The nature of employer’s involvement in social work education: An international exploration

Abstract

Email interviews and internet inquiries were used to explore the nature and extent of employer engagement in qualifying social work education programmes across 10 countries: Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, UK and USA. Findings indicate considerable variations in the nature and extent of engagement in admissions processes, programme management and assessment of student competence. Practice learning/field education was the main area for employer engagement. The desirability of employer engagement is discussed.

Keywords

comparative research employers international internet research social work education

Introduction

To what extent, if at all, and if so how, should employers be involved in social work education? If, as in some countries, a degree in social work is primarily a preparation for a career as a professional social worker, then it may be expected that high levels of employer engagement would be justifiable. On the other hand, if social work education is conceptualized as an academic subject similar to other ‘liberal studies’ disciplines (a domain for study), then the need for any employer engagement may be questioned. Whatever the conceptualization of social work, as an academic domain for study, applied professional discipline or a subtle blend of academic domain and professional discipline, where social work educational programmes provide practice experience the nature of the interface between universities¹ and social work employers is crucial for the student experience. This article reports a preliminary exploration of the nature of employer engagement in social work education, to promote dialogue about what the nature of that engagement should be, if indeed there should be any engagement at all. Findings from a research study are presented to provide an impressionistic account of the nature of employer engagement in social work education across several countries.

An electronic literature search for materials published in English since 2000 revealed no evidence of previous comparative empirical studies specifically about employer engagement in social work education. However, there has been a publication tradition of descriptive accounts about social work education in different countries (Brauns and Kramer, 1986; IASSW, 2003; Kendall and Rao, 1984; Watts et al., 1993). Moreover, some comparative studies have addressed aspects of social work education, that is, where employer and university engagement is a pre-requisite, such as field education (see for example the study of Australia and Hong Kong by Chui, 2008).

The approach taken

The study reported here comprised part of a larger research project undertaken in 2009, about employer engagement in social work education. For the comparative component, a purposive sample of countries, Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand, South Africa, UK² and USA, was selected at the request of the project sponsor. Inclusion criteria were (i) a geographically diverse range of countries, where (ii) English was the first language. Subsequently, at the request of the sponsor, four Scandinavian countries were pragmatically included (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) as information was probably available in English. Data was collected through:

a literature search that used electronic databases;

an internet search of websites, including professional social work associations, statutory regulatory bodies and universities;

email interviews and subsequent dialogue with university staff (for a discussion of methodological issues, see Hamilton and Bowers, 2006).

Two categories of staff were selected: those described as Directors/Heads of Social Work, and staff named as responsible for employer links (generally practice learning or field education). Potential respondents were identified by a systematic search of university websites or in a small number of cases prior existing personal contacts that conformed to the contact selection criteria. Universities in Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, and Canada, Finland, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the USA (one in each state) were contacted. Emails asked respondents to comment on the extent and nature of employer involvement in six areas:

management of social work qualifying programmes;

curriculum design and delivery;

selection and admissions procedures;

student assessment;

provision of practice learning/field work/practicum opportunities;

examples of good practice.

Further emails were sent to seek clarification as necessary. Low response rates were recorded. No particular reason can be adduced for the level of response recorded.

Some emails may not have reached the appropriate people: for instance, some email addresses were out of date, and messages were returned undelivered, or messages were forwarded to other individuals by original recipients. Levels of detail varied considerably in responses: some provided only brief replies. Once material was drafted on a particular country, a critical reader from that country read and commented for accuracy, currency and consistency and veracity of the information obtained from internet sources.

Table 1.

Email responses

Country	Email enquiries made	Responses
Australia	18	8
Canada	18	2
Denmark	4	1
Finland	7	5
New Zealand	16	1
Norway	1	0
South Africa	14	3
Sweden	2	1
USA	50	2
Totals	130	23

On the basis of the methodology adopted, the status of the study is preliminary and exploratory, the conclusions and comments have an indicative status and merit further detailed study. In short, the methodology represents the constraints of real-world sponsored research where time is of the essence and resource constraints prescribe limits upon research design.

