The relevance of Global Standards to social work education in Australasia

Abstract

Underpinned by the Global Standards published for the promotion of quality social work education, and as a benchmark for social work education at national levels, a qualitative content analysis is conducted to explore the alignment of national standards of the Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia regulatory bodies with the Global Standards. A number of equity issues are identified: service users and student participation, student representativeness, indigenous rights and political action, gender and cultural equity, and equitable access. The implications for social work education internationally are considered, including a possibility of the role of the Global Standards in democratizing social work education.

Keywords

Aotearoa New Zealand Australian democratizing global standards indigenous rights regulation social work education

Introduction

The Global Standards for the Education and Training of the Social Work Profession (GS) was published in 2004 with the purpose of promoting quality social work education along with benchmark opportunities for national- or local-level social work education providers. The establishment of the GS (International Association of Schools of Social Work [IASSW] and International Federation of Social Workers [IFSW], 2004) was the outcome of the Global Minimum Qualifying Standards Committee jointly formed by the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) and the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) in 2000. Its purpose was to elucidate what social work represented at a global level (Sewpaul and Jones, 2005: 224). It occurred at a time when the global profession had begun holding joint international conferences (1996 Hong Kong, 2000 Montreal, 2004 Adelaide) and when the revised global social work definition was agreed to by the IASSW and IFSW in 2001 (Sewpaul and Jones, 2005: 218). In 2004 both bodies also approved the Statement of Principles: Ethics in Social Work policy (IFSW and IASSW, 2004). This evidenced a convergence of ideas around global social work and laid the foundation for subsequent initiatives such as the Global Agenda in 2012, which was also co-authored by the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW; IASSW et al., 2012).

How the GS influence social work education at both the international and local level is an important area for research. Indeed, various countries and regions have been subjected to analysis using the GS, for example, Japan and South Africa (Sakaguchi and Sewpaul, 2011), the Asia Pacific region (Noble, 2004), the North America and Caribbean region (Healy, 2004), and South Africa, England and Canada (Spolander et al., 2011). Themes emerged such as the tension between the importance of local and indigenous development of social work education standards and the value of global standards. There is an argument that regions of the world such as North America and the Caribbean that are still in the process of developing local and regional expressions of social work education are at risk of being stifled by the GS (Healy, 2004: 594). The socio-political context was highlighted as an important backdrop for social work education standards with the effect of a neoliberal discourse in England and Canada ‘that individualizes and pathologizes social issues’ (Spolander et al., 2011: 819). Research into the GS and multiculturalism has also been explored (Akintayo et al., 2016).

Further developing the knowledge base, in 2000 the IASSW established a Census Committee to work on the development of social work programmes globally. Research was undertaken in that year to capture data on schools which were members of IASSW. Subsequent to the GS being published in 2004, further research was undertaken to track developments in schools since the 2000 research and to incorporate aspects of the GS. Building on this earlier research, a survey was undertaken in 2010. It found a major growth in social work education programmes between 2000 and 2010, though the census was not a representative sample of all schools nor even of the subset of IASSW members. Gaps in meeting the GS included only half of the respondents reported requiring course content in social work history, values or ethics, and 20 per cent of the required courses were taught by non-social work educators. It was noted, however, that the expansion of social work programmes was indicative of social work’s potential for the global promotion of social justice and development (Barretta-Herman et al., 2014).

As yet, to our knowledge, there has been no analysis of the influence of the GS in the Australasian context. In response to this gap, this research, which is part of a broader PhD study, looks at the ways in which the GS influence local standards in Australasian social work education. It reports on the findings of a qualitative, comparative document analysis to explore the alignment between the GS and local standards in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand (ANZ). It then considers the implications of this for Australasian systems of social work education. By way of context, prior to reporting on the study the article will briefly discuss the development of the GS, including the situation in Australia and ANZ prior to their introduction, and will provide a brief description of the GS and local standards.

