‘All social work takes place in a macro context’: The gap between international social work training and practice

Abstract

This explanatory sequential mixed-methods study combined data from an online survey with international social workers (N = 44), and key informant qualitative interviews (N = 6), to identify gaps and synergies between what is taught in graduate social work programmes and expected by employers. Findings suggested that although social work values align well with international social work, gaps exist between the macro knowledge and skills required for international work and that which graduate training offers. Findings further suggested that if unaddressed, these incompatibilities may contribute to the invisibility of social work as a viable training ground for practice in international aid agencies.

Keywords

Competency education interdisciplinary curriculum international social work interprofessional perspectives knowledge skills teaching social work curriculum social work education social work training

Introduction/background

Social workers increasingly recognize the importance of incorporating a global lens in their practice (Ghorayshi, 2004; Jones and Truell, 2012; Midgley, 2001). Focusing solely on domestic, community-level factors may be inadequate to fully understand the complex interplay of issues that contribute to systemic problems such as human rights abuses, structural oppression, and forced migration (Jönsson and Flem, 2018; Mapp, 2014). Furthermore, globalization, technology and vast population movements have increased exposure and access to information and awareness of human experience and human suffering (Lyons, 2006). Perhaps as a result of growing interstate and intrastate awareness, students across diverse professional disciplines are increasingly inclined to engage in practice and advocacy beyond national borders, which are also common attributes of university graduates. Riding this wave are social workers, whose focus on international social work includes ‘human rights, social development, advocacy, poverty, social justice, [as well as] responding to conflict, disasters, and the needs of displaced populations such as immigrants and refugees’ (Estes, 2010: 11). It should come as no surprise, then, that international social work has become a growing area of interest for students (Healy, 2008; Payne and Askeland, 2016) and an expanding arena for both.

Although there is no standardized definition for international social work (Midgley, 2001), there is some general agreement that international social work can include providing humanitarian aid and disaster relief (Pittaway et al., 2007), serving immigrants and refugees either locally or abroad (Estes, 2010), and engaging in international development and social entrepreneurship (Healy and Link, 2012). Despite the lack of a universal definition, two international organizations guiding international social work practice exist: the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) and the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) (Estes, 2010; Kendall, 2000). One result of this leadership has been the development of a Global Standards for Social Work Education which aims to be used as a guide for how schools of social work can incorporate an international lens into their visions, and programming. In 2004, a Global Standards for Social Work Education was adopted in Adelaide, Australia, by the IASSW and IFSW General Assemblies and continues to transform and evolve. These global standards outline the importance of core curricula and field education in particular (IASSW, 2019).

Inevitably, the subject of what international social work is, and whether it should be its own field of study, has prompted numerous debates in the field (Gray and Fook, 2004; Hugman, 2010; Midgley, 2001). Chief among them is the potential for social work and social work values to be co-opted by neocolonial agendas of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) whose funding and missions emerge from the Global North for implementation in the Global South (Gray and Fook, 2004). The tendency for international social work to manifest as a neocolonialist project, critics argue, is further supported by the fact that, to date, the bulk of scholarship in international social work has been led predominantly by scholars from the Global North with little space for scholars from the Global South to articulate their perspectives (Hugman, 2010; Hugman et al., 2010; Wehbi et al., 2016).

In reality, social work practice varies across cultures and nations and even within (Ornellas et al., 2018) and this may very well be one of the key advantages of international social work and its workers to collaboratively, relationally, and flexibly weave in and out of diverse micro, meso, and macro environments to respond to a specific cause (Claiborne, 2004). It is not surprising then to see that social workers are divided when it comes to finding a unified concept of what international social work is and social work practice and international curriculum should look like (Healy and Thomas, 2021; Midgley, 2001). Gray and Fook (2004) advise that the issues at stake are less about agreeing on a universal definition of social work but rather collaborating to identify commonalities that tackle poverty and injustice.

Despite these critiques, there is a significant interest in internationally focused courses and field placements in Canada and the United States (Caragata and Sanchez, 2002; Healy, 1986; Lalayants et al., 2015). According to a 2014 report, five of 32 schools of social work in Canada and 29 of 233 in the United States offered graduate-level international social work concentrations or specializations (Canadian Association for Social Work Education, 2014; Council on Social Work Education, 2014). Increasingly, graduate schools of social work focus on how curriculum can include an international focus (Barner and Okech, 2013; Greenfield et al., 2012). Healy and Wairire (2014) emphasize a focus on research and training and more specifically in the areas of human rights, social integration, and social and economic development. Further to these areas, Dababnah et al. (2016) emphasize the importance of adopting and practising with a global lens and providing opportunities for cross-cultural learning and experience through such activities as international field placements. This in turn will allow social workers to practise more effectively and interact more holistically with clients from diverse backgrounds.

