A psycho-educational learning framework for international field work abroad

International field work training

Four major models of international placements and their support systems are described in the literature: the independent or one-time placement model, the neighbor-country model, the on-site model, and the exchange or reciprocal model (Nuttman-Shwartz and Berger, 2011; Pettys et al., 2005). In the last two models, the students have a strong support system during their field work training in the host country. In the on-site model, a faculty member from the home country serves as supervisor and/or liaison, and there are weekly supervision seminars. However, there is minimal contact with the home university. In the exchange or reciprocal model, supervision is provided by a home university faculty member who specializes in professional education in cross-cultural contexts, journal writing, and reflective assignments (Barlow, 2007; Berger, 2010). This faculty member is generally responsible for orientation to the host country, field work supervision, and weekly field seminars.

As in any other field work training in social work, the international field work experience plays a critical role in globalizing the profession (Cleak and Wilson, 2004; Panos et al., 2004) and generates a level of learning that is not seen in other conventional courses (Gilin and Young, 2009). In this connection, Taylor (1994) noted that students working overseas often report culture shock or they experience a process of transformation in which they reevaluate and challenge their original attitudes, beliefs, and way of thinking, which has been coined as ‘cultural disequilibrium’.

Several studies have attempted to shed light on the uniqueness of international field work. Barlow (2007) noted that along with the transitions that students experience, they enter a ‘third space’, which is defined as a ‘space whose most salient features are instability and lack of clarity about where one belongs and what one should be doing’ (p. 244). Living and working in such a space has an effect on the students’ cognitive and emotional well-being. This experience arouses anxiety, as it challenges the students’ beliefs and causes them to reexamine their original perceptions. Students have reported a wide range of intense emotional responses, which include frustration, hurt, anger, guilt, and shame (Barlow, 2007; Lough, 2009).

It should be noted that in terms of the developmental perspective of supervision (Reynolds, 1942; Towle, 1945), students experience many of the same emotions in the initial stages of learning. However, students abroad can experience extreme emotions due to being a long way from home, in surroundings where the culture and language are alien and where they are without their natural support systems of family and friends (Nuttman-Shwartz and Berger, 2011). Furthermore, students have raised questions relating to modern colonialism and patronizing professionalism, as well as ethical questions and questions relating to the essence of cultural sensitivity and knowledge about social work outside of the local culture (Mathiesen and Lager, 2007; Xu, 2006).

In a recent study on international field work, Ranz, Nuttman-Shwartz and Thachil (2015) found that students experience a unique learning process of transition, where paternalistic attitudes move in the direction of cultural sensitivity and cultural relativism, and then move back again. This process enables them to develop the professional skills required for ISW, such as cultural sensitivity and intercultural communication, and to become familiar with different cultures.

In addition, students from countries in the global North might lack knowledge and methods of practice that are suitable for countries in the global South, and the supervision received abroad is not always able to close this gap (Mathiesen and Lager, 2007). There is also a tendency to use northern paradigms for ISW in developing countries. For example, students often tend to propose emotion-focused interventions, which are familiar to them but are not always suitable for interventions in their field work abroad (Midgley, 2001). To the opposite extreme, students who have learned theories ‘back home’ might avoid using those theories out of fear that they will be inappropriate (Ranz, Nuttman-Shwartz and Thachil, 2015). Yet another challenge relates to changes in faculty–student boundaries and changes in the relationship between faculty members and students during the field work experience abroad (Nuttman-Shwartz and Berger, 2011), which can be very confusing for students. Another source of confusion lies in the different situations that the students encounter in the host country, where they ‘wear several hats’ (e.g. on the one hand they are students in training, and on the other hand they are tourists in a new or popular tourist destination such as Asia or Africa). All of this contributes to a sense of uncertainty about their role and mission in the international field work placement (Barlow, 2007; Huegler et al., 2012).

To summarize, there are several components of ISW that differ from traditional field practice: (1) the intense emotions of students; (2) ‘cultural disequilibrium’ – culture shock, instability, and lack of clarity; (3) absence of natural support systems; (4) lack or avoidance of knowledge and methods; (5) questions relating to modern colonialism and paternalism; (6) tourism – combining traveling with professional visits which are often confused with each other; and (7) changes in boundaries between faculty members and students.

In light of the unique complexities of ISW, especially field placement abroad, attempts have been made to specify what students need in order to deal with this challenge. For the most part, the literature emphasizes preparations prior to field practice abroad (Beecher et al., 2012; Bell and Anscombe, 2012; Mathiesen and Lager, 2007; Rai, 2004). Such preparation focuses mainly on studying language (Beecher et al., 2012; Rai, 2004) as well as on the social welfare systems, professional social work policies, history, geography, political system, and culture of the host country (Beecher et al., 2012; Mathiesen and Lager, 2007; Pettys et al., 2005). In addition, before the students travel abroad, the program emphasizes reflection on professional values, models of practice, and orientation to social justice and human rights (Bell and Anscombe, 2012), as well as ISW and social development (Schwartz et al., 2011). Regarding post-program training, the literature mainly relates to specific seminars that focus on reflective examination of the students’ experience in the host country (Nuttman-Shwartz and Ranz, 2014; Schwartz et al., 2011).