Developing inclusive standards

Developing the GS proved to be no easy task. The purpose of standards is to positively influence practices within social work education, while being inclusive to local needs and interests. The Census Committee took care to address the range of opinion relating to social work education standards and emphasized a process that was as inclusive as possible. They noted in particular the importance of context, which can be highly influential but potentially in tension with the notion of a single global framework. The GS attempted to avoid reductionist language and a simplistic competencies approach so as not to further fragment and de-professionalize social work. The notion of minimum standards was contentious because of its limiting potential, and in particular its potential to impact negatively on poorer programmes. Although some argued the need for more detailed prescription, the GS were generally seen to be prescriptive enough. The authors argued that their intent was to be aspirational (Sewpaul and Jones, 2005: 229), an intent that fits well with the notion of standards also influencing the democratization of practices over time.

While the authors attempted to mitigate the influence of Western hegemony on the development of the GS, there was nevertheless subsequent criticism of this influence in relation to China (Yip, 2004) and more generally about the impact of internationalizing trends within social work (Gray and Fook, 2004: 640).

Social work education pre-GS

Social work education in Australasia during the 20th century was influenced by the Western hegemony mentioned in the GS. As such, social work education in Australia and New Zealand was strongly influenced by countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States and social work education within those countries. While there have been similarities in development, there have also been significant differences as each country has responded to cultural contexts and political developments.

In Australia, social work has always been taught at university level. The Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) undertakes the approval of social work programmes and has done so by mutual agreement since the 1960s, with policies that are also regularly updated (AASW, 2012). The situation in ANZ is far more complex. For many years, there has been a mix of university, polytechnic, Wananga¹ and private training establishment-based social work programmes. A range of professional programme approval systems have also operated over time. Universities have always been approved by the New Zealand Vice Chancellors’ Committee (NZVCC), while non-university programmes have been approved by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA). In 2003, statutory registration was introduced in New Zealand and now all social work programmes are subject to the recognition process of the Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB). There is no registration of social workers in Australia, although the AASW is currently campaigning for its introduction.

Schools of social work in both ANZ and Australia have high membership of IASSW, which provides another way in which they are influenced by the GS.

The 2004 GS

The GS consist of nine sets of standards: the school’s core purpose or mission statement; programme objectives and outcomes; programme curricula including fieldwork; core curricula; professional staff; social work students; structure, administration, governance and resources; cultural diversity; and social work values and ethics. They are based on the international social work definition and also on the 13 core purposes of the social work profession that have been developed. It is likely that the Statement of Principles: Ethics in Social Work (IFSW and IASSW, 2004) was consulted in the deliberations of the Committee because it was published around the time the GS were established.

The GS were developed to express the purposes of the social work profession in social work education. Their overall goal is to promote quality social work education; one of their purposes is to ‘benchmark national standards against international standards’ (Sewpaul and Jones, 2005: 224). The key question in this article is how the GS relate to the social work education standards in ANZ and Australia.

The 2015 ANZ standards

The SWRB (2015b) has established a policy that incorporates social work education standards – The Process for Recognition/Re-recognition of Social Work Qualifications in NZ. Policy related to programme recognition by the SWRB includes a set of social worker competencies at a beginning practitioner level, which all students should meet on completion of their degree. There is a graduate profile that programme providers are required to incorporate into specific learning outcomes in their programme. Finally, there is a set of programme standards that must be met in order to be recognized by the SWRB. The programme standards include six areas: governance, curriculum and fieldwork, student centredness, professional and stakeholder collaboration, resources and quality assurance. Other policy from the SWRB that applies to registered social workers and broadly across the profession includes the Code of Conduct (Social Workers Registration Board, 2016a).

The 2012 Australian standards

The key document is the Australian Social Work Education and Accreditation Standards (ASWEAS) (AASW, 2012), which has associated guidelines on the following areas: programme delivery, essential core curriculum content, field education programmes, and organizational arrangements and governance of social work programmes. The AASW Code of Ethics (AASW, 2010) and Practice Standards (AASW, 2013) are also referenced. Reviews of the standards are regularly undertaken with widespread consultation. Programme accreditation is required on a 5-yearly basis.