Programme regulation and employer engagement

Differences were found in accreditation requirements for social work programmes, in particular, the extent to which regulations or criteria for accreditation require employer involvement: these are reported schematically in Table 2.

Table 2.

Employer engagement and accreditation requirements

Country	Engagement required	Employer engagement
Aotearoa New Zealand	Yes	‘Employers’ not mentioned specifically. Requirements refer to ‘stakeholders’, and require programmes to be developed collaboratively between the profession and the education provider.
Australia	Yes	Refers to ‘human service providers’ (defined) and requires a partnership approach in planning and delivery, and the involvement of providers in formal consultative structures.
Canada	Not clearly specified	Stakeholders (not defined) to be provided with opportunities to participate in policy formulation, programme development and evaluation.
England (UK)	Yes	Includes statement on the ‘Expectations of Employers’, requiring robust arrangements for collaboration, which are to influence the design and delivery of programmes, and requiring the responsibilities of the various parties to be made clear.
Northern Ireland (UK)	Yes	Course providers in Northern Ireland (UK) are partnerships of one or more education institutions, together with social work employers.
Scotland (UK)	Yes	Selection policies and procedures must include effective and appropriate ways of involving key stakeholders in social services. (‘Stakeholders’ defined as people who use services, carers and employers.)
South Africa	Not clearly specified	Employers were involved in setting the minimum qualifications and standards for social work undergraduate and postgraduate programmes (via the social work Standards Generation Body in 2001) as part of the newly introduced National Qualifications Framework for standards in Higher Education. However, there does not appear to be any specific documentation that stipulates employer or stakeholder collaboration in social work programmes.
USA	Yes	The Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards document for all BA and Masters social work programmes does not specifically refer to ‘employers’ but does refer to both programme ‘stakeholders’ and ‘the practice community’ (CSWE, 2004: 6) in relation to the process of programme renewal, as well as the importance of maintaining ‘reciprocal relationships with social work practitioners, groups, organizations and communities’ (CSWE, 2004: 5) in achieving the varied design, structures and objectives of social work programmes.
Wales (UK)	Yes	Representatives of employers must be involved at all stages of the development and the delivery of social work programmes
Nordic countries
Denmark	Yes	Schools of Social Work are directed by Boards of Governors, which include representatives from ‘governmental and non-governmental agencies’.
Finland	Unclear on information available
Norway	Unclear on information available
Sweden	Unclear on information available

Note: The UK is not included in this table as data was obtained via telephone contacts as this was the ‘home’ nation of the research team there was already extensive knowledge about many aspects of the study in respect of the UK. These were checked with colleagues from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Four regulation types for social work programmes were found.

Direct central government legislative requirement

Denmark, Finland and Sweden had governmental legislative requirements for social work education. In Denmark, programmes were state funded under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Executive Order No 536, which stipulates programme objectives, core competencies and theoretical subjects (Schools of Social Work [Denmark], 2004). The Finnish Act on Qualification Requirements 2005 specifies qualifications required in order to practise as a social worker. Similarly, in Sweden, Annex 2 of the Higher Education Act 1992:1434 provides a description of requirements for social work qualification based on learning outcomes. No details of requirements for employer engagement were found in these three countries.

Incorporated company

The Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW; a professional representative body of social workers), an incorporated company,³ produced Australian Social Work Accreditation and Education Standards (AASW, 2008), which detailed required minimum standards for social work education, processes for review of existing and new social work courses, requirements for employer involvement in course delivery and planning organizational arrangements and governance of social work programmes. ‘Social work education must be provided in a manner that acknowledges the partnership between university and human service providers’ (AASW, 2008: 7). The interpretation of the significance that the AASW was an incorporated company is not straightforward. In Australia all professional associations are required to be registered under company law. It is important to note that whatever the legal status of the AASW this was the body that had the responsibility to accredit programmes: there was no separate body as, for example, in the USA.

Not-for-profit non-governmental organization

The NGO was predominant in Canada and the USA. The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), the US accrediting agency, was a non-profit national association whose membership included representatives from educational and professional institutions, social welfare agencies and private citizens. The CSWE has developed a set of accreditation standards in accordance with the US Council for Higher Education Accreditation. The Council’s Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) document recommended that social work programmes should maintain ‘…reciprocal relationships with social work practitioners, groups, organisations, and communities’ (CSWE, 2009: 5).