What do students need while they are engaging in field work abroad?

The literature focuses mainly on the importance of a support system that deals with the emotional and cognitive transitions experienced by the students while they are in field work abroad (Barlow, 2007; Kreitzer et al., 2011; Lough, 2009; Rai, 2004). Barlow (2007) suggests that the support system should assist in integrating the students’ experiences abroad into a personal framework of social work practice grounded in anti-oppressive practice. This requires awareness of differences and acknowledging the emotional impact of those cultural variations. In addition, there is a need for supervision, which should consist of critical guided reflection, debriefing, and discussion of daily experiences, thoughts, and feelings that are documented in journal assignments (Bell and Anscombe, 2012; Lough, 2009). In addition, Lough (2009) emphasizes that without regular field support, students may be reinforced with erroneous ideas, and they may stereotype their experiences. This can be ineffective or counterproductive and lead to greater prejudice, less tolerance, and poor cross-cultural understanding.

Notwithstanding the importance of support systems and supervision for students during the period of field work abroad, to the best of our knowledge, there is no detailed framework that specifies the components and strategies that should be included in the attempt to meet this unique challenge. To fill this gap, this article will explore the use of an experiential 3-week psycho-educational training seminar.

This seminar has been developed by the author over the last 4 years and is based on analyzing professional literature, research findings, and the author’s self-reflection while she was accompanying students once a year for a 3-week international field work program at a university in India.

The seminar includes components that are based on traditional field practicum, with adjustments that are needed for work in the unique arena of international field placements. The reflections presented in this article are based on the author’s observations, reports, and perceptions which she recorded in her personal diary before, during, and after the seminars. The documentation was analyzed in three steps. First, the author read the diary from beginning to end in order to identify the participants’ voices. Second, she identified three main responses of the students to situations and issues that the students dealt with in their experience abroad and processed in the seminar (Patton, 2002; Unrau and Coleman, 1997). Third, she integrated the responses into main themes after careful examination and reexamination of the texts. All three steps were validated by an external academic professional who took part in the international program.

Context of the program

The School of Social Work in Israel offers a 3-week international field work training program in collaboration with an Institute of Social Work in India as a part of the ISW program. The program is intended for third-year Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) students and is a separate track or specialization, including six compulsory theoretical and experimental courses: (1) a course on human rights in ISW; (2) a course on social aspects of globalization processes; (3) a mini-course which provides a historical overview on the language and traditions of the host countries; (4) a workshop which focuses on examination and awareness of social work in a foreign country; (5) a supervised research seminar on issues relating to ISW; (6) a second workshop, which is required for students who have returned from field work abroad which focuses on reflective examination of the students’ experience in the host country (i.e. in India), as well as on integration of the knowledge they accumulated there and in the sending country (Israel).

Regarding the field work training, the Israeli students have been engaging in field work since their first year of social work education which continues before and after their field work abroad. In India, they participate in field work training together with the Indian students. Field work placements include two centers that provide educational and emotional responses to children and teenage girls living in slum neighborhoods, and a center at the train station in the city for adolescent boys who were abandoned or lost.

The field work is conducted in two stages: the stage of observation and the stage of intervention. In the first stage, the Israeli students are paired with a local social worker, and they observe the activities, clients, and methods of intervention used at the social service. In the second stage, they implement interventions with the approval of the local social worker, which are adapted to the needs of the local population as well as to the local norms.

Seminar description

The Psycho-Educational Training seminar was held for 3 weeks (6 days a week). The seminar consisted of 18 meetings, which were held every evening at the same time and place and lasted between 1.5 and 3 hours. The setting of the seminar was flexible, and the group consisted of 5–7 students, depending on the number of students engaging in field work abroad during that particular year. Over the years, a total of 24 students participated in the seminar.

As mentioned, the main goal of the seminar was to apply a framework for supervision that includes all three main functions: administrative, educational, and professional–personal support. With this in mind, four main components were developed for the psycho-educational seminar. The main components were based on a traditional field practicum, with necessary adjustments for working in the unique arena of international field placements: (1) processing feelings and thoughts; (2) integrating theory with practice and learning new skills; (3) processing beliefs and attitudes relating to power relations and oppression; and (4) connecting local social work with ISW, social policy, social service delivery, and direct practice. Five strategies were adopted to achieve these components: occasional supervision by a local professional faculty member, guided reflection, debriefing, discussion, and structured written reports.

