Abstract
This comparative descriptive study sought to determine the impact of glocalization on international social work education. Using quantitative methods, this study reports objective findings for a randomly selected, non-probability, purposive sample of 178 faculty members who were geographically distributed among faculties and departments of social work at 22 universities in eight Arab countries. The primary research instrument used was a standardized paper and pencil questionnaire. Data analysis of the responses of the faculty members found that participants’ attitudes were equally weak on the track of glocalization and international social work education. This could be attributed to the variables of faculty members, social work students, university textbooks, quality of library services, methods of teaching, field practicum, and quality of student evaluation. In contrast, the attitudes of the faculty members averaged on the track of glocalization and international social work education, which could be attributed to the variable of social work curricula. The analysis also revealed a marked absence of sustained contact with social work professionals and scholars from other regions and societies of the world.
Introduction
International social work education provides a valuable forum to increase professional cooperation among social workers in other countries (Lough, 2009). International exposure is thought to be beneficial to social work students regardless of whether they choose to practice social work at home or abroad (Crisp, 2009). International exposure within education provides students with an opportunity to develop their knowledge and understanding of international social work and to develop cultural competence (Das and Anand, 2012). It also increases their ability to work across borders and cultures as well as within their own country and culture (Gilin and Young, 2009). Social work education is pivotal to international social work and takes place inter alia through academic exchange and the transfer of ideas and development of effective models to challenge injustice and confront social problems. An international perspective can also offer a broad lens through which to understand local problems and issues (Saito and Johns, 2009). Increasingly, social work education has become an integral part of higher education systems all over the world, given the common focus of working toward a university-based qualification. Nevertheless, in many countries, keeping social work curricula relevant and current remains a challenge for social work educators (Ahmadi, 2003). Social workers’ ability to deliver quality services to needy people depends largely on the quality and standard of the education offered within locally based academic programs (Ahmed, 2009).
This study is an endeavor to contribute to the forging of a new approach to the formulation of education for international social work in Arab universities. Such an approach is needed if Arab universities are to keep abreast of developments in the field. For this reason, the need arises to identify the social effects/implications of what is termed ‘glocalization’ on the quality of international social work education.
Defining international social work
Clarity of terms used to define concepts in relation to international social work education such as ‘globalization’ and ‘glocalization’ is important to understand how thinking globally and acting locally can make best use of the internationalizing forces required to enhance professional unity in both the global and local context (Hong and Song, 2010; Hugman et al., 2010). While internationalization focuses on mutual understanding and respect between cultures and contexts in different national settings (Gray and Coates, 2010), there is an imperative to ensure that these principles strengthen the potential for reinforcing cooperation rather than imposing any ideologies which lend themselves to professional imperialism, particularly between Western and, in this case, Arab nations.
According to the social work literature, ‘Globalization’ denotes the global integration of different people through exposure to international capitalism and increases the interconnections and flow of capital, technology, knowledge, and practices between countries (Findlay and McCormack, 2007) toward a global culture and economy. Globalization reinforces a market economy and promotes privatized systems of social welfare governance (Deepak, 2011; Hong and Song, 2010; Ibrahim, 2015b). It also points to the increased connection and integration of social, cultural, political, and economic processes; political influence at the local, national, regional, and international levels; the free flow of trade and capital across national borders; and the increased migration of people, especially migrant workers (Crabtree et al., 2014; Schwartz et al., 2014; Starke-Meyerring, 2005).
The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) defines globalization apolitically as the process of global integration where people and world communities come together to experience a common economic, social, and cultural environment. The increasing interest in international social work is attributed to enhanced awareness of international issues brought about by globalization. Lyons (2006) has suggested that globalization can seem a remote process, related only to the economic and commercial world. However, it impacts (differentially) the work opportunities and living conditions of populations around the world and has also influenced thinking about welfare policies, including state provision. It has implications for the practice and education of social and community workers in both affluent and poverty-stricken states.