Canada had a separate association of social work educators, which was responsible for accreditation of programmes at university level (Durst, 2006). The Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE) was a voluntary, national association of university faculties and departments that offered professional education in social work. ‘Employers’ are not specifically referred to in the CASWE Standards for Accreditation (CASWE, 2008). However, reference was made to ‘stakeholders’, who should have been provided with ‘…opportunities to participate in policy formulation, programme development and programme evaluation’.

Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization

In four UK nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales), a statutory Care Council, a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization (QUANGO), was responsible for the registration of social workers (including student social workers), and accreditation of social work training programmes. In Northern Ireland (UK) and Wales (UK) there were formal partnership arrangements, which included employers, planned social work education. The Scottish Social Services Council (2003) specified that ‘employers’ should be involved in programme monitoring, and ‘stakeholders’, including service providers, should be involved in ‘the design, delivery and evaluation’ of training courses. In England (UK), the General Social Care Council (GSCC) stated its ‘expectations of employers’, which emphasized the importance of ‘strong robust arrangements for collaboration’(GSCC, 2002: 15).

Programmes in Aotearoa New Zealand were required to meet the regulations of the statutory regulatory body, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Workers’ Registration Board (SWRB), a QUANGO. The Programme Recognition/Re-recognition Requirements (2008) described student competencies, the ‘graduate profile’ of successful students and five programme standards for recognized social work programmes. Professional and stakeholder collaboration was required and employers’ organizations had a role in curriculum design; very few direct references to employer engagement were made in the document; employers were not mentioned in respect of governance, student-centeredness or resources.

Aspects of employer engagement

Illustrative findings are reported about three aspects of employer engagement in some social work education programmes across the sampled countries.

Management of programmes

There was little evidence of requirements for direct involvement by employers in social work programme management; more usual was that the nature and extent of employer engagement was largely determined by local arrangement.

Requirement for engagement

In Denmark, employers were consulted in the development of the legislation relating to social work education (Strauss, 2009). Under the requirements of Executive Order 536, each school of social work is directed by a Board of Governors, which included representatives from the ‘social work field’, employees and students, as well as governmental and non-governmental agencies (Schools of Social Work [Denmark], 2004: 9).

No formal requirement for engagement

Canadian respondents provided no examples of employer involvement in the management or governance of programmes; for example, at Wilfrid Laurier University (Coady, 2009) employers generally had little say in the management of social work programmes. In Australia, several universities had arrangements that involve employers in the management of programmes and/or the development of curricula through bodies such as the Board of Studies (University of Western Australia), the Academic Advisory Board (Deakin University), the Community Advisory Council (University of Queensland) or the Course Advisory Group (Charles Darwin University).

Information from the US suggested that some universities involved employers in the management of programmes (Raheim, 2009). Of those institutions that did, collaborative arrangements have developed in a number of different ways. For example, in the Los Angeles region, a partnership of four social work programmes, five service organizations for older people and 12 associate agencies have formed the Geriatric Social Work Education Consortium. The collaborative employer/university Curriculum and Field Education committees of this consortium feed into a Steering Committee made up of Academic Field directors and Agency Program Directors (Funderburke et al., 2006: 558).

Selection and admissions processes

Findings are reported in three categories, according to the degree of employer involvement in selection and admission.

No employer involvement

In Sweden, Hogskoleverket (The National Agency for Higher Education) was responsible for issuing regulations for university entry requirements and selection criteria. Social work students were required to have a school leaving certificate or equivalent qualification, but no additional admission requirements of professional social work bodies were found (Hogskoleverket, Undated). In Finland, individual universities determined their own selection criteria and admissions processes, subject to negotiations with the Ministry of Education (Kuronen, 2009). Similar arrangements existed in South Africa, Norway and Canada.