Surprisingly, there exists little empirical work examining the specific knowledge, values and skills international social workers say they require to work in the field. Furthermore, little research exists that explores the compatibility between pre-employment social work graduate education and training and international social work employers’ expectations. Most recently, Kahn and Sussman (2015) explored this congruence by triangulating a content analysis of 52 job advertisements, with findings from 10 in-depth individual interviews with practising international social workers. Preliminary findings suggested that strength-based perspectives, exhibiting cultural humility, empowering person-centred relationships, and demonstrating reflexivity, were seen as critically important to international social workers and also consistently present in social work training programmes. However, findings also revealed that skills commensurate with programme management, grant writing, policy development and communicating with high media officials were viewed as foundational to international social work but less consistently present in social work graduate education. While some tentative recommendations can be drawn from this work, a number of limitations impacting the transferability of the findings are noteworthy. First, many of the expected competencies emerging from this work were based on the content of job advertisements which have a tendency to focus on hard skills rather than perspectives informing practice. Second, gaps in training were garnered from a small sample of international social workers.

Building on Kahn and Sussman’s (2015) work, the current mixed-methods study used the combination of an online survey and follow-up stakeholder interviews to (1) examine the extent to which the knowledge, values and skills considered critical in the former study were affirmed by a larger pool of social workers; (2) highlight the gaps and compatibilities between needed competencies and social work graduate training; (3) identify challenges and opportunities surrounding educational training for international social work; and ultimately (4) put forth recommendations to narrow the gap between social work training and international social work practice.

Methods

This study used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design which involves collecting and analysing quantitative and then qualitative data in two consecutive phases (Creswell, 2009). In phase 1 (quantitative), we developed and distributed an online survey. The survey was designed to help us gain a general understanding of the knowledge, values and skills considered important to international social workers and explore the extent to which those competencies were taught in social work graduate programmes. In phase 2 (qualitative), we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with expert stakeholders. This process allowed us to explore the impact of identified gaps on international social work practice more fully. It also allowed us to openly explore whether other gaps not captured in the survey emerged. Ultimately, we felt these two forms of data would provide us with robust findings from which to make recommendations.

Research was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Tri-Council Policy Statement for Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Data collection procedures were approved by the Office of Research Ethics Board at McGill University.

Recruitment and sampling

In the first phase of the study, international social workers in Canada and the United States were sent an electronic invitation to participate in an online survey via list serves provided by six domestic and global social work organizations such as the Canadian Association of Social Workers (domestic) and the International Federation of Social Workers (global). Recruitment took place over a period of 4 months (May 2016–August 2016).

To be eligible to participate in the survey, respondents had to have (1) at least 1 year of paid international social work experience within the last 5 years, defined as working abroad in humanitarian aid, international development, disaster relief and/or domestically with immigrants, refugees, or asylum seekers, and (2) graduated from a master of social work (MSW) programme in Canada or the United States. Potential respondents were emailed and invited to participate in the online survey, many of whom emailed their professional networks and shared the study’s recruitment flyer at international conferences.

The survey was housed on a platform called LimeSurvey on a secure site hosted by the University wherein the study was conducted. Using a modified Dillman’s approach, three reminders were sent to all potential respondents (Dillman et al., 2009). In addition, to encourage completion, those interested in providing contact information were entered into a draw with a one in five chance of winning a $25.00 gift card. The survey took approximately 15–20 minutes to complete.

Given the method of survey administration, we do not know how many individuals received a survey invitation. However, 66 individuals self-identified as meeting the inclusion criteria and began answering the survey, of which 44 completed it. The most common reason for non-completion appeared to be recognition of ineligibility as non-completers stopped responding when asked about their current or past international social work social work experience.

In phase 2, we used purposeful and snowball sampling to invite international social workers with 10 or more years of leadership experience in global social work to participate in key informant interviews. These highly experienced participants were solicited based on researcher judgement and professional international social work networks to provide further elaboration on findings emerging from the surveys. More specifically, these key informant interviews were used to triangulate trends emerging from the survey data and to illuminate possible impacts and solutions for identified incompatibilities.