However, the term ‘glocal’ has been used to refer to the idea of thinking globally and acting locally (Hong and Song, 2010; Hugman et al., 2010), as while global influences are unavoidable, local communities still have the power to attend to local issues and problems. In international social work, global forces toward standardization and homogenization are resisted so as to respond in locally relevant ways to local issues. Given that international social work draws on internationalizing forces to connect its values, professional unity, and the will to solve social problems that bring social justice to marginalized and oppressed people wherever they are, it also encourages awareness of the diversity of cultures across contexts through cross-cultural and culturally relevant practice (Brydon et al., 2012; Ibrahim, 2015a; Lalayants et al., 2015; Lord, 2011). This terrain of comparative analysis is essential to understand diverse and common issues and problems across countries and policy and service responses. International social work minimally involves practice and policy beyond the level of the nation-state and knowledge that spans diverse contexts and is global in scope. Therefore, to say social work is global is to claim its scope extends worldwide, and to say it is international means it involves different countries (Mizrahi and Davis, 2008). Glocal metaphorically represents the connection/link between location and social environment (McDonald, 2006). Therefore, it is preferable to use a glocalization approach in the practice of social work: thinking globally and acting locally (Hong and Song, 2010).
In short, social work seeks global community and international activities or events that take place simultaneously in many countries (Tripodi and Potocky-Tripodi, 2007). Having a common language of human rights and social justice provides a means to achieve international cooperation and human and social development (Mohan, 2008). This involves a comparative-analytic global approach incorporating comparative social development as a foundational requirement in teaching, fieldwork, and research (Mohan, 2015a: Ch.VII: 117–42). It is not possible to see international social work as a lens through which one can peruse local practice as a form of practice in itself (Saito and Johns, 2009), unless the duality of comparative and international social work is resolved (Mohan, 2015b).
The institutions that support international social work, such as the United Nations (UN) agencies, the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), and the IFSW, have provided an infrastructure to engage those involved in education in different national contexts to define a field of practice where social workers can cooperate through international exchanges, education, research, and student fieldwork (Midgley, 2001). By extending these professional activities beyond national borders in an interconnected world (Dominelli, 2007; Pawar and Richard, 2011), international social work itself has become a specialized area for knowledge building in social work, human services, social welfare, and social development.
Social work educators, professionals, researchers, and students need to be apprised of current thinking, research, and discourse in the field of integration around issues such as migration or aging, for example. Developing an elaborate picture of variation in national policies, institutional arrangements, and service responses provides rich contrasts and insights into a breadth of possibilities across the social work spectrum as well as application to the glocal context. Addressing national and local concerns in the context of globalization provides a theoretical framework that can help bridge the issues of globality and locality in relation to social work education.
In the light of varying political and social contexts, there is a need to recognize the areas of differences between Arab countries and the uniqueness of each one. Dimensions of cultural homogeneity characterize Arab countries as a collective, although unique contexts in localities also present significance. For instance, Palestine is considered one of the most troubled areas in the world due to political instability and lack of security as a result of 68 years of Zionist military occupation. This has taken a heavy toll on the social and recreational life of the Palestinians. The same can be said about Yemen, Egypt, and Libya. These countries have seen popular protests against the miserable economic and living conditions. On the other hand, there are other countries which enjoy relative economic and political stability. These include Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Morocco.
While there are divergences and distinctions, it is worth noting here that there are simultaneously areas of similarity and homogeneity among the Arab countries, across national borders. These advantages have allowed them to adopt the Islamic perspective, for the Islamic values reflect a spirit of cooperation between individuals to meet all growing needs.
Design of the study
The impact of glocalization on international social work has been studied in light of the preceding discussion. The hypothesis was that glocalization of social work education could advance local welfare and contribute to confronting increasingly complex, more commonly experienced global social problems.
The design of this comparative descriptive study sought to determine the impact of glocalization on international social work education. Using quantitative methods, the study sought to generate a randomly selected, non-probability, purposive sample of social work faculty members geographically distributed in eight Arab countries. The primary research instrument used was a standardized paper and pencil questionnaire.
The aim of the study was to explore the different factors that characterize social work education and the profession across the Arab glocalized context. This context includes internal and external factors within the Arab universities in several countries, such as academics, social work students and their characteristics, and manner of interaction in the global arena. The key research question was as follows: ‘What impact does glocalization have on international social work education in the Arab universities?’ To answer this question, the author explored the relationship between a number of variables, inter alia, faculty members, social work students, the social work curriculum, university textbooks, quality of library services, methods of teaching, field practica, and quality of student assessment/evaluation, to better understand how global influences are integrated within local cultures and practice, impacting the quality of international social work education at a tertiary level.