Neither employers nor social work educators necessarily had much influence on admissions to Australian programmes, as selection and admissions processes were determined by individual institutions, and may have been based on academic results alone, without any selection interviews (University of Western Australia) to ensure equal opportunities. Admissions to institutions throughout South Australia and the Northern Territory were handled by an outside agency, with little or no input from the staff delivering the programme (West, 2009). No formal mechanism or organization was found which allowed employers to influence selection policy and admissions to courses in terms of workforce planning, even though one respondent wrote of, ‘a national staffing crisis in human services’ in Australia (Clare, 2009), and in Western Australia of, ‘dwindling numbers of students’ (Clare, 2009).

A different situation applied in Denmark, where standard requirements existed, laid down in legislation (see above), for admission to social work programmes. Two categories of candidate were offered places: half were selected based on school-leavers’ examination grades and half were awarded credits based on a range of criteria, including paid or voluntary work experience, residence abroad and other relevant qualifications (Schools of Social Work [Denmark], 2004: 10).

Informal employer involvement

In the USA, a number of collaborative partnerships between social work organizations and universities have been initiated, partly because of a need to meet shortfalls in the supply and quality of qualified social workers. One example was the Child Welfare Learning Collaborative at Michigan State University, a partnership with Catholic Social Services/St Vincent Homes (Whipple et al., 2006). In these partnerships employers may have had involvement in selection and admissions. In Canada, the University of British Columbia reported that employers had no direct involvement, but that there was indirect influence on admissions policy, as the university may have been inclined to offer places to students interested in areas of practice in which field placements were available (O’Neil, 2009). In Aotearoa New Zealand, there was a two-stage admissions process. Social work programmes were four years long: only in the final two years did students undertake practice placements. Admission to the later years of these courses depended not only on academic success, but also on meeting fitness to practice criteria, and the availability of field work placements (e.g. Social Work at the University of Canterbury, undated).

Formal involvement

In the four countries of the UK, students were expected to meet university admission requirements, and have undergone a criminal record check. In England (UK) and Wales (UK), students were required to be interviewed in person, not necessarily by employers; in Northern Ireland (UK), it was required that service users and carers be involved in selection. The role of employers was not always specified either in the determination of policy or the process of selection.

Design and delivery of the curriculum

Most respondents reported that curriculum design and delivery were matters for universities, in accordance with accrediting body requirements. However, in almost all countries, examples of employer collaboration in respect of curriculum planning and/or delivery were identified, for example, sharing in the teaching at the University of Copenhagen, where members of staff from employing agencies were ‘guest teachers’ (Strauss, 2009).

In Australia, Deakin University established a Field Consultative Committee that enabled partners to contribute to programmes. In addition, the Chief Executive Officer of a partner agency usually chaired the social work Academic Advisory Board, a body required for quality assurance and accreditation procedures (D’Cruz, 2009). Similar arrangements existed at the University of Turku (Finland), which had established advisory boards (8–12 members representing employers, service providers and other stakeholders) for each programme to review and develop the curriculum (Ovaska, 2009).

At the University of British Columbia (Canada), practitioners sat on the BSW and MSW curriculum committees, and were involved in the design of curricula. The university also employed practising social workers as sessional staff to design and deliver courses about social work practice. Similar arrangements existed at Wilfrid Laurier University (Coady, 2009). The University of Kentucky used periodic focus groups comprising agency personnel and providers to assess the curriculum. Findings from these groups informed curriculum reviews (Hoffman, 2009).

Although practitioner contribution to teaching was highly regarded and was popular with students, funding constraint may limit availability. For example, at the University of the Western Cape (South Africa), a community-based organization working with children who have experienced abuse previously delivered the complete course in child abuse. A similar approach was used for other courses at this university. However, funding limitations mean that the university was subsequently able to pay for a maximum of one guest lecture per course (Collins, 2009).

Based upon the responses received, the extent of active employer engagement in qualifying social work programmes was characterized by local arrangements, determined by university and employer strategic priorities (often closely linked with resource issues); the nature and effectiveness of structural arrangements for consultation and co-operation, particularly in terms of the day-to-day management and delivery of programmes; and the quality of relationships between key members of staff on each side of the equation. The examples of good practice found suggested that a more detailed enquiry about what works at local level would be a desirable line for future enquiries.