Methodology

The research seeks to understand how local standards in ANZ and Australia align with the GS. To explore this question, the study undertook a qualitative, content analysis of three sets of social work education standards: the GS, the ANZ SWRB standards and the Australian AASW standards. This document analysis fits within the broad approach of using secondary data as a well-established approach to research, particularly within social research (Smith, 2008). The analysis of documents forms a field of research in its own right and contributes to the development of knowledge. It is noted, however, that documents must be situated in their context and seen as socially constructed entities (Prior, 2003). Spolander et al. (2011) used a qualitative content analysis methodology in their comparative document analysis of national sets of social work education standards and the GS. They noted that this methodology was well suited to examining documents in the public domain and that it allowed for some latitude in going beyond the words within documents to the exploration of meaning, provided there was clarity about the inclusion and exclusion of criteria used. Utilizing a similar approach to Spolander et al. (2011), this study undertook a content analysis, drawing out common themes and exploring areas of similarity and difference, as well as exploring meaning within the documents.

The documents compared in the research are currently used by social work professional bodies and are thus already in the public domain. The first-level analysis of the documents involved careful reading, word by word, of the text to compare the use of language across the documents and the degree of emphasis within them. The level of match in their policy was assessed as being high, high/medium, medium, medium/low or low/nonexistent. There are nine standards within the GS as well as a preamble that incorporates both the international definition and the 13 core purposes of social work. These became 11 sections against which each country’s set of standards were assessed for their level of alignment. Each section included several sub-categories. Where all the sub-categories aligned with the GS, then a ‘high’ grading was given. Where only one or two of these sub-categories did not align with the GS, then a ‘medium/high’ grading was given. A ‘medium’ grade was given where a more significant gap in alignment was assessed. There were no grades assessed below ‘medium’ (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Comparison of Australasian standards to the Global Standards.

Global standards	SWRB	AASW
International definition of social work	Medium	High
Core purposes of social work	High	High
1. Standards regarding the school’s core purpose or mission statement: standard clearly articulated, reflects values and ethics, equity aspiration, service user rights	Medium	Medium/high
2. Standards regarding programme objectives and outcomes	High	High
3. Standards with regard to programme curricula including field education	High	High
4. Standards with regard to core curricula	High	High
5. Standards with regard to professional staff	Medium/high	Medium/high
6. Standards with regard to social work students	Medium/high	Medium/high
7. Standards with regard to structure, administration, governance and resources	Medium/high	Medium/high
8. Standards with regard to cultural and ethnic diversity and gender inclusiveness	High	High
9. Standards with regard to values and ethical codes of conduct of the social work profession	High	High

SWRB: Social Workers Registration Board; AASW: Australian Association of Social Workers.

The second-level analysis involved an examination of the text in the context of the meaning it conveyed. This was a reductive process where themes were identified within the data. An important part of this interpretative phase was the confirmation of the themes by returning to the data and further interrogating the links to ensure that the themes were well grounded in the data.

Findings

In the findings from the comparison of the Australasian standards with the GS, we noted that overall there was a strong alignment. Each section had a focus on the points where the level of alignment was weaker. Sections have been noted for ready identification in the GS and with the SWRB and the AASW standards. Table 1 summarizes the grades for each country in each of the 11 sections of the GS. The SWRB gained six ‘high’ grades, three ‘medium/high’ grades and two ‘medium’ grades. The AASW gained seven ‘high’ grades and four ‘medium/high’ grades.

Social work definition and core purposes

The international definition of social work is outlined at the beginning of the GS and with the SWRB scoring ‘medium’ and the AASW scoring ‘high’. The definition was directly quoted by AASW in its standards but was only obliquely referred to by the SWRB (2016a) in its Code of Conduct.

The 13 core purposes of social work are also outlined at the beginning of the GS as a further foundation piece for the standards that follow and both countries scored ‘high’. The core purposes were well covered by the AASW because of their clear articulation of core social work principles at the beginning of their standards, which are directly linked to the global social work professional body, the IFSW. The SWRB was generally aligned to the core purposes through the programme recognition policy and its Code of Conduct, though comment is made later about the level of clear alignment with the tenth core purpose of engagement in social and political action.

Standard 1: Purposes or mission statement

Equity, rights and the participation of service users were fundamental to the GS and its expectation of the purpose or mission statement of schools, with the SWRB scoring medium and the AASW scoring medium/high. The GS were strong on the expectation that programmes as a whole reflect social work principles, equity in particular (GS 1.3). The SWRB was limited in its expectations of programmes in this regard and it minimally discussed equity within its standards. The SWRB only mentioned service users as a broad-level stakeholder in programme review (SWRB 4.1). The AASW was stronger in its articulation of broad social work principles that advocate equity, and although it was not well spelt out in its standards, it was stronger in its articulation of broad service user participation.