Methodology
This descriptive, quantitative study uses the social survey method to select faculty members to respond to and cooperate with the researcher. Instruments of the study included a questionnaire developed by the researcher. After testing its validity and reliability, the researcher administered the questionnaire to a non-probability purposive sampling of full-time faculty members in the faculties/departments of social work at 22 Arab universities in eight Arab countries. The sample of the study comprises 178 faculty members geographically distributed among these Arab universities. The study was conducted within clear ethical guidelines and procedures, for example, participating in the study was voluntary and all the data was anonymised and stored in a place only accessible to the researcher and any identifying information was removed to protect the anonymity of the participants.
While reviewing the literature, the researcher discovered a dearth of academic literature in the field of international social work in general and in Arab countries in particular. There was a lack of academic/scholarly studies in the field of international social work at the Palestinian, Arab, and international levels. The researcher had difficulty in getting cooperation from all faculty members. The researcher also could not gain access to some of them due to the lack of e-mail addresses. In some cases, they had old e-mail addresses. There was also an absence of a database for universities which had social work programs. Finally, in some Arab countries there were no professional unions for social workers, thus preventing access to some universities in these countries.
Findings and discussion
Table 1 shows that 36.5 percent of respondents came from Palestine, 33.1 percent from Egypt, 12.9 percent from Saudi Arabia, 5.1 percent from Libya, 3.9 percent from Yemen, 3.4 percent from Jordan and Morocco, and 1.7 percent from Oman. Given that 10 Palestinian universities participated in the study, the largest number of respondents came from these universities. Helwan University in Egypt is the leading university in the Arab world with the highest academic standards and professional status; it has always played a key role in giving prestige to the profession at the national level. This Egyptian university has undergraduate, Master’s, and doctoral programs in social work, and its academics were eager to keep abreast of developments in the field of social work at the international level.
Distribution of faculty members by country.
Table 2 shows that 29.8 percent of respondents were in the 30- to 40-year age group, while 27 percent were younger than 30 years, 25.3 percent were between 40 and 50 years, and 18 percent were over 50 years. Males (59.6%) outnumbered females (40.4%). As regards academic qualification, 47.8 percent of respondents had a PhD, while 42.7 percent had Master’s degrees and 9.6 percent had Bachelor’s degrees. Most (78.7%) had degrees in social work, while 12.9 percent had degrees in sociology and 4.5 percent in psychology, while 1.7 percent had degrees in psychological counseling and social sciences and 0.6 percent had degrees in social studies. Thus, not all academics had social work qualifications. As regards their academic level, 19.1 percent were teaching assistants, 18.5 percent lecturers, 18 percent assistant professors, 16.3 percent instructors, and only 10.1 percent were full professors or associate professors; 7.9 percent were teaching or research assistants. Relatedly, 39.9 percent had less than 5 years’ academic experience, 33.1 percent had more than 10 years’ experience, and 27 percent had 5–10 years’ experience in academia. Most faculty members (53.9%) had not taught social work courses at other universities, while 46.1 percent had.
Distribution of academics according to sex, age, academic qualification, specialization, academic title, and years of experience.
Table 3 shows that 36 percent of universities offered undergraduate Bachelor’s degrees in social work, 34.3 percent had PhD programs in social work, 21.3 percent had Master’s programs, and 8.4 percent had diplomas in social work. Classroom-based teaching was the dominant model in 91 percent of universities, while 7.3 percent offered social work courses through an open education system. Only 1.1 percent of universities offered social work correspondence study or education (a typical form of first-generation distance education which makes heavy use of standard textbooks and lacks direct student interaction with the instructor; Taylor, 1999), and 0.6 percent offered courses in social work through distance education. Generally, classroom-based teaching is seen as the best method to teach the knowledge and skills that social workers required.
Distribution of universities according to system of study, university-awarded degree, academic title of social work profession, and system of education.
SW: social work.