Practice learning: a key focus for employer engagement

In all countries sampled, a period of practice placement/field education was an integral part of social work education. It was in the organization and delivery of this aspect of the curriculum that the greatest degree of collaboration with employers took place. This is reported schematically in Table 3.

Table 3.

Practice education requirements

Country	Requirements	Equiv. Days (7 hrs)	Payment	Comments
Aotearoa New Zealand	Required minimum of 120 days	120	No system of payment
Australia	Required minimum of 140 days	140	No system of payment
Canada	Required minimum of 700 hours	70	No system of payment – some local arrangements in place	No major difficulties with availability – employers keen to recruit
England (UK)	Required minimum of 200 days in at least 2 settings	200	Daily placement fee funded nationally through General Social Care Council
N Ireland (UK)	240 days required, in at least 2 settings	240	Daily placement fee payable to agencies	At least 185 days in direct supervised practice; 25 days in Preparation for Practice and 30 flexible learning days. A national Practice Learning and Allocation Committee quality assures and allocates placements.
Scotland (UK)	Required minimum of 200 days, in at least 2 settings	200	Daily placement fees payable to agencies, funded through the Scottish Social Services Council	160 of the 200 days must be in supervised direct practice; 40 days may be in skills workshops.
South Africa	Practice education required but no minimum period specified	–	No system of payment	National shortage of placement opportunities reported
USA	Required minimum of 400 hours	57
Wales (UK)	Required 200 days, in at least 2 settings, one of which must be a Local Authority Social Services Department	200	Funded by the Welsh Assembly through the Practice Learning Opportunities Fund.	First placement of 20 days prior to direct work with service users; placements at levels 2 and 3 must not be shorter than 80 days each. Local authorities host a number of students each year and are responsible for finding placements for those students.
NORDIC COUNTRIES
Denmark	6 months	240		2 month ‘field study’; then continuous placement of 4 months.
Finland	Legal requirement but no minimum period specified	–	Some agencies pay students on placement. Some universities may pay practice educators.	SOSNET have agreed that practice education should be equivalent to 30 ECTS
Norway	No minimum requirements	170		8 weeks each in years 1 and 2; 18 weeks in year 3.
Sweden	No legal requirement	75–100		Most programmes include 15–20 weeks practice education

Organization of practice learning

The amount of time spent on placement varied considerably, and was differently expressed in hours, days, weeks and months. Requirements ranged from an unspecified minimum requirement in South Africa, through to a ‘minimum’ of 400 hours (equivalent to 57 seven-hour days) in the USA, to 200 days (hours not specified) in the UK (see Table 2) and more than 200 days in some of the Nordic countries. The only country that appeared not to have a regulatory requirement for the practice component was Sweden. In practice, however, Swedish social work programmes provided practical work opportunities for students.

The difficulty in securing sufficient placements was a common, although not a universal, theme. For example, in Sweden provision of placements was described as ‘a never-ending challenge’, as social workers struggled with ‘cutbacks, limited space and facilities, and lack of organizational priority being given to training’ (Sandström, 2007: 64). A South African contributor reported a national shortage of practice placement opportunities, due to capacity problems in social welfare organizations (Van Dyk, 2009).

In the UK, placement agencies received payment for the provision of student placements. However, in many countries sampled, there was no national system of funding for organizations that provide practice learning opportunities. In Aotearoa New Zealand, serious under-funding for providers of education and training in the social services field was described as a ‘major issue’, particularly in relation to skill-teaching programmes and fieldwork (Perry, 2009). However, in some countries national shortages of qualified social work staff meant that some employers were willing to offer fieldwork opportunities despite the absence of funding. Canadian respondents reported no significant difficulties in finding placements, as many social work organizations were keen to recruit staff and wished to have involvement in potential employees’ professional development (Coady, 2009; O’Neill, 2009). In South Africa, neither state nor non-governmental social welfare organizations were paid for offering social work placements. Collins (2009) comments that, while there was an explicit understanding that the benefits of placements were reciprocal, implicitly, the benefit to universities was greater, due to resource implications for agencies.