Standard 2: Programme objectives

Both bodies scored ‘high’. The only component of this standard that was not well evidenced by the SWRB relates to the coherence of the instructional methods with the cognitive and affective development of social work students (GS 2.3). However, instructional methods were usually covered by the programme accreditation process carried out by the tertiary education governance bodies, either NZQA or NZVCC, which was applied to any type of degree programme at a tertiary institution in ANZ. This was also covered by the AASW.

Standard 3: Curricula (fieldwork)

Both bodies scored ‘high’. The GS were generally well evidenced by each country. The only area that was weaker for the SWRB again related to the coherence of the methods of instruction with ‘the school’s programme objectives, its expected outcomes and its mission statement’ (GS 3.1).

Standard 4: Core curricula

Both bodies scored ‘high’. The GS were well evidenced by each country. The AASW has a more prescriptive curriculum than the SWRB, which may influence the coverage of the GS. The GS themselves, however, focused on broad areas of knowledge and learning which echoed the more broadly descriptive nature of the SWRB policy (Beddoe, 2014: 22).

Standard 5: Professional staff

Both bodies scored ‘medium/high’. The GS expected an adequate provision of professional staff in number and range of expertise, with appropriate qualifications (GS 5.1). The SWRB required an institutional workload policy and ‘sufficient staff resources to generate and support a research active social work staff group’ (SWRB 5.10 and 5.11), whereas the AASW in its resources and staffing standard (5.3) stated that its programmes ‘must be adequately resourced if the required educational outcomes are to be achieved’. It then went on to specify that a minimum staffing group of five full-time equivalent social work staff was required. It also noted that a quality field education programme required adequate resources (AASW, 2012: 22).

The GS, however, required a statement of equity-based policies for staffing with considerations of gender, ethnicity, race and other forms of diversity (GS 5.4). Neither country had an explicit policy on this, though there could be an argument for a broader alignment. The SWRB required the mission of the social work unit to reflect the values and ethical principles of social work (SWRB 1.4). The AASW required that ‘both content and delivery in social work education will demonstrate the profession’s core values’ (AASW 2) and that these core values ‘must be practised in social work education’ (AASW 3) (AASW, 2012: 9–10). It would be helpful to know whether these expectations are ever assessed by each regulator with a focus on equity policies. It is possible that the institutions in which the programmes sit may have staffing equity policies that align with this standard.

Standard 6: Students

Both bodies scored ‘medium/high’. The one gap in the evidencing of this standard related to the student cohort being representative of the community within which the programme operates, with due recognition to minority groups (GS 6.2). As with standard 5, this is partly covered for both countries by general adherence to social work values and ethics, but we suggest it is unlikely to be assessed unless it is an explicit requirement. It is also possible that the institutions in which the programmes sit may have student equity policies that align with this standard.

Standard 7: Structure, administration, governance and resources

Both bodies scored ‘medium/high’. The general theme of resourcing was raised here. Both countries were clear about having a social work academic leading the school (GS 7.1). Adequate budgetary allocation (GS 7.5) was covered by both countries. Having adequate administrative staff (GS 7.8) was not directly addressed by the SWRB, though could be subsumed under their general budgetary allocation standard. Gender equity and representation of the community in relation to staffing were a repeated focus (GS 7.11–12) and, as noted previously, this was not specifically addressed by either the SWRB or the AASW, though they both referred to working in accordance with core social work values and ethics.

Standard 8: Cultural and ethnic diversity and gender inclusiveness

The GS was well evidenced by both countries.

Standard 9: Values and ethical conduct

The GS was well evidenced by both countries.

Discussion

It is clear from the analysis of the GS that they emphasize adherence to core social work values and reinforce the importance of equity in all aspects of service delivery. Rights and the participation of service users is a fundamental thrust, and the document analysis also identified a number of areas where the democratization of equity-related issues could add value to both the development and implementation of the GS and local standards. These areas include the following: service user and student participation, student representativeness, indigenous rights and political action, gender and cultural equity, access and equity, and quality social work education and broader issues of equity.

