Abstract
Indigenisation and globalisation are major themes in the papers in this issue. They provide much food for thought, and we hope questions for discussion and debate will improve social work education theory, practice and policy.
Arnon Bar-On’s article ‘Indigenous knowledge: Ends or means?’ begins the issue and sets interesting questions for debate. In it, he analyses the arguments for and against indigenisation in social work and social development and suggests that there is a tension between the ideological ends and the pragmatic ends that proponents of indigenisation proclaim that cannot be avoided. Rephrased in another way, Bar-On considers indigenous knowledge useful in specific contexts for specific purposes, but suggests it cannot address the wider epistemological and ontological issues that are raised by those using indigenisation to transcend Western-dominated discourses that result in the subjugation of locality-specific and culturally relevant knowledge. ‘Whose knowledge counts and why?’, he implies, raises questions about the ‘independent development’ of indigenous knowledge. Also, he questions whether those practising rational thinking would accept the alternative responses offered by indigenous knowledge. To make his point, Bar-On cites the case of ‘Aboriginal Australians teaching their sons to produce bows and arrows’ that reach 25 m in a context of declining game and regulations on ‘hunting that makes them virtually obsolete’. Social work knowledge and understanding flourish through debate, and so we encourage our readers to write responses to the issues raised because there are other purposes for indigenous knowledge which include preserving ancestral heritages, demonstrating that there are viable alternative worldviews that can solve current social problems and the importance of learning from these different perspectives. Bar-On concludes that not opposing modernity would enable indigenous knowledges to achieve more than they do otherwise. We would welcome hearing your views on these points.
‘Social work is context-bound: The need for indigenization of social work practice in Nigeria’ by Ernest Osas Ugiagbe is the second article in this issue. His concern is that Western imperialism has destroyed much of the indigenous knowledge among Nigeria’s 350 groups and cultures, and calls for these to be revitalised by becoming indigenised and asking social workers to play an important role in making this happen at community level. Indigenising in a large country with significant diversities within and between ethnic groups is challenging, but Ugiagbe argues that there are important models of indigenisation that can be useful in achieving a context-specific and culturally relevant social work. Key to this, he suggests, is that social workers practise in a manner that ‘recognizes and values the worth of individuals, families and communities and protects and preserves the dignity of each’. While these contexts are crucial to his arguments, there is one context which is absent from his article, and that is the economic and structural fabric of Nigeria, which also requires attention. An important question here, for debate, is ‘How can social workers engage in structural change when it involves challenges emanating from macro-level structures like the economy and national governance?’. Again, we encourage our readers to explore some of these issues, by writing articles or sending us ‘news and views’ about examples that they have either engaged in or know about that would deal with these questions and issues which have no easy answers, but are raised in this work.
The third article, ‘Hakka cultural roots: Metalinguistic awareness and practice principles’ by Carol A Leung, focuses on indigenisation and acculturation. She argues that maintaining linguistic heritage languages is a strength that enables the Hakka people to adapt successfully wherever they migrate because learning their own and the dominant language where they live encourages them to participate in the other societies in which they find themselves – inside or outside China. She suggests that social workers can facilitate the transmission of heritage languages like Hakka and make for more culturally relevant intervention with this specific minority ethnic group by identifying 10 multicultural principles which focus on strengths among the Hakka peoples. Of significance among these are ‘listening and reflection [which] … leads to knowledge transfer about adjustment and integration through symbolic interactions’. These vital skills are well-known to all those in social work education and practice, but a vital important question to ask here is ‘whether structural discrimination can be tackled through metalinguistic awareness and how?’. Again, we encourage readers to contribute to further debates about these issues because they are so important to contemporary social work, especially in countries that are trying to develop the profession, as in many countries in the Global South, or to preserve its stance regarding social and environmental justice and human rights in the context of a neoliberal globalised world in which the free-market reigns to commodify people by turning them into consumers and opposes publicly funded welfare expenditures because they are too costly in cash-starved nation-states imposing austerity and refusing to raise taxes in any substantial way.