Most academics (61.2%) had not published papers in international scholarly journals, while 38.8 percent had. There was a lack of international cooperation through joint research projects or academic exchanges. However, most (68.5%) had participated in continuing education courses, while 31.5 percent had not. There was a general lack of motivation to keep abreast of developments in social work at the international level and few opportunities for interaction and connection at the international and national levels. It was not surprising then that there was little international content in the social work curriculum, ranging from 27 to 41.4 percent (Table 4).
Extent of academics’ work at other universities, publishing in scholarly journals (at national and international levels), academic supervision of theses and dissertations, and participation in training activities.
This result differed from the finding of Erfan’s (2006) study which revealed that the most important courses necessary for the training of international social worker were social policy analysis; crisis management and public disasters; English language skills; advanced research in social work computer skills, and its applications in social work; management of international social welfare organizations; advanced social research; international social legislations; international social work; and international issues and problems. The finding of this study also differed from Hileta (2003), who revealed the importance of courses in the integration of the international dimension in social work education (Table 5).
Distribution of faculty members according to content of social work program courses of international relevance.
Arithmetic average: 266.8; relative strength: 74.95%.
Social work students received practical training at government institutions (96.6%), civil societies (83.7%), and government health institutions (83.1%). Placements were also offered in private organizations (33.1%), international institutions (28.1%), and hospitals (44.9%). This is not surprising given that most social workers are employed by government once they graduate (Table 6).
Distribution of faculty members according to training institutions for social work majors.
Arithmetic average: 287.6; relative strength: 80.80%.
Clearly, social workers in these eight Arab countries were being prepared to work in national agencies, and there was little emphasis on international content within the curriculum. Opportunities for national, regional, and international academic exchanges would be rare within this locally oriented profession focus. There are no formal forums for regional or international cooperation. A culture of internationalization was lacking within the social work schools in this study generally.
This internationalization is necessary for three different reasons. The first is for world survival through emphasis of international responsibility. The second is nations’ survival, and the third is sustainability of science which cannot prosper and develop if it remains within the limits of national borders. This argument applies to social work education. Therefore, there is a need to add a fourth reason: survival of the profession itself. This means that social work depends on knowledge and acquired influences of other nations (Lyngstad, 2013; Nagy and Falk, 2000). Internationalization suggests increase in cooperation between people and cultures which focus on mutual understanding and respect (Gray and Coates, 2010). It also refers to the objectives, processes, policies, challenges, and strategies linking the local with international and vice versa (Dominelli, 2014).
Results of the questions: Analysis and discussion
After analysis of faculty members’ responses pertaining to glocalization and international social work and their effect on faculty members, it was found that the responses were statistically significant. The total weights were 4878, while the arithmetic average was 271. The relative strength was 50.74, while the standard deviation was 0.41. This indicates that the faculty members’ responses were weak as the relative strength showed.
The researcher attributes this to poor academic and cultural exchange between faculties of social work as well as to the lack of professional cooperation between faculty members at the national and international levels. In addition, despite the burgeoning effects of globalization, it has been found that the academic and professional partnership with academics in other countries was still limited, thus depriving them of development of their knowledge and empowerment. While calling for cross-national professional collaborations, caution and reflexivity are warranted in implementing collaboration that respects local knowledge and local practice. Professional partnership with academics in Western countries should be concluded in the light of development of the social work profession of indigenous people and within the culture of clients, away from new liberalism, their knowledge of imperialism, and continuation of international influence (Brown and Strauss, 2014; Dominelli, 2014; Ferguson et al., 2005; Gray, 2005; Gray and Coates, 2010; Hassan, 2004; Kreitzer and Wilson, 2010; Payne and Askeland, 2008; Razack, 2009). The researcher also believes that the concept of globalization is not clear and has been met with resistance by some faculty members. This has deprived them of keeping abreast of new developments in the field of social work. The researcher believes that global culture adds international integration in the framework of globalization, and the increase in academic ties, professional integration, and growing level of awareness – in particular pertaining to the impact of globalization – should contribute to tapping of faculty members’ potentials and to strengthening their empowerment.