The research suggests that promoting quality social work education through the development of standards presents important opportunities to influence the democratization of social work education. To act in these democracy-sustaining ways (Shapiro, 2011) is very consistent with the broader values of social work, captured in the global definition of social work and its emphasis on empowerment, liberation and the promotion of social change.² As policies and standards are developed and redesigned, we have the ability to ‘promote the democratization of power relations as they are reproduced into the future’ (Shapiro, 2011: 273). Thus democratizing power dimensions through the GS creates the potential to shift attitudes within social work education over time, raising issues and influencing norms.

Service user and student participation

Service user participation is reinforced in the GS and is expected in all facets of the programme (GS 1.4) and across the range of service user linkages with the school (GS 7.15). Attention to service user participation extends to the school’s involvement with the regulatory social work bodies (GS 9.6) and is often extended to carer participation. As we see from the analysis, the AASW is more specific about service user participation than the SWRB, although neither articulate the focus on service users particularly well. Student involvement in the programme is limited in both the AASW and SWRB standards. It is notable that students are not specifically included in governance of the programme as ‘consumers’, whereas service users or public consumers are specifically included. This is a discrepancy with ANZ and Australian standards both specifying student participation in programme governance.

Internationally, the push for service user participation is strong. For example, the United Kingdom has a long tradition of service user participation in their social work sector and it features in one of their recent social work education policies which even includes separate funding to support service user and carer participation in programmes (The College of Social Work, 2012: 9). Following the UK lead, we suggest that both Australia and ANZ might benefit from a greater focus on service user and student participation in local standards, across all aspects of the social work programme, and in so doing reinforce democratic practices within schools. Of course, it may be that there is already a greater emphasis on these issues within programmes than is necessarily observable in the standards. This, however, would require further research to determine.

As the GS are reviewed, the need for a clearer role for students as primary consumers of social work programmes, alongside the participation expected of public service users and carers, might also have a democratizing effect.

Student representativeness

The GS expect the student cohort to represent the locality of the institution and the community where graduates will practice (GS 6.2). This particular example of the equity principle goes beyond just applying a nondiscrimination approach and begins to address likely structural inequality due to higher proportions of students from privileged backgrounds accessing social work education that does not reflect the demographic of public service users. This expectation is not clear within either the SWRB or AASW policies. It is the type of policy that we might expect social work education to pursue as it is based on its own principle of equity.

To address inequity requires targeted resources and a broad-based workforce plan. This is because the nature of inequity usually means the target groups have limited independent resources to access education and support career development. In some programmes, the student demographic is well matched to its locality. Perhaps inevitably, this results in student cohorts who need higher academic, financial and pastoral support than students from more advantaged backgrounds. Wider tertiary education policy has focused on ways of improving outcomes for traditionally disadvantaged groups, and the inclusion of a specific student equity policy by the SWRB and AASW would focus further attention on developing a more appropriately diverse social work workforce and be a concrete demonstration of equity, a core social work value.

Indigenous rights and political action

The SWRB and AASW feature indigenous rights and interests as a central feature of their policies. Conversely, there is limited coverage of indigenous rights and interests in the GS. The importance of an indigenous focus at the local level has been reinforced in earlier research (Spolander et al., 2011). Global social work indigenous policy has been expanded in the recently revised global social work definition (IFSW and IASSW, 2014), which included indigenous knowledge as foundational, something that was previously absent in the definition. The commentary on the definition devotes a whole section to the indigenous dimension and its importance globally. This includes noting the declaration of the rights of indigenous people (United Nations, 2008) and the subsequent social justice imperative for social work. Based on the analysis of the sets of standards, this is one area of greater leadership at the local level. Social work from an international perspective supports indigenous self-determination and recognizes this in the development of knowledge: ‘social work knowledges will be co-created and informed by Indigenous peoples’ (IFSW and IASSW, 2014). It is notable that the IFSW has also instituted a membership policy to facilitate ANZ having joint representation from both Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and the indigenous representative body, the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association.³

In ANZ the social work profession has grappled with indigenous rights and colonization since the early 1980s, including having a Standing Committee on Racism. In 1992, the ANZASW constitution was revised to include a commitment to undertake social work in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi (Nash, 2001: 41), the founding document of Aotearoa. In this document Maori were recognized as first people with subsequent rights. The notion of partnership was expressed within ANZASW by sharing governance between Maori and non-Maori (McNabb, 2014: 65). In 1986 the NZ Council for Education and Training in the Social Services (NZCETSS) was established. It had a structure of half Maori and half non-Maori membership with a strong commitment to social justice.

