comparative social work studies lies in the opportunity offered for the development of an international and intercultural perspective through which to examine, analyze and interpret social work’ (Erath et al., 2001, p. 1).

Contextual social work

Regarding the concept of contextual social work, there seems to be a consensus in the literature that ‘good’ social work practice is inevitably contextual (Fook, 2002; Healy, 2005). Contextual social work is rooted in a specific understanding of how to build and facilitate a relevant and adequate social work education and social work practice. Generally speaking, to have some knowledge and understanding of local conditions (social problems, welfare policies, local values and attitudes, culture and traditions, decision-making processes, etc.) is very useful and sometimes a must if we want to address problems and design social work methods in an adequate way. Without any contextual knowledge and respect for the cultural diversity and magnitude of problem-solving strategies, social workers risk alienating themselves. Accordingly, ‘social work is a profession that varies enormously by historical, geographical, and institutional contexts’ (Healy, 2005, p. 1).

Knowing about the local institutional context, including historical, socio-political, economic and cultural realities, is necessary and particularly important for social workers working with community development projects (Ife & Fiske, 2006). There may sometimes be a contradiction between universal human rights values and predominant attitudes in the community. This being the case, reflections about human rights values in working with community development are necessary, and ‘it might be claimed that community development need a human rights framework if it is to be successful, and human rights need a community development framework if they are to be realized’ (Ife & Fiske, 2006, p. 307). The controversies and tension originating from one’s loyalty to local institutional environments, with their specific understandings, values and culture on the one side and internalized principles according to universal human right principles and social justice values that the social workers have acquired from their social work education on the other, are challenging and demanding and need a profound amount of reflection from the social worker (Hugman et al., 2010; Midgley, 2001).

This dilemma reflects a major debate about the ‘universal’ (human right values) and the ‘particular’ (recognizing diversity) in social work education and social work practices (Haug, 2005; Healy, 2007; Sohlberg, 2009; Webb, 2009). As a value, diversity is not without limits. As a result, the challenge will be how much difference we can accept in the name of diversity. This is a huge issue and relates to the important debate about universalism versus cultural relativism in social work discourses (see for instance, Healy, 2008).

How do professors in social work conceive the concepts?

This account of important concepts in social work literature is supplemented by a small inquiry among professors in social work from different countries. Because of the internationalization trend in higher education (including social work education), I wanted to know how this was conceived among scholars in social work, possibly affecting contemporary discourses in social work discipline. One such discourse relates to an apparent contradiction between facilitating and advocating more internationalization in social work education, while at the same time emphasizing the importance of contextual social work. This discourse is affected by postmodern ideas that universal knowledge is questionable because social work must take into account local knowledge and understanding in working with social problems (Fook, 2002; Healy, 2005, 2008; Payne & Askeland, 2008).

Thus, I asked some professors in social work to reflect upon the concepts of international, comparative and contextual social work. In total, 10 professors from eight countries participated in the inquiry and responded during the summer of 2009. They were asked to describe and clarify the differences between the concepts and to reflect upon pro and con arguments for global social work ethics. When receiving the answers, I organized and related their responses to the concepts according to their reflections about achievements, dilemmas and pitfalls, respectively. Some answered very comprehensively others rather shortly, but all were very useful in reflecting upon these issues. When I quote from their responses, I chose reflections that represent their opinions as accurately as possible.

All of the respondents are professors in social work: participant 1 is from Australia, participants 2 and 3 from South Africa, participant 4 from Russia, participant 5 from Belgium, participant 6 from the United Kingdom, participant 7 from Finland, participant 8 from Sweden and participants 9 and 10 from Norway. In order to keep them separate, I designate them as participant 1, participant 2, etc. When I am quoting the participants, I have marked their words in italics and single quotations marks.