This result differed from Mukherjee’s (2011) finding that there were partnerships between social work schools abroad through the formation of networks across national borders (Mukherjee, 2011). It also differed from Caragata and Sanchez (2002), who found that 27 percent of faculty members in the United States and 4.5 percent in Canada had taught in developing countries, and that 23 percent of social work colleges in the United States and 14 percent in Canada had invited/hosted foreign students and faculty members to join their social work programs or teach there (Caragata and Sanchez, 2002).
Concerning glocalization and international social work education and their effect on social work students, the study found the participants’ responses were weak; they were statistically distributed according to total weights (4968), arithmetic average (276), relative strength (51, 68), arithmetic means (1.55), and standard deviation (0.38).
The researcher attributes this finding to the lack of openness and absence of dialogue with faculty members at Western universities, thus limiting the level of students’ awareness, knowledge, and horizons of international causes. This is in addition to poor exchange of students at the national and international levels, thus affecting the efficacy of their preparation and empowerment. Equally important is the lack of initiatives to introduce the international content in social work education programs at the national and Arab levels. This has negatively affected the students’ personality, understanding, values, knowledge, and work behavior at the international level and across borders.
This result is different from Lalayants et al.’s (2015) findings which revealed that students’ attitudes (perceptions) toward international social work needed to be globalized and designed specifically to meet students’ needs (Lalayants et al., 2015). It also differed from Kreitzer et al.’s (2011) finding which showed the importance of student exchanges across borders and cultural exchange programs to enrich experiences of students and allow them to acquire knowledge and skills. This is in addition to the understanding of the political and social system of the hosting country and its value system and beliefs (Kreitzer et al., 2011). Also Vanderzee’s (2008) findings differed from the finding of this study. His study found that experience in international social work had an effect on students of social work in exposing common social problems and practice in a variety of contexts (Vanderzee, 2008).
Pertaining to faculty members’ responses to glocalization and international social work education and their relationship with social work curricula, it was found that these responses were statistically distributed according to total weights (5418), arithmetic average (301), relative strength (56.36), arithmetic means (1.69), and standard deviation (0.44). These results show that their responses averaged as their relative strength shows.
The researcher attributes this to failure to keep abreast of developments in social work education programs at the national level, and glocalization and its processes, thus affecting these programs in training students. The researcher noticed an absence of mutual recognition and certification of programs between countries. Added to this, the students were not provided with an international perspective which would have allowed them to work in multi-cultural environments. There was also no exchange of expertise, leading to poor educational level as well as poor practice and training at the national level.
The current study is also different in one of its findings from that of Wright (2007). In her study, it was found that the implications of globalization should have an influence on the future of social work education, methods of instruction, and its role inside the academic institutions (Wright, 2007).
In addition, faculty members’ responses to glocalization and international social work education, concerning the university textbooks, were weak as the relative strength shows. Their responses were statistically distributed in accordance with the total weights (5237), arithmetic average (290.94), relative strength (54.47), arithmetic means (1.63), and standard deviation (0.46).
The researcher attributes this to lack of clear standards when it comes to accreditation of social work education programs that would keep abreast of developments at the international level, thus posing a challenge in developing and modernization of social work curricula. This was in addition to poor cooperation efforts to publish books and academic articles that have an international dimension.
This result differed from Erfan’s (2006) finding that the most important experience which an international social worker should enjoy was obtaining academic social work courses in international social work. The study result also disagreed with Healy’s (1985) finding which reported that there was a general consensus to introduce an international content in the courses offered to graduate students in the United States and that it had to be linked with local practice. Smith’s (2008) finding also failed to concur with the finding of this study about the importance of vocational education pertinent to globalization and international issues which are of benefit to social work practitioners. It was found that the curricula which include globalization and international issues are their major components. Neither did Caragata’s finding concur with the finding of this study which indicated that the education and practice of social work had to be of international nature (Caragata and Sanchez, 2002).
Faculty members’ responses to glocalization and social work education, vis-à-vis the quality of library services, were statistically distributed according to the total weights (2007), arithmetic average (286.71), relative strength (53.68), arithmetic means (1.56), and standard deviation (0.60). These responses were found to be weak as the relative strength shows.