Building on this foundation, the SWRB established a consultation process to further develop its policy concerning the standard of competence to practice social work with Maori, which also relates to the graduate attribute of being able to work in a bicultural context and acknowledge the centrality of the Treaty. The draft policy, named Kaitiakitanga, was developed for this consultation process which prioritized engagement with Maori (SWRB, 2015a). This led to the recent launch of the revised standard on competence to work with Maori (SWRB, 2016b). Given this history, it is perhaps not surprising that ANZ places a strong emphasis on indigenous rights and political action.

In Australia, the ASWEAS standards of 2012 include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of knowing, being and doing as one of four essential core curriculum content areas. This has been developed further in a recent report that is supported by groups within the social work profession, The Getting it Right Teaching and Learning Framework, which ‘is an evidence-informed road map for the development and delivery of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of knowing, being and doing in Australian social work curricula’ (Zubrzycki et al., 2014: 5). The emphasis on indigenous self-determination is therefore also strong in the Australian social work standards, although again how this emerges in practice in both ANZ and Australia would benefit from further research.

As the GS are reviewed, there are a number of areas where they could extend their democratizing influence specifically in the context of indigenous rights and indeed draw upon these strengths in the Australasian local standards. This would avoid the risk identified in earlier research that regional expressions might be stifled by stronger alignment with the GS (Healy, 2004). Other emerging areas that are important to consider feature in the global social work definition and commentary, including environmental justice and sustainability and the place of religion (IFSW and IASSW, 2014).

The GS tenth core purpose is to ‘engage in social and political action’ (Sewpaul and Jones, 2005: 219). This aligns with AASW policy through its broader range of social work profession policies that emphasize the ethical base of the profession that underpins such action. While the SWRB’s graduate profile addresses the imperative to engage in social change, it does not extend to the more direct activism within the notion of ‘social and political action’. This feature has been addressed by some commentators who are concerned that social work activism has been dampened by the effects of regulation and by the direction of professional associations generally (O’Brien, 2013). Better alignment of the GS with social action would require that both the SWRB and the AASW be more explicit about programmes evidencing engagement in social and political action within the curriculum and in wider practice.

Gender and cultural equity

The GS have strong expectations to see the principle of equity demonstrated through each social work programme and school (GS 1.3). Gender and cultural equity are expected in the cohort of both students and faculty. Neither Australia nor ANZ has an explicit policy on this, though they both talk about broad ways of demonstrating social work values and principles, which could arguably include equity.

A gender equity policy is expected – this is implicit within Australasia and is a significant aspiration given the predominance of women social workers and service users. The issue, however, is more likely to be the low proportion of women in governance and the wider equity issues such as pay parity for women dominated professions such as social work, nursing and teaching (Ross, 2014). Pay parity has, in fact, become a political campaign in ANZ and Australia. The staffing and governance personnel should reflect the diversities of the population it serves – a timely challenge for programmes in Australasia where women and indigenous peoples are disproportionately represented as service users, but are not proportionately represented in either the student cohort or the governance or staffing of programmes (Zubrzycki et al., 2014). To reflect the GS, the SWRB and AASW, in collaboration with other social work bodies, would need to develop specific policies on equity in relation to students, staff and the governance of programmes.

Access and equity

‘Instructional methods’ or teaching practice features in the GS where instructional methods are expected to match student learning needs (GS 2.3) and the school’s programme objectives (GS 3.1). They are also expected to match indigenous or locally specific social work education and practice from the traditions and cultures of different ethnic groups and societies (GS 3.4). The AASW standards comment on their social work education philosophy and principles (A 4.3) and on how education and a commitment to social work principles should align (A 3). This is a helpful section that is not replicated by the SWRB and could usefully be considered for future review. The GS state the expectation: ‘ensuring that the quality of the educational programme is consistent with whatever the mode of delivery, including distance, mixed-mode, decentralized and/or internet-based teaching’ (GS 6.4). This suggests that the technology and other pedagogical dimensions of the programme should promote quality education through greater access. Further consideration of issues relating to equitable access is important as the wider tertiary education sector is influenced by a dynamic period of technological and pedagogical change.