All of the professors agreed that international social work is a field of practice in which working across borders in order to improve living conditions for people in need seems to be the main focus. ‘It is an integral part of all social work in every country and mainly linked to the global world we live in’ (participant 5). However, ‘international social work can be much more than making comparisons. At best, it could function as an arena to discuss different social work approaches’ (participant 7). Participant 1 said that ‘international social work is almost exclusively applied to social work in social development contexts and seems mostly focused on the community development method’. Participant 3 defined international social work as ‘social work which is applicable to all contexts and which transcends boundaries of institution, country and context’, whereas others did not think that the concept has a very clear meaning but related the concept to work done by international organizations. Some argued that these organizations can be important arenas for discussing various social work approaches. All of the respondents related the concept to a social development context on an international level and some saw the international dimension as an integral part of all social work in every country. Participant 9 emphasized that ‘social work is an activity taking place in other countries and within other and different cultural settings, but in a way that is beneficial to develop own social work for the benefit of clients’. Achieving global justice seems to be a key justification for the activity. One professor used the word ‘mission’ to emphasize the profession’s commitment to social justice. He said that international social work ‘contains a mission to engage in social problems not only in your own backyard but everywhere in the world, i.e. to participate in rebuilding social structures and institutions in countries hit by war, or react against injustices or violence in other countries’ (participant 8).

Nevertheless, we must be aware of how ‘in the name of international social work we actually (might) do quite the opposite and entrench further injustices’ (participant 2). The argument is that practitioners and professionals from non-Western countries must have a say on an equal basis, without being very conscious about how social justice issues are understood, presented and discussed: ‘international social work can actually be seen to be a euphemism for Westernisation’ (participant 2). It is important to help empower people in need without patronizing and victimizing them.

All of the reflections I got from the professors emphasize that comparative social work implies using a methodology that compares different contexts. Therefore, the concept is mainly used to describe a research design. ‘Comparative social work is the study of social work using comparative methodologies – usually one or more countries’ (participant 6). ‘It is always a systematic comparison of social work conditions, methods etc., and the aim is to learn from this comparison’ (participant 8). As a consequence, ‘there are huge academic and pragmatic benefits to such exercises in terms of learning across contexts’ (participant 2), hence ‘the main achievement is that it provides persuasive ways of looking at our own systems differently’ (participant 1). As with more internationalization, comparative social work will help people to ‘challenge taken for granted assumptions and allow staff and students to understand that other worlds are possible’ (participant 2).

Summing up the ‘what’ and ‘why’ questions with respect to comparative social work, there seems to be agreement that comparative social work is primarily connected to research, which is a systematic comparison of social work’s theory and practice within two or more geographically or culturally different contexts. Comparative social work is regarded to be important because according to the professors it:

is useful in bringing to light similarities and differences across contexts (participant 3);

deploys new perspectives, concepts, and ways of doing things that may enlighten our professional understanding (participant 10);

gives us robust knowledge of how and why differences appear (participant 8);

makes comparisons that would allow for any further reaching of conclusions and suggestions that entail understanding and knowledge about cultures, institutions, and their particular histories (participant 7);

discloses prejudice and uncovers misconceptions about differences in other cultures as well as identifying surprising similarities and differences (participant 9).

The professors were also very conscious about the possible pitfalls of using comparative social work. The main problem seems to be a kind of methodological problem: how to ensure that ‘one is comparing “like with like”, that is apples with apples, rather than oranges’ (participant 1). Different circumstances may represent a substantial hindrance for achieving new insights relevant to other contexts. The same way of implementing ‘best practice’ in a given social and cultural setting will in no way ensure ‘best practice’ in another social setting exactly because the social and cultural settings are different. Accordingly, the biggest pitfall is to presume that comparative social work will always be beneficial for social work education and practice. The environments and circumstances may just be so different that any relevant learning is impossible.

The difficulty in using comparable data sets also includes the problem with using concepts as well as common terms: ‘same concepts and commonly used terms may mean quite different things in different contexts’ (participant 1). This highlights a more profound problem with comparative research, and one professor put the problem like this: ‘The main problem is that our students and many of us – as educators and practitioners – can only think within the context that we are socialized into. This does impose constraints on our thinking and our worldviews’ (participant 2). Obviously, there is a danger that Western norms might be used as ‘the gold standard against which all else locally might be measured’ (participant 2). The opposite problem, of course, is that policy-makers may dismiss comparative research that highlights ineffectiveness in their own system just by arguing that the situation is not comparable. This type of dismissal is not acceptable according to one professor because ‘we can learn a great deal from comparisons as they are “natural experiments” in what is possible within human societies that are similar to ours’ (participant 1). She asserts very explicitly that ‘I have learnt so much through comparative analysis of social service systems and social work practice that would not have been possible without this comparative focus’ (participant 1).