The result could be attributed to academic rigidity. Isolation of universities from the international environment has deprived them of the opportunity to use modern technology, let alone interaction with academicians’ opening of channels of dialogue to exchange opinions and share experiences. All this has deprived faculty members and students of reading and acquiring new academic publications such as books, journals, and theses and dissertations.
Analysis of faculty members’ responses to glocalization and international social work education vis-à-vis the methods of teaching revealed that these responses were statistically distributed according to total weights (1868), arithmetic average (266.85), relative strength (44.96), arithmetic means (1.49), and standard deviation (0.44). These responses, according to the relative strength, were found to be weak.
The researcher attributes this finding to the use of traditional outdated methods of teaching such as rote learning, lecturing, and cramming of information. Brainstorming, role playing, constructive dialogue, workshops, and study visits were lacking. There was also no interest in computers and the English language, thus affecting students’ academic and professional life and personality. Native speakers are more fortunate in keeping abreast of new developments in the social work community at the international level. They develop the ability to practice the profession within the cultural context of the indigenous people. The researcher believes that mastering the English language can be in contradiction to glocalization. However, the reality is that some knowledge of English language skills increases the faculty members’ abilities and allows them to keep abreast of new developments, at the international level, in the field of social work education and practice, in which English is the predominant language. The best that can be done in relation to glocalization is knowing a dominant world language and one’s own local language so that one can access information globally and take that knowledge and act locally through one’s own language.
These findings do not concur with Holtzhausen’s (2010) findings which revealed that most social work students in the United Arab Emirates preferred to be taught social work in English (Holtzhausen, 2010). Results of this study also differ from Larsen et al.’s (2008) findings concerning four things: degree of the importance of using virtual social work classrooms in Europe, creation of a supporting academic environment for both students and instructors, reinforcement of reaching out across borders and participation, and exchange of ideas related to issues through the Internet (Larsen et al., 2008). Implications of globalization, according to Wright’s (2007) study findings, would have an impact on the future of social science education and methods of instruction as well as on its role within academic institutions (Wright, 2007).
Concerning glocalization and international social work and its relationship with field practicum, it was found that faculty members’ responses were statistically distributed according to total weights (2995), arithmetic average (272.27), relative strength (50.98), arithmetic means (1.52), and standard deviation (0.51). These responses were also weak as the relative strength shows.
This weakness could be attributed to lack of cooperation between social work at the international and national levels as well as the absence of student exchange programs or study visits between them. This weakness could be also attributed to the lack of an international perspective for them to discuss, exchange, and share opinions, ideas, and concerns. This is in addition to the lack of an institutional framework for social work education in harmony with social work schools in non-Arab countries and the society’s culture and professional practice by the indigenous people. Non-membership in international associations/organizations precludes exposure of students to training at the international level and deprives them of practicing across borders in multi-cultural environments.
The findings of this study did not concur with findings of other scholars. Panos (2005) found that one out of five social work schools, accredited in the United States, had placed its social work students in international field positions (Panos, 2005). Panos et al. (2004) also found that 665 were placed/assigned by 94 social work academic programs in the United States in 55 different countries. The study also revealed that 104 social work education programs were prepared to send their social work students abroad (Panos et al., 2004). Caragata and Sanchez (2002) found that 27 percent of the US social work schools and 45 percent of Canada’s social work schools had placed their students in practical training abroad (Caragata and Sanchez, 2002).
Finally, faculty members’ responses to glocalization and international social work education, vis-à-vis quality of student assessment/evaluation, were statistically distributed according to total weights (1414), arithmetic average (282.8), relative strength (52.95), arithmetic means (1.55), and standard deviation (0.51). Like previous responses, the faculty members’ responses were weak, as the relative strength result shows.
This weak response could be attributed to lack of clear standards when it comes to students’ admission to social work faculties/schools and their assessment. There was a lack of transparency and objectivity in their selection for the major. For example, students were not interviewed before admission. Many of the social work academic programs, at the national level, had no accreditation and recognition by the International Council for Social Work Education, thus depriving them of the opportunity to participate in the selection of the best students for social work major and the profession after their graduation.