Quality social work education and broader issues of equity

In supporting quality social work education, the GS require that programmes are adequately resourced, in terms of staffing, budget and other infrastructure resources to run the programme. While the GS’ requirement is covered by both countries, adequate resourcing of programmes is a major issue that affects a range of educational institutions in this post global financial crisis context. In ANZ and Australia, social work education is funded by the government at a lower level than equivalent professional programmes such as nursing and teaching. This leaves social work structurally under-resourced and constitutes a type of public neglect of the profession which spills over into poor workforce planning and limited social work research (Beddoe, 2014: 24–25).

The GS also require an adequate administrative staff (GS 7.8), which is pertinent where funding cuts have been made to administrative staffing as this tends to put pressure on academic staff. This requirement is not directly addressed by the SWRB, though could be subsumed under the general budgetary allocation standard. It is nevertheless an important component of quality social work education and is worth highlighting, particularly in an environment of shrinking resources. The SWRB and AASW could be clearer about their policy regarding the importance of having adequate administrative staffing, alongside general resourcing requirements, for sustainable social work programmes.

Both Australia and ANZ align with the GS’ expectation of a minimum Master’s level qualification for teaching at the undergraduate level. Within university settings, a PhD is the expected qualification for an academic position, a tension when schools in Australasia are keen to employ indigenous staff (Beddoe, 2014: 25). Staff most at risk of this in ANZ are Maori and Pasifika peoples due to their general lower uptake of advanced qualifications. However, these are the very staff most sought after to teach core Maori and Pasifika knowledge and practice. Similar tensions exist in Australia where there is a significant demand for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recruitment within teaching institutions (Zubrzycki et al., 2014). To achieve an adequate number and quality of academic staff requires a workforce policy that regulators could support as a cross-sector imperative for the health of the academy and the wider social work profession.

The SWRB and AASW could better incorporate the requirement of the GS to reflect social work values in the workplace of the programme, including demonstrating participatory decision-making, a cooperative work environment and the accountability for management of the unit. In any review of the GS, it would be useful to incorporate recent global social work policy such as Effective and Ethical Working Environments for Social Work (Agius and Jones, 2012) to support workplace practices being consistent with social work values.

Conclusion

The GS play an important role, alongside other international social work instruments, in promoting quality social work education at the local level. The analysis clearly indicates that the GS are strong on issues of equity, participation and rights and that these areas represent a key focus of influence. In drawing upon elements of Shapiro’s (2011) democratic theory, we consider that the GS have an important role in democratizing social work education through the reinforcement of equity issues. The strong focus on service user participation is a key area that local standards in Australasia could better reinforce and in so doing more strongly influence practice at the local level. Acting in democracy-sustaining ways does not only work in one direction. The leadership illustrated in local standards, particularly in the area of indigenous rights, is an important area for development in the GS. This represents an area of rich potential as local and global standards engage with these ideas and reinforce each other, thus shifting attitudes and responses over time. The comparative document analysis reported here raises a number of issues that will be important to the ongoing development and review of global and local standards. In the end, however, it is the application of standards in practice that will influence the experience of social work education and its development across international settings.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biographies

David John McNabb is an Academic Leader for Social Practice, Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

Marie Connolly is a Professor and Head of Social Work at the University of Melbourne, Australia.

References

Agius

Jones

D.N.

(2012) Effective and Ethical Working Environments for Social Work: The Responsibilities of Employers of Social Workers. Bern: International Federation of Social Workers.

Akintayo

Hämäläinen

Rissanen

(2016) ‘Global Standards and the Realities of Multiculturalism in Social Work Curricula’, International Social Work. Epub ahead of print 2 June. DOI: 10.1177/0020872816648200.

Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) (2010) ‘Code of Ethics’. Available online at: http://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/4551

Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) (2012) ‘Australian Social Work Education and Accreditation Standards (ASWEAS) 2012 V1.4’. Available online at: http://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/3550

Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) (2013) ‘Practice Standards’. Available online at: http://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/4551

Barretta-Herman

Leung

Littlechild

Parada

Wairire

G. G.

(2014) ‘The Changing Status and Growth of Social Work Education Worldwide: Process, Findings and Implications of the IASSW 2010 Census’, International Social Work 59: 459–78.