The psycho-educational seminar took place in the evening, after a day when students usually witnessed sights, situations, and conditions that overwhelmed them emotionally and flooded them with new, different, and disturbing thoughts. The seminar aimed to help the students recognize and recollect events and features, including unfolding thoughts and feelings that they experienced at that time through a process of guided reflection (Atkins and Murphy, 1993). The importance of guided reflection in international field placement lies mainly in the transformational learning experience (Lough, 2009). To achieve this transformation, a rational discourse is necessary, in which new roles and actions are explored (Lough, 2009). The psycho-educational seminar applied the ‘guided reflection-on-action’ model of Fisher and Somerton (2000), based on the models of Wright (1989) and Atkins and Murphy (1993). Students were asked to recall and describe an incident that occurred and reflect on it in a series of steps: (1) identification of an incident that affected or surprised them; (2) a description of the situation, including thoughts and feelings; (3) what was familiar within the situation, and what was unique (‘what bells did the situation ring?’); (4) was there something that they felt ‘went wrong’?; and (5) relevance of knowledge – did it help explain the incident? How complete was their use of knowledge?

Focusing on an actual event can help the students get a grip on their thoughts and emotions. When this process is experienced in a group, it provides an environment that is emotionally containing and reduces threats and anxiety (Fisher and Somerton, 2000; Savaya and Gardner, 2012). In addition, when students are asked to identify an incident, they can process the assumptions and values that drove them to action, devote time to reconstruction, and explore alternative behaviors. This process can also generate new knowledge (Savaya and Gardner, 2012). According to the traditional Person in Environment (PIE) model, every social worker needs to show understanding of people, their problems, and their difficulties (Karles and Wandrei, 1994), but the implementation of these approaches in an international context is especially complex and difficult. This complexity is particularly hard for students from countries in the global North, who lack knowledge and methods of practice that are suitable in the global South. As mentioned, the supervision that these students receive cannot always close this gap (Mathiesen and Lager, 2007). To overcome this complexity, a faculty member of the social work school at the local university was invited to the seminar to help link practice with theoretical principles. With the assistance of the local faculty member, the students discussed the field work from the perspectives of theory and practice, evaluated the interventions, and described their feelings and reactions.

Consistent with the research literature (Beecher et al., 2012; Mathiesen and Lager, 2007; Xu, 2006), the students participating in the seminar were not only unfamiliar with the local social work system, but also lacked knowledge about the social welfare system in their home countries, including social welfare policies and laws, licensing, and social work organizations. Because the students were unable to compare social policy and social services in their home countries with the policies and services abroad, it was very difficult for them to understand the whole picture of the social organization and what interventions should be promoted. To fill this gap, the students were asked to bring a report to the seminar with information about their field work placement, such as follows: What is the organizational structure of the field work placement? What population does the organization serve? What needs does the organization provide for? Are you familiar with a similar framework in your country? What are the similarities or differences between that framework and your field work placement? What thoughts and feelings did you have during and after the visit? Through these reports, students could gather information about the different social service programs, their staff, and their clients. A local faculty member (mentioned earlier) was also invited to participate in these meetings in order to help the students understand the system of social services and social policy in India. The faculty member who accompanied the group abroad (the author) then helped the students draw comparisons between the social services and policies in India and in Israel.

The aim of these strategies was to help students process intense emotions, interventions, and issues. The following vignettes highlight the main responses of the students to situations and issues that they dealt with in their experience abroad and processed in the seminar. As mentioned, the vignettes are based on the self-reflections that the author had documented in her personal diary.

Examples

Discussion

‘Freezing, avoidance, and assumptions’ were the three main responses of the students to situations and issues that they encountered abroad and processed in the seminar. The psycho-educational training seminar enables the students in a supportive environment to reflect ‘on action’, and to process their feelings, thoughts, and actions. Furthermore, it encourages the students to reevaluate and challenge their original attitudes, beliefs, and ways of thinking.

Another unique component of the psycho-educational training seminar abroad that enabled the students to acquire new knowledge, experience a process of transformation, and build a support system was the occasional supervision by a local faculty member. For external supervision to succeed, adjustments must be made in the traditional field practicum. One of the main adjustments is to establish close collaboration with the social work school in the host country, especially with local faculty members. This collaboration is vital and demands an investment of considerable efforts and willingness to work together. In the process of working closely with a faculty member from a different culture, particularly in the seminar, both members (Indian and Israeli) need to experience a process that is usually attributed to the students. In this process, they deconstruct social, professional, and national schemata that have been internalized as part of the development of their personal and professional identities (Cinamon and Hasson, 2009).