Assessment of students’ practice

Significant employer involvement was found in assessment of student competence. For example, in South Africa the only significant involvement of social work agencies in the assessment process appeared to be in respect of student fieldwork placements. This generally consisted of overseeing learning opportunities offered to students, and assessing student performance on fieldwork placements (Collins, 2009). Kay and O’Donoghue (2009: 43), reporting the findings of a ‘cross-examination and analysis’ of documents relating to field work assessment of undergraduate students at six Aotearoa New Zealand institutions, noted that most assessments involved contributions from the student, field educator and the institution’s fieldwork coordinator.

In some instances mention was made of practising social workers and university staff working together to set assessments, although this was usually related to practice placements work. At the University of Jyväskylä (Finland), university staff and social workers have jointly designed practice assessment criteria. Each student has a qualified social worker as supervisor/mentor, who plays a role in the assessment of the student (Kuronen, 2009). In the USA, one example was provided of social work agency staff involvement in setting and supporting other aspects of academic work, but academic staff graded the completed work (Scheyett and McCarthy, 2006).

Examples of good practice in field education

A number of innovative and imaginative schemes designed to develop practice learning opportunities were found. Many of these projects developed from strongly established employer/university relationships, where additional funding was available for project development. Where initiatives ended, this was generally due to a lack of resources. Similarly, some of the larger scale successful projects, sustained over a longer period, cited the need to secure ongoing funding to ensure continued effective employer/university collaboration.

There were several examples of university centres for delivery of social work services combined with practice learning opportunities for students, each of different scale but grounded on similar principles.

Bright Site Service Centre (University of South Africa), provided a counselling, referral, community development and research service for the Sunnyside community and offered regular practical work placements to final year social work students (Unisia Bright Site Service Centre, unpublished document). In essence, the university was developing its own not-for-profit organization on-campus, and intended to extend this project to other satellite campus sites across South Africa in the future (Van Dyk, 2009).

Centre for the Study of Violence against Children (University of Kentucky), offered services directly to children with complex needs, alongside training and consultation services for public sector social workers (Hoffman, 2009).

Development of Social Work Practice (University of Bedfordshire in partnership with Luton Council Centre), where students undertook casework referred to the Centre by the Local Authority (Forbes, 2006).

California Social Work Education Center (CALSWEC), the largest state-based coalition of social work educators and practitioners in the USA, which consisted of 19 social work graduate schools, 58 county departments of social services and mental health, the local chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and the California Department of Social Services (CALSWEC website, 2009). This coalition offered financial support to social work students in the final year of their training in return for two years of service in a county child welfare agency for one year of support received. The CALSWEC also periodically surveyed the public child welfare workforce to determine the degree to which the state had met its child welfare workforce needs. Similar models were found in several US states.

‘Centres of Expertise’ (Finland) were associations of local authorities, universities, polytechnics and non-governmental social welfare organizations, and provided a point of connection between providers of education and training of the social welfare workforce and the employing organizations. They varied in terms of size, organization and in work focus.

There were examples of projects in which academic staff spent significant periods of time within agencies working closely with students and practitioners. For instance, the University of Jyväskylä, with Jyväskylä Polytechnic and the Centre of Expertise for Social Welfare in Central Finland, was developing a local ‘teaching clinic’ to be located in one of the social work offices in the City of Jyväskylä. Here, social workers, social work students and teaching staff worked together to provide better practice teaching and enable small research and development projects (Kuronen, 2009). In Scotland (UK), a pilot project, ‘Learning for Ethical and Effective Practice’ (LEEP), involved social work academics spending one day each week in agencies taking part in the supervision of students.

Elsewhere, creative solutions have been found to specific local challenges concerning placements. Charles Stuart University in NSW has instigated a ‘satellite’ model for rural field education placements, employing local senior social workers as university liaison staff to ‘locate, organize, resources, support and assess’ placements (Bowles and Duncombe, 2005). In England (UK), the West Midlands Rural Social Care Initiative project involved local authorities and universities to address under-usage of rural settings for practice placements.