Summarized and despite the pitfalls, the major problem with comparative social work is – as one professor put it – ‘that there is not enough of it!’ (participant 6). However, there are those who are a little bit more concerned about the unilateral focus on development in developing countries because the focus is taken away from improving social work practices in wealthier countries. One says that ‘I find it concerning that so much comparative work has been limited to a focus on developing nations, as this prevents those of us from wealthy countries from taking a more critical perspective on ourselves and the service systems within which we work’ (participant 1).

As one professor argued, the term contextual social work is not often used since ‘social work is inevitably contextual: It is located in the historical and cultural traditions of the society in which it is found’ (participant 6). For that reason, it may be argued that the concept of ‘contextual social work’ is a tautology because it is not possible to do social work without being contextual. Even so, the professors were very clear on what this term implies. Contextual social work is ‘context specific, knowing and taking into account the cultural parameters, circumstances, history, interactional situation, etc. of the community/clients and their problems’ (participant 7). Thus, ‘contextual social work is about understanding social work practices as shaped by their institutional context’ (participant 1), and it ‘focuses on the locally specific historical, social-political, economic and cultural realities’ (participant 2). It is therefore ‘important to develop social work strategies and practices which are appropriate for the particular contexts’ (participant 3). At the same time, it is crucial to ‘be reflexive of its roots that might hinder the implication of human rights and social justice’ (participant 4). This implies ‘a continuous awareness of the impact of the social and political environment/context on the client’s situation, but also on the effects of social interventions on the environment’ (participant 8).

Many of the clients’ problems arise from structures outside the individual, and of course a consciousness about this is necessary. The professors were very much aware of this and one said that she ‘tries to maintain a balance in teaching on the relationship between the local and the global and to emphasize the relationship between the personal and the political by drawing on critical, radical and emancipatory theories of education and of social work education and practice’ (participant 2).

Knowledge about the local context may also reveal attitudes, values and modes of social work that infringe on universal values, principles and ethics in social work practice. This is undoubtedly a challenge for a social worker. As one professor said, ‘if the social worker wants to serve the client well, they sometimes must fight the system’ (participant 1). As a result, there may be a situation in some institutional settings in which professional social workers have to choose between their career in the system and being advocates for their clients according to the principles and values of social work. The question arises as to ‘whether social work’s emphasis on the local, on cultural diversity and the specific might detract from broader analyses of human rights and social justice. Do we, as social workers, condone human rights violations in the name of respect for difference and diversity?’ (participant 2). This puts the focus on a big issue in social work education and practices in relation to discussions of universalism and cultural relativism.

Discussion

The ‘universally’ accepted definition of social work indicates that there are certain values embodied in professional social work, and in order to resolve difficult dilemmas, many social workers will probably lean towards core and universal values in social work such as democracy, social justice, human rights and dignity, equality, commitment and responsiveness. Many of these values and principles seem to be accepted as global standards for the education and training of social work professionals, even though there are writers who are very critical of the very idea of global standards in social work (Gray & Webb, 2007). The standards are stated in the document entitled ‘Ethics in Social Work, Statement of Principles’, which was approved by the International Federation of Social Workers and the International Association of Schools of Social Work in October 2004.