Results and analysis of study hypotheses
After data analysis, it was found that there was a statistically significant relationship at α = 0.05 between glocalization and international social work education at Arab universities which could be attributed to country variable, social work students, university textbooks, quality of library services, field practica, and quality of student assessment. The researcher attributes this result to the fact that students at present are affected by glocalization and its processes, particularly in the field of technology and communication revolution, thus raising their awareness level and changing their attitudes toward the importance of glocalization. Pertaining to university textbooks, it seems that modern literature on social work education in some Arab countries has been subjected to glocalization and its processes. Concerning library services, it could be true that some countries kept abreast of changes/developments in the international arena and bought textbooks which had an international content, particularly concerning globalization, internationalization, and domestication. Pertinent to field practica, the researcher believes that some Arab countries were affected by cultural and social changes which accompanied globalization processes, thus causing variation between countries in the process of field practica within glocalization context.
When it comes to quality of student assessment, the researcher also believes that some universities in some Arab countries have adopted international standards in their assessment of social work students and embraced modern criteria in the process of admission to social work programs, particularly when it comes to involvement of social work associations in the selection of students interested in a social work major and the profession.
Second, a statistically significant relationship was found at α = 0.05 between glocalization and international social work education at Arab universities, which could be attributed to social work students, university textbooks, and field practica. The significant relationship could be attributed to some universities’ move toward integration of a new vision for social work in the international context through the holding of international conferences which contribute to reinforcement of academic interaction and knowledge sharing and exchange at the international and national levels, thus contributing to the creation of an environment that could raise students’ awareness level through their exposure to the social work education process. Regarding the university textbooks, the researcher believes that it could be attributed to the difference in the content of the social work curricula among the universities which included in their social work curricula courses relevant to international social work. Also, some universities worked to immerse their students in international institutions to enable them to acquire professional skills on an international scale.
Third, a statistically significant relationship was found at α = 0.05 between glocalization and international social work education at Arab universities which could be attributed to the sex and method of instruction variables. The researcher believes that the faculty members at some universities had a good command of computer and English language skills. This could be seen in their responses and the impact of glocalization, its processes, and their integration on the international context. This was reflected in their adoption of new methods in social work teaching.
Fourth, there was a statistically significant relationship at α = 0.05 between glocalization and international social work education at Arab universities which could be attributed to the age variable of faculty members, social work students, social work curriculum, and methods of instruction. One reason for this could be due to academic maturity of faculty members which could have led to an impact on their adoption of an international perspective in their teaching of social work. The researcher found individual differences between social work majors; these differences played a key role in realizing the importance of international social work. Furthermore, a difference was found in social work curricula which could be attributed to faculty members’ academic maturity, thus making them more able to keep abreast of developments in social work trends in the international arena. Pertaining to the methods of teaching, the researcher found that many faculty members had rich experience, thus making them more aware of the importance of using technology and the acquisition of new skills.
Finally, the study found a statistically significant relationship at α = 0.05 between glocalization and international social work at Arab universities which could be attributed to the academic title variable, field practicum, and quality of student assessment. This relationship could be attributed to the lower rank faculty members in charge of field practica. This in itself was reflected in the efficacy of the field of training and inadequate competence. Assessment methods of students differed due to the differences between faculty members, in their titles, and in the interview committees in charge of student selection for social work major.
Implications and conclusion
Drawing from the notion of glocalization, this study examined the intermingling of global and local perspectives in social work education and the profession in the Arab region. Specifically, the researcher comparatively explored both global and localized dimensions of social work education and organizations, via the perspectives of educators and practitioners in universities in eight Arab countries. Results of this study revealed that academic institutions and professional social work organizations fail to provide assistance and support for the development of international content in the social work curriculum in the Arab world, where there are national and local issues and problems, as posited by perspectives of study participants.
Without institutional supports and resources, social work education and professions in the Arab region remain disengaged from broader social, political, and economic conditions globally and regionally. Such disengagement and detachment of social work as education and profession become particularly problematic when considering social work’s role in responding to the socio-economic crises and political challenges that continue to persist in several Arab countries, such as Palestine, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya. Furthermore, there has been no consistent effort to develop a regional or national coordinating or regulating body similar to the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) in the United States. Hence, common practice standards and accreditation criteria for social work education in keeping with international standards do not exist. The findings and insights gained from this study yield implications, and presented next are several recommendations.