Discussion

With the exception of the Nordic states, evidence was found that social work programmes, in all sampled countries, must be accredited by external regulatory or professional bodies, or bodies that include professional representation, for graduates to be eligible to practise as social workers. However, employer engagement was not a universal programme or accreditation requirement, and where mentioned there was generally little prescription about how engagement should be achieved. However, the study found evidence of some degree of collaboration between employers and universities in all sampled countries due to the need for social work education programmes to provide students with practical work experience: collaboration exists regardless of whether or not it is a regulatory requirement. From the information available, no comment can be made about the impact of different regulatory structures upon prescriptions for employer engagement, although this would be a fruitful line for enquiry.

However, in the majority of countries sampled, even where regulation existed, there was only limited evidence of employer engagement in the management of social work programmes. Surprisingly, there was little evidence of clear strategies and mechanisms for employers and universities to take account of local or national workforce requirements in consideration of selection and admissions processes. There was little to suggest that, in any of the countries, employers had any significant influence on either the number of students recruited, or on selection criteria or admissions processes. In some instances, admission to social work programmes was based solely on fulfilment of national academic requirements for admission to university, and/or the requirements of specific institutions.

Within specific countries, collaborative arrangements appeared to vary significantly from one university to another, giving rise to local differences in approach rather than these being based upon any national or standardized approach to employer engagement. Whilst there were a number of individual examples of good practice, in particular in relation to the involvement of employers in the design and development of the curriculum, these appear to have been somewhat scattered examples originating from either small-scale, or in some cases larger, more regionally based, initiatives, developed by key individual staff members within each university/social care agency in response to mutual social work employer and university needs.

Where collaboration occurred, two key factors appeared to be central to success: (i) the existence of strong relationships between key members of staff from each partner organization, personally committed to developing and maintaining a collaborative approach; (ii) the availability of both initial and continuing resources to sustain collaboration. A significant ongoing commitment in terms of both staff time and resources were required from both employers and universities if a meaningful partnership between employers and universities in the training of social workers is to be sustained.

However, it cannot be asserted in an unqualified manner that strong employer engagement in social work education is a priori desirable. Unintended consequences may follow; for example, employers may be more concerned to see social work students trained to meet the requirements of particular posts than to see the development of a student’s critical awareness of social welfare. The case must be made. It is evident from this study that in some universities social work education is delivered without much, if any, employer involvement: this may or may not be desirable.

Conclusion

At the outset, this question was posed, ‘to what extent, if at all, and if so how, should employers be involved in social work education?’ The question cannot be fully answered by the findings derived from the current study, both because extreme caution must be used when drawing conclusions from a study using such a pragmatic methodology and also on account of the limited response rate. However, the study does illuminate aspects of employer engagement for further comparative exploration, given that no comparative empirical study seems to have been conducted on this subject during the past 10 years. There is another reason why the question cannot be easily answered; it is in part an ideological matter: a question of belief about the role of the employer and therefore of the desirable extent of employer engagement with social work education.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Our thanks also to the respondents in several countries that provided us with information.

Ethical approval from: the University of Salford’ Research Ethics Panel (RGEC08/ 035) Association of Directors of Children’s Services; and Association of Directors of Adults’ Services.

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial sponsorship of Skills for Care, without which this research would not have been conducted.

Notes

References

Australian Association of Social Workers (2008) Australian Social work Accreditation and Education Standards. Available at: http://www.aasw.asn.au/becomeamember/becomingasw/eligible.htm.

Bowles

Duncombe

(2005) ‘A Satellite Model for Rural and Remote Education’, Rural Society 15: 284–295.

Brauns

H.-J.

Kramer

(1986) Social Work Education in Europe. Frankfurt am Main: Eigenverlag des Deutschen Vereins für öffentliche and private Fürsorge.

CASWE (2008) Standards for Accreditation. Ottawa, Ontario: CASWE.

Chui

W.-H.

(2008) ‘Of Field Education in Australia and Hong Kong: a Social Work Educator’s Personal Reflection’, Hong Kong Journal of Social Work 42: 33–49.