Beddoe

(2014) ‘A Matter of Degrees: The Role of Education in the Professionalisation Journey of Social Work in New Zealand’, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Review 26: 17–28.

Gray

Fook

(2004) ‘The Quest for a Universal Social Work: Some Issues and Implications’, Social Work Education 23: 625–44.

Healy

L.M.

(2004) ‘Standards for Social Work Education in the North American and Caribbean Region: Current Realities, Future Issues’, Social Work Education 23: 581–95.

10.

International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) and International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) (2004) ‘Global Standards for the Training and Education of the Social Work Profession’. Available online at: http://cdn.ifsw.org/assets/ifsw_65044-3.pdf

11.

International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW) and International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) (2012) ‘The Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development: Commitments to Action’. Available online at: http://www.iassw-aiets.org/global-agenda

12.

International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) and International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) (2004) ‘Ethics in Social Work, Statement of Principles’. Available online at: http://www.iassw-aiets.org/ethics-in-social-work-statement-of-principles

13.

International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) and International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) (2014) ‘Global Definition of Social Work and Commentary’. Available online at: http://ifsw.org/get-involved/global-definition-of-social-work/

14.

McNabb

D. J.

(2014) ‘30 Years’ Membership and a 50th Birthday – Where To Next for ANZASW? Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Review 26: 61–71.

15.

Nash

(2001) ‘Social Work in Aotearoa New Zealand: Its Origins and Traditions’, in Connolly

(ed.) New Zealand Social Work: Contexts and Practice, pp. 32–43. Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.

16.

Noble

(2004) ‘Social Work Education, Training and Standards in the Asia-Pacific Region’, Social Work Education 23: 527–36.

17.

O’Brien

. (2013) Social Work Registration and Professionalism: Social Justice and Poverty - Fellow Travellers or Discarded Passengers? Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Review 25(3): 50–59.

18.

Prior

(2003) Using Documents in Social Research. London: SAGE.

19.

Ross

(2014) ‘The Social Work Voice: How could Unions Strengthen Practice?’ Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Review 26: 4–13.

20.

Sakaguchi

Sewpaul

(2011) ‘A Comparison of Social Work Education across South Africa and Japan in Relation to the Global Standards for Social Work Education and Training’, International Journal of Social Welfare 20: 192–202.

21.

Sewpaul

Jones

(2005) ‘Global Standards for the Education and Training of the Social Work Profession’, International Journal of Social Welfare 14: 218–30.

22.

Shapiro

(2011) The Real World of Democratic Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

23.

Smith

(2008) Using Secondary Data in Educational and Social Research. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill/Open University Press.

24.

Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) (2015a) ‘Kaitiakitanga – Draft Concept’. Available online at: http://www.swrb.govt.nz/

25.

Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) (2015b) ‘The Process for Recognition/Re-Recognition of Social Work Qualifications in New Zealand’. Available online at: http://www.swrb.govt.nz/policy

26.

Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) (2016a) ‘Code of Conduct’. Available online at: http://www.swrb.govt.nz/policy

27.

Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) (2016b) ‘The SWRB 10 Core Competence Standards’. Available online at: http://swrb.govt.nz/competence-assessment/core-competence-standards

28.

Spolander

Pullen-Sansfacon

Brown

Engelbrecht

L.K.

(2011) ‘Social Work Education in Canada, England and South Africa: A Critical Comparison of Undergraduate Programmes’, International Social Work 54: 816–31.

29.

The College of Social Work (2012) ‘Reforming Social Work Qualifying Education’. Available at: http://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/basw_105219-6.pdf

30.

United Nations (2008) ‘United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’. Available online at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

31.

Yip

K.S.

(2004) ‘A Chinese Cultural Critique of the Global Qualifying Standards for Social Work Education’, Social Work Education 23: 597–612.

32.

Zubrzycki

Green

Jones

Bessarab

Stratton

Young

(2014) Getting It Right: Creating Partnerships for Change. Integrating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Knowledges in Social Work Education and Practice: Teaching and Learning Framework. Sydney, NSW: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.