First, there is a need for setting up mechanisms for broader exchange of faculty members at the national and international levels to allow them to enrich their experiences in international social work, thus raising their awareness level concerning the practice of the profession in a variety of cultural contexts. This is in addition to the encouragement and motivation of faculty members to update their information/knowledge about the implications of globalization, have a better understanding of international problems, take an international perspective in their teaching and practice of social work, and conduct comparative research on social work domains in an international environment.
Second, there is a need for training of social work majors on the practice of the social work profession in other countries and broadening their cultural horizons to work locally in multi-lingual communities. This is in addition to educating social work students on international issues through exchange between academic colleges and institutions practicing social work. This would allow them to learn and discover new methods in solving problems of an international nature and to increase their interest in public culture and in computer and English skills in particular.
Third, there is a need for mutual recognition and accreditation of social work academic programs as a requirement for membership in the CSWE. This is in accordance with accreditation standards required in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. It also suits indigenous people in their Arabian culture. International Social Work and its professional delivery are enriched by integrated diversity of multicultural approach in education, practice and research. Equally important is the initiation of partnerships with social work schools in other countries. There is also a need for social work colleges at the national level to commit themselves to train social workers and enable them to work in international/foreign environments.
International standards related to social work education and practice in the aforementioned countries have long historical roots. Therefore, those standards could be seen as the cornerstone for comparisons when it comes to the drafting of national standards for the social work profession in Arab society. Values in this context are introduced which reinforce cooperation instead of imposing Western ideologies, away from professional imperialism and academic liberalism.
Fourth, university textbooks and academic publications used have to suit changes at the national and international levels. Social work academic curricula also need to be developed to meet standards of international accreditation bodies. This is in addition to paying more attention to international issues and globalization processes in social work academic programs, introducing new courses in international social work, comparative social policies, international treaties, legal legislations, and international social welfare organizations. Equally important is linking the international content of social work academic programs with local profession practice.
Fifth, academic libraries should be supplied with foreign sources and references on international social work and comparative social welfare policies. This is in addition to the acquisition and exchange of Masters theses and dissertations between social work colleges at the national and international levels. Libraries also need high-tech equipment and databases to allow students to access information easily and save their time and effort.
Sixth, an interactive academic environment, rich in information, should be created. Of equal importance is the creation of virtual classrooms in social work education to reinforce across border exchange. Modern methods in social work teaching should be used which include exchange of roles, brainstorming, and practice of social work by thinking globally. Social workers should take responsibility for following up social work academic programs.
Seventh, international collaboration between social work colleges should be established to provide opportunities in field practicum exchange programs for social work students. This is in the interest of international agencies in training social work students in international social work values and skills. Furthermore, there is a need for professional strategies capable of enabling students to get field practicum at different professional levels and expanding field practica for students at the international level. Furthermore, field practica for social work students should be focused on strategies and skills related to professional practice of international social work.
Eighth, professional organizations at the international level should be encouraged to participate in setting up criteria for admission of students to social work academic programs and in the assessment/evaluation of students to improve their professional performance. There should be an adoption of modern methods that are in harmony with international standards in the process of assessment of social work students. Equally necessary is the provision of applied tests to discover students’ research abilities, as well as objective interviews and fair tests in order to choose the most suitable students to join the social work community.
The researcher stresses the importance of academic freedom during adoption of international standards/criteria for admission of students into social work education programs and in their evaluation. The outputs of globalization and its processes include social work globalization as an international profession that meets international standards in a way that is in harmony with the indigenous people’s culture and uniqueness of each society and its social context. Gray (2005) pointed out that there was a danger that the reinforcement of international standards for the sake of social work education could be seen as something that has reached international ideals. She also pointed out that it could be possible to look into the international model of practice and education of social work as a cornerstone for comparisons, without making an attempt to win an international agreement for recognition or for standards. That is, local and international standards, as suggested by notions of glocalization, could both support and complement each other (Beecher et al., 2010; Gray, 2005; Gray and Fook, 2004; Midgley, 2009; Sewpaul, 2005; Walton and El Nasr, 1988).
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.