Clare

(2009) Request for Information regarding Social Work Education in Australia. Personal communication by email

Coady

(2009) Request for Information regarding Social Work Education in Canada. Personal communication by email.

Collins

K.J.

(2009) Request for Information Regarding Social Work Education in South Africa. Personal communication by email.

CSWE (2009) Accreditation. Available at: http://www.cswe.org/CSWE/accreditation/.

10.

D’Cruz

(2009) Request for Information regarding Social Work Education in Australia Personal communication by email.

11.

Durst

(2006) ‘Social Welfare and Social Work Education in Canada: Implications for Canada’s North’, in Conference on International Co-operation in Social Work and Social Policy, Bodø, Norway, June 2006. Available at: www.uarctic.org/Paper_by_Douglas_Durst_WYU7L.pdf.file.

12.

Forbes

(2006) ‘A Seamless Transition’, Community Care 40–41: 21–27

13.

Funderburke

Damron-Rodriguez

Simmons

(2006) ‘Creating Consortia across the Continuum of Care: Geriatric Social Work Field Education’, Social Work Education 25: 543–568

14.

GSCC (2002) Accreditation of Universities to Grant Degrees in Social Work. London: General Social Care Council.

15.

Hamilton

R.J.

Bowers

B.J.

(2006) ‘Internet Recruitment and E-mail Interviews in Qualitative Studies’, Qualitative Health Research 16: 821–835.

16.

Hoffman

K.S.

(2009) Request for Information regarding Social Work Education in the USA. Personal communication by email.

17.

Hogskoleverket (Undated) Role of the Swedish Government and Agencies. Available at: http://english.hsv.se/highereducationinsweden/roleofgovernmentandagencies.4.28afa2dc11bdcdc557480002235.html.

18.

IASSW (2003) Global Survey of Social Work Education. Southampton: University of Southampton.

19.

Kendall

K.A.

Rao

(1984) World Guide to Social Work Education. New York: Council on Social Work Education for International Association of Schools of Social Work.

20.

Kuronen

(2009) Request for Information about Social Work Education in Finland. Personal communication by email.

21.

O’Neil

(2009) Request for Information Regarding Social Work Education in Canada. Personal communication by email.

22.

Ovaska

(2009) Request for Information Regarding Social Work Education in Finland. Personal communication by email.

23.

Perry

(2009) Request for Information Regarding Social Work Education in New Zealand. Personal communication by email.

24.

Raheim

(2009) Request for Information Regarding Social Work Education in the USA. Personal communication by email.

25.

Sandström

(2007) ‘Higher Education for Social Work in Sweden’, Australian Social Work 60: 56–67.

26.

Schools of Social Work [Denmark] (2004) ECTS Information Package. Available at: www.dsh-aa.dk/ECTSInformationPackage.pdf.

27.

Scottish Social Services Council (2003) Rules for Social Work Training. Available at: http://www.sssc.uk.com/Social+Service+Workforce+Planning/Qualification+framework+(SCQF)/Qualification+framework+(SCQF).htm.

28.

Shardlow

S.M.

(2000) ‘Legal Responsibility and Liability in Fieldwork’, in Cooper

Briggs

(eds), Fieldwork in the Human Services, pp. 117–130. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

29.

Social Workers’ Registration Board [New Zealand] (2008) Programme Recognition/Re-recognition Requirements. Available at: http://www.swrb.org.nz/RecognisedQualifications.html.

30.

Strauss

(2009) Request for Information about Social Work Education in Denmark. Personal communication by email.

31.

Van Dyk

(2009) Request for Information Regarding Social Work Education in South Africa. Personal communication by email.

32.

Watts

T.D.

Elliott

Mayadas

N.S.

(1993) International Handbook on Social Work Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

33.

West

(2009) Request for Information about Social Work Education in Denmark. Personal communication by email.

34.

Whipple

Solomon-Jozwiak

Williams-Hecksel

. (2006) ‘Preparing Social Workers for Child Welfare Practice: An Innovative University-Agency Learning collaborative’, Social Work Education 25: 92–107.