Ahead of this approval, there had been a discussion about the need for such global standards and some of the debates related to the global/local issues mentioned above, while others connected more to a general debate in the social sciences – as well as more specific human right discourses – about universalism/relativism and modernism/postmodernism in the approaching and understanding of social phenomena (for an overview, see Gray & Fook, 2004; Sewpaul, 2005; Williams & Sewpaul, 2004). One argument has been that global standards will inevitably reinforce Western hegemonic discourses and values that are not particularly applicable in a non-Western context (Gray, 2005; Midgley, 1981). The idea of a ‘universal’ social work was regarded as being a typical modernist project in which a prescriptive approach to ‘good’ social work was tempting as well as seductive, though not a very realistic idea. The adversarial argument was that the specific contexts that embed all social work make it very difficult to approve a universal framework and common standard for social work ethics. Postmodern comprehensions emphasizing cultural relativism, plurality, diversity and difference in social life certainly do not help facilitate a global acceptance of common standards. However, many leading academics strongly argued that the social work profession needed some shared areas of understanding, and that there are some core values such as human rights, solidarity and social justice that should be accepted as universal and that this should be possible without impacting a denial of local specific realities (Ife, 1997, 2001).

In a social work discourse, this of course is of special relevance with respect to the debate about global social work ethics. The core questions seem to be: how much difference and diversity among human beings should be accepted in the name of self-determination? When are inequality and discriminating practices inacceptable and a violation of core social work principles? Two positions and schools of thought are possible to identify (Healy, 2007). It should be noted, however, that this dichotomy must be regarded as Weberian ‘ideal categories’, in which most schools in social work find themselves somewhere in the middle and in which ‘mixed positions occupy the centre of the continuum, combining the notion of a set of universal rights with consideration for the maintenance of cultural traditions’ (Healy, 2008, p. 240). The universalist view will argue that there is a set of values and rights that are universally applicable and that all human beings have the right to enjoy such rights. According to this position, culture is irrelevant and should not be used as an acceptable explanation and excuse for violating social work values. On the other hand, the relativist position will emphasize that it is not possible to have common standards for values and that all values are culturally specific, and the comprehension of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ must be borne in mind when deciding on how social work practices are/should be accomplished. These antagonistic positions made it difficult to reach an agreement about universal values and global standards (Ife, 2001), although the international organizations, IASSW and IFSW, succeeded even though the debate will go on and both values and principles for social work practices will probably be modified. Nonetheless, the main principles in social work ethics are decided to be: 1) Human Rights and Human Dignity, and 2) Social Justice. The first includes respecting the right to self-determination, promoting the right to participation, treating each person as a whole and identifying and developing strengths. The second includes challenging negative discrimination, recognizing diversity, distributing resources equitably, challenging unjust policies and practices and working in solidarity (http://iassw-aiets.org/)..

All of the reflections we received from the professors implied that universal values and global standards are useful guidelines and at the heart of social work, even though there are considerable limitations when it comes to practice. Thus, ‘the “pro”argument pertains to the importance of setting a guiding frame for social work practice’ (participant 1). Many are relating the usage of universal ethics to situations in which social workers are confronted on the local level. The principles function as a mirror for local practices because social work is ‘primarily a local practice that nevertheless also has global dimensions. As most social problems, also those faced locally, are connected with, or manifestations of, global structural and other problems, understanding and remembering the global context helps to see that decisions and practices at “home” may have ethical implications also beyond one’s own practice context’ (participant 7). Therefore, having global social work ethics as a guiding frame for social work practice is ‘extremely important in resisting local practices that contravene universal ethics such as social justice’ (participant 1). Another professor argued that this is probably more and more important because ‘globalization has led to increasing encounters between social workers and clients from different backgrounds’ (participant 8). His point is that high standard ethics can create both security and insecurity, and the important point seems to be that the social worker is able to include an ethical dialogue in his/her work and manage to integrate ethics into social work practice. Ethical reflections should nevertheless start from the same principles.

One professor was a little bit more reluctant with respect to the effect of global ethics on actual behaviour. She said that ‘I do not believe that a code of ethics – with its external constraints and prescriptions necessarily contribute to more ethical behaviour’ (participant 2), and she asks ‘should we aspire towards a postmodern ethics that is non-prescriptive where “being the other” might be the normative in social work?’ Another reflection leaned in the same direction, arguing in favour of more moderate, deliberative and debatable forms of universalism and pluralism that are ‘more open to questioning, criticism and revising, recognizing that individuals around the world, though having much in common, do not necessarily share the same wishes and preferences, nor have the same resources and practices to satisfy them’ (participant 7). Both quotations emphasize that it seems to be crucial that international social work manages to avoid an alienating ‘them and us’ attitude. To establish a kind of equality in the relationship is important and an awareness of identifying ‘what’s in it for me’ is probably necessary to ensure that help is provided in a dignified approach. This is quite a challenge when people from totally different lives and cultural situations meet.