Although collaboration with the faculty members took place separately, it affected the seminar. The process took time and involved numerous professional and personal discussions. However, once trust, understanding, and respect were established, the strong impact of the collaboration became evident. It gave the students an opportunity for exposure to indigenous knowledge, especially to ‘voices from the South’. Such exposure is important in light of the criticism that the ISW curriculum is based on assumptions of universality that derive from Western societies and are grounded in Western experiences (Lyons and Hokenstad, 2012; Razack, 2009; Singh et al., 2010; Wehbi et al., 2014). Hokenstad (2012) claimed that ‘international social work education perpetuates cultural and intellectual imperialism and discourages development or valuing of indigenous models promoting dominant Western ideas and practices’ (pp. 172–3). Singh et al. (2010) noted that if one wants to prevent neo-colonialism, there is a need to incorporate current indigenous practice, thought, and research in the curriculum. Furthermore, the collaboration promoted ‘internationalization’, a process where people interact across national borders, cultures, traditions, and everyday life routines through organizations that link the local with the global and vice versa. The emphasis on the local is important because it is the space where everything occurs (Dominelli, 2012).

The Israeli students were given background on the philosophical and practical approach to the development of social work and welfare in India, particularly background on the formation of slums and rural-to-urban migration. This encouraged them to consider the consequences of immigration in their own country – mainly the situation of immigrants who arrived in Israel from Africa and Eastern Europe. It also gave them an opportunity to reflect on the similarities and differences between the contexts of India and Israel. In collaborating with a local faculty member, there is a ‘recognition that students schooled in Western models of social work will likely feel conflicted about how to integrate the practice principles in India’ (Barlow, 2007). This reorganization is vital in order to support social work students in an ISW program, due to the feelings of inadequacy that students working overseas often have.

Another component that distinguished the psycho-educational training seminar abroad from traditional field work training relates to the processing of beliefs and attitudes regarding power and oppression. Oftentimes, there were incidents that required the students to reflect on the interaction between race, gender, and other characteristics. Through guided reflection, they gained new knowledge about their identities and status in the social order (Heron, 2005). Being White and in a minority, the students had to deconstruct and critically examine their own White racial identity, their racial privilege, and their personal role in perpetuating racism (Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1998). Awareness of one’s own race, ethnicity, and status in a larger socio-political hierarchy requires one to adopt a framework of power and privilege (Garran and Werkmeister-Rozas, 2013). This process is crucial because one of the dangers of ISW is modern colonialism, imperialism, and patronizing professionalism (Mathiesen and Lager, 2007; Singh et al., 2010; Xu, 2006).

The students were extremely aware of the implications of their own gender and its status in India. The issue of women’s status in India is quite complex. As Kaur (2014) noted, ‘women in India have always been considered subordinate to men’ (p. 1). Therefore, the students were requested to simultaneously reflect on their oppressed and privileged positions. This dual position is a concept that has been defined in the literature as intersectionality, or as ‘the reality that we simultaneously occupy both oppressed and privileged positions and that these positions intersect in complex ways’ (Sensoy and DiAngelo, 2012: 115). Awareness and understanding of this concept gave students an enhanced perspective of cultural competence. This perspective is vital, because social workers have an obligation to deliver culturally competent services (Garran and Werkmeister-Rozas, 2013).

Moreover, as mentioned, the students made incorrect basic assumptions which derive from attitudes relating to power and oppression. Bion (1961) noted that basic assumptions develop when members of a group behave ‘as if’ they are sharing the same unconscious belief. This belief is basic, precisely because it underlies the thinking, experiences, and activities of all group members even though the group as a whole remains unaware of the emotional state that is being avoided. As mentioned, one of the assumptions raised in the seminar was that Indian people live in slums by choice. The local faculty member presented the real picture to the students by clarifying the situation and presenting background on the slums. This intervention shattered the students’ erroneous assumption that ‘people want to stay in the slums’. Through guided reflection, the students deconstructed and critically examined their personal and professional views and their role in perpetuating racism.

In light of the above, the following are practical guidelines for training social work students in international field work abroad:

This psycho-educational training seminar is a framework that aims to grapple with the unique complexity of the international arena, while providing the students with all three functions of supervision: supportive, educational, and administrative.

However, a number of limitations should be mentioned. First, the seminar is designed for students coming from countries in the global North to countries in the global South (particularly Israeli students visiting India). Hence, it would be worthwhile to adapt the framework to students coming from the Southern countries to the Northern countries. In addition, the seminar involves an investment of resources (e.g. for the accompanying faculty member and for the group of students), which are not always available. Future studies should examine the processes that the students experience and the outcomes of such a seminar, as well as the collaboration process and transformation experienced by both faculty members (host and the visitor). Finally, an attempt should be made to define the characteristics of faculty members who are suitable for this job.