‘The immigration detention center as a transnational problem: Implications for international social work’ by Rich Furman, Michelle Sanchez, Alissa Ackerman and Tien Ung is the title of the next article. Given the current controversies about migration, these authors raise the issue of the criminalisation of (im)migrants, especially in the United States, where they argue the process began following the World Trade Center attack on 09 September 2001 (9/11). Sadly, this process is increasingly being adopted in other countries, including in Europe, where the recent seekers of asylum fleeing war-torn countries, including Syria, have been refused entry and subjected to serious restrictions on their movement across the continent in a new replay of ‘Fortress Europe’, and Hungary taking the lead, as we write, to criminalise any asylum-seeker entering the country ‘illegally’ or cutting the razor-wire wall it has erected between it and Serbia to gain access to a place of refuge. Fortunately, there have been and continue to be people’s movements organising resistance to such draconian policies (see Dominelli and Moosa-Mitha, 2014, for examples from various countries). However, even those European citizens offering assistance to asylum seekers and migrants are now being targeted too. For example, in Austria, citizens helping asylum seekers across its border with Hungary have been threatened with imprisonment. These issues pose important questions for social workers, especially those working with refugee and asylum seekers in practice, and so need fuller discussion and debate. Again, we would be keen to hear from any of you – your experiences, your research or your practice. In a globalised world, it is essential that we address social problems by pooling our knowledge and experiences.
Hend Al-Ma’seb, Anwar Alkhurinej and Mohammed Alduwaihi raise important considerations about ‘The gap between theory and practice in social work’ in their article. Although written about the situation in Kuwait, they raise questions about the role of both Western and Arabic knowledges in the curriculum and fieldwork experiences in that country. They have used a convenience sample of 342 participants to explore their concerns and have highlighted how job challenges and requirements, curriculum requirements, job descriptions and self-development were factors that accounted for the theory–practice gap. Additionally, gender, type of university and other factors specific to individual participants also impacted these findings. Also, of major importance to a large number of participants was the issue of working within their comfort zone because they did not get the opportunity for further training or self-development (continued professional development) which would allow them to keep abreast of new developments in the profession or even undertake their own research. While the authors suggest caution in the generalisability of their results, they suggest that in Kuwait, their pioneering research study should be supplemented by further research. An interesting question here, around which we seek readers’ opinions, is that of ‘What happens when seeking to indigenise in a different cultural context which lacks a strong historical foundation on which to build?’. Of course, readers may have different questions they would like to discuss, and we welcome your contributions on those concerns that interest you.
The final article in this issue is that by Ka Lin and Raymond K.H. Chan, called ‘Repositioning three models of social policy with reference to East Asian welfare systems (EAWS)’. Lin and Chan argue that East Asian countries have begun to develop their own models for considering welfare development and practice in this part of the world. They centre their analysis on three models: the redistributive model which they see as appropriate for the West, the development model which they argue has been formulated by developing countries, and the productivist model that which has been created by emerging or newly industrialised countries in East Asia. They find that the productivist model best meets the needs of EAWS countries because it has specific contextual points that are taken into account by those who have formulated it. Although they claim it has components derived from the other two models, they believe that the productivist approach gives dominance to neither the market nor the state, but provides a unique combination of features that makes it different from these two. At the same time, Lin and Chan argue that EAWS’ need to respond to current democratic pressures has caused it to adopt some social protection measures espoused under the redistributive model. They conclude that social policies and the models upon which they are predicated need to constantly evolve to meet varying demands and situations. Policymakers cannot sit still. In their arguments, the authors suggest that there is no one model that fits all, but at the same time raise the question about ‘whether ideal types can provide the theoretical development needed for a dynamic and interdependent world’. Another important question is ‘whether the diversity of policies and practices around welfare throughout the world can be easily captured by looking for macro-level models’. We welcome your views in the form of other questions, articles, debates or comments on our social media sites – use our blog and Twitter pages on the International Social Work (ISW) website. Let us work towards building the new forms of knowledge that educators, practitioners and policymakers can use to promote human and environmental well-being now and in the future.