Most of the counter arguments for global social work ethics relate to the universalism/relativism debate that underscores that because social work must be contextual, it is very important that the social worker know about and respect local values and differences. This raises a dilemma of cultural sensitivity when confronted with inequalities and difference in local communities. As one participant put it, the crucial question seems to be: ‘How much inequality can be accepted in the name of respecting local culture and local democracy?’ (participant 10). According to Healy ‘these dilemmas arise frequently in social work, especially in situations regarding equality claims for women; children; ethnic, religious and sexual minorities; or involving tensions over individualism against the claims of the group or community (also known as communalism)’ (Healy, 2007, p. 13). As mentioned in one reflection, an obvious trap is that ‘global ethics that try to satisfy all kinds of cultural differences face the risk of becoming vague and weak’ (participant 8). Ethical reflections are useful and necessary, but have limited value because ‘local circumstances often are multifarious and complicated, universal ethical principles do not necessarily bring much light’ (participant 7). Some professors are even more pessimistic and assert that ‘social work is such a diverse activity that the prosecution of a single approach to ethics is almost impossible except at a very high level of generality that would be difficult to use to inform day-to-day practice’ (participant 6). So, the challenge seems to be to make global principles and values appropriate and relevant to local practices.

Accepting different preferences with regard to attitudes, lifestyles and individual values is not necessarily in conflict with universal values in professional social work if human rights and human dignity are dealt with properly. However, accommodating universal social work values to a local context is demanding and requires an intuitive flair – a ‘fingerspitzengefühl’ – from the social workers’ side. It helps if values such as trust and reciprocity are conspicuous in the locality. Social capital and ubunty are important. According to Putnam, social capital is an attribute with a community in which people interact with each other based on reciprocity and trustworthiness. Thus, social capital represents a kind of social glue, and is an individual as well as community attribute (Putnam, 1993). The concept of ubuntu, which is used in some African countries, has many of the same distinctive marks: caring for others, dignity, trust and interdependence. According to Venter, the ‘philosophy of ubuntu espouses a fundamental respect in the rights of others, as well as deep allegiance to collective identity’ (Venter, 2004, p. 154). Hence, practising global core and universal values in a local context could very well be in accordance with local values, and the fear of implementing and ‘reinforcing Western hegemonic discourses’ (see above) is overestimated. The problem arises of course if social capital and ubuntu values are lacking, and local values and practices are clearly in confrontation with global standards in social work.

Concluding summary

What can we learn from this review of literature and reflections from professors in social work? My point of departure was that the internationalization trend in social work education will continue, and bearing in mind that social work is inevitably contextual, an important issue is how this trend will affect professional social work. To approach this question, some important concepts have been discussed.

The term ‘international social work’ is multifarious, but at least four elements are included in this term. We are talking about: 1) a field of practice applied to social work in social development contexts, in which 2) social problems are emerging on a global level, and the work aims at 3) enhancing social justice globally, as well as 4) benefiting social work in its own context. The main pitfall focuses on the problem with the Westernization of social work discourses on an international level.

There seems to be a unanimous opinion that the concept of ‘comparative social work’ represents social work research, using comparative methodologies to analyse both the differences and similarities between different contexts – mostly between different countries. When we are using comparative methods, we learn how differences in culture, ideologies, values and ways of doing things affect social work practices. Some examples may illuminate this point: the ubuntu phenomenon in some African countries (Venter, 2004), the communitarian principles/values in some Western countries (Etzioni, 1993) and the well established ‘dugnadsånd’ ⁵ (the spirit of ‘dugnad’) and civic engagement (Wollebæk & Selle, 2003) in some Norwegian localities, are social phenomena and values that have much in common and would be very interesting to study from a social work perspective, particularly with respect to how these phenomena may imply a growth of social capital in the community, thereby coexisting with social workers in approaching social problems and social issues.

‘Contextual social work’ is probably the most contested with respect to what it implies. It is possible to argue that this concept is a tautology because all social work must be context-specific. When we are using the concept, we usually relate it to local circumstances that affect social work practices. However, the focus on a local context and the specific must not cover important apprehensions, insights and conceptions embedded in a wider context. Accordingly, it is important to emphasize that the concept of ‘contextual social work’ include global and structural factors as well. In fact, all factors and circumstances that affect social work are relevant. Acting locally and individually without losing global and structural perspectives is important and demanding. Too narrow a focus may blind us and blur the needed oversight and insight, including the structural and political factors circumscribing the community. For this reason, it is useful and sometimes necessary to expand our perspectives, opening up for new understandings and ways of solving problems, or at least accepting that new angles in looking at the situation/problems in working with clients and social problems. The wisdom in two well-known sayings may illuminate this dilemma: when the social workers act according to ‘they who wear the shoes know where it hurts’, they risk acting inadequately because ‘they don’t see the forest for the trees’.

To accept exclusively a local context as being constitutive of social work practice and education may oversee or underestimate inexpedient and dubious (or even destructive and oppressive) forces and policies in the community. Because of predominant political attitudes in the community in relation to traditional, paternalistic cultural and deeply rooted prejudices towards vulnerable groups, or just a lack of imagination in working with problems, may cause social workers to not identify, reveal or address unacceptable living conditions within society. We do not ‘see the forest for the trees’, meaning that we are so focused on solving individual problems within a traditional framework that we are insufficiently aware of the structural or cultural factors causing the problems. Thus, a comparison and learning from an international context can open our eyes and uncover insufficient and unacceptable practices. Nonetheless, there will be a problem if the uncovering of undesirable practices is due to well established attitudes that are in accordance with the communities’ predominant values. These practices may very well be consciously performed and justified because the majority of the community supports the existing values and practices.

Social work discourses about global standards in ethics and social work values and principles address this issue. The literature, as well as this inquiry based on reflections from professors in social work, reveals that there is no unanimous agreement among scholars in social work on this issue. The contested issue seems to be how much difference social workers should accept in the name of diversity, and how global standards in ethics and values can be useful guidelines in social work practices. In approaching this issue, some of the professors were concerned that an authoritative use of global ethics and ‘universal’ values would imply a ‘Westernization’ of social work that is of limited use in properly understanding problems as well as solutions in a non-Western context. Due to different ‘wavelengths’, the discourses may be hard to comprehend. Sometimes the hegemony of the English language in social work discourses will enlarge this problem because representations of the issues are difficult when professionals have to use a foreign language. However, living in a globalized world, the only realistic way to approach this Westernization problem (including the predominance of the English language) is to be utterly aware of it and realize that another way of thinking is possible.

Limitations of research

It should be noted that this is not a comparative inquiry designed to focus on the differences and similarities in the way professors from different countries conceived of the concepts. Instead, I was more interested in their reflections in order to illuminate and hopefully explore and clarify some of the different usages. Accordingly, it is not possible to draw general conclusions from this study. The reflections are the professors’ individual perceptions. There are, however, no reasons to doubt that their opinions do not mirror predominant perceptions of scholars in professional social work.

Conclusion

This article capitalizes on the literature and reflections from 10 professors in social work from eight different countries. Concepts and phrases such as internalizing social work, international social work, comparative social work and contextual social work are explored and related to international discourses in professional social work. My main point is that there is no contradiction between advocating more internationalization in social work education, while at the same time emphasizing the importance of contextual social work. Having fellow students and scholars asking unexpected questions and representing new perspectives in analysing academic and professional issues is possible to do without diminishing the relevance and local adjustment in research, education and practice, and will be productive for the learning process. More internationalization by use of comparative social work is very useful, though it is necessary to be aware of the pitfalls and reflect upon how social work ethics can be applied in different contexts. If this is done with respect and modesty, contextual social work and internationalizing social work education are two sides of the same coin in improving social work education and practices.

Research ethics

The participants have given their informed consent to participate in the inquiry. No ethical approval is necessary in Norway for this kind of study.