Recruitment involved direct outreach to contacts in social work networks in Canada and the United States, asking whether they would participate in an in-depth interview. At this initial outreach stage, we purposefully solicited a mix of international social workers such as those with expertise with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governmental organizations, global social work associations and/or global social work education and those who had worked locally and/or aboard. We also used snowball sampling asking interview participants to suggest other potential participants. These combined efforts yielded 14 potential participants, of whom only six participated in interviews, due to a variety of reasons for the others such as scheduling conflicts and lack of response. Although participants of all gender identities were invited to participate, the six participants who completed the interviews all identified as women.

In-depth interviews included questions about possible gaps between international social work practice and social work graduate training, challenges and opportunities for improving international social work training and perceived barriers for international social workers seeking to practise globally. Both verbal and written consent were obtained before commencing each of the interviews. Interviews were conducted by the first and fourth authors over phone or Skype and lasted between 1 and 2 hours.

Measures

The online survey captured demographic information (i.e. age, gender identity, ethnicity), educational history (i.e. time since graduation, international social work training during MSW) and employment status (i.e. current employment, international social work employment [if different], work location, job sector, role and length of time employed in international social work).

Building on the findings of Kahn and Sussman (2015), the survey also asked participants to rank the extent to which a list of skills (10 items, for example, team building, communication with media/high-level officials), knowledge (6 items, for example, knowledge of international treaties, ecological person in environment model) and values (7 items, for example, a social justice orientation, understanding and valuing diversity) were taught during their educational training and expected by employers. Potential responses were ranked on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha calculated for knowledge (6 items; α = .75), skills (10 items; α = .78) and values (7 items; α = .87) suggested a good level of the reliability of items with their associated domains.

A semi-structured interview guide was used to inform stakeholder interviews. Informed by the findings from the online survey, the interviews probed the extent to which identified gaps were perceived and experienced by stakeholders, the impact of identified gaps on international social work and the challenges and solutions to addressing gaps. For descriptive purposes, stakeholders were also asked to provide basic demographic information, including country of residence, age, gender, type of international experience, and years in the field. All key informants were provided with pseudonyms to protect their identity.

Method of analysis

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations for continuous data and proportions and percentages for categorical data) were conducted to provide an overview of participant characteristics, and of knowledge, values, and skills most frequently taught in schools and expected by employers. For these descriptive purposes, 23 Likert-type scale items were dichotomized with strongly agree and agree responses grouped together to represent overall agreement.

We then proceeded with mean comparisons between school preparation and employer expectations for knowledge, values and skills using paired t tests. Illuminating mean differences between what was taught and what was expected was one mechanism from which we were able to identify potential gaps.

For key informants, all interviews were audio-recorded but only five were transcribed verbatim as one was inaudible. Extensive field notes were taken for this sixth interview to allow for inclusion in the analysis. A conventional three-stage thematic analysis was led by two members of the research team (first and fourth authors) to explore the qualitative data (Braun and Clarke, 2006). In the first stage, the first author reviewed all transcribed interviews line by line and assigned open codes. We elected to take an open inductive approach to coding to see whether the gaps identified in our quantitative analysis emerged in the same way in our qualitative data. Codes at this stage included compatibility between graduate school training and international social work practice, training gaps, the impact of identified gaps and recommendations for improving preparation for international social work practice.

In the second stage, the first and fourth authors reviewed the coded data looking for similarities and differences within and across them as well as comparing them to the notes taken from the sixth interview. At this point, analytic categories began to emerge. For example, some text segments coded under training gaps and the impact of identified gaps appeared to be mutually reinforcing such that graduating without particular skills appeared to impact graduates by perpetuating misunderstandings. Hence, the category Graduating without Macro Skills Perpetuates Misunderstanding was developed.

In keeping with the sequential mixed-methods design of this study (Creswell, 2009), the third and final stages of analysis involved comparing and contrasting categories emerging from the qualitative data with those derived from our quantitative analysis. Led by the first author with input from the second author, this process involved paying particular attention to ideas in the interviews that expanded, contradicted, or affirmed trends noted in the quantitative analysis. For example, in light of the statistically significant differences identified in our quantitative analysis between skills acquired and skills expected, and the emergence of this gap in the first stages of our qualitative analysis, in our final stages of qualitative analysis, we focused on expanding our understandings of what may lie behind this gap and how this gap may impact the landscape of international social work. The final four themes emerging from this process were Social Work Perspectives Align Well with International Social Work, Missing Critical Skills Impacts International Social Work Trainees and Graduates, Graduating without Macro Skills Perpetuates Misunderstandings and Barriers to Expanding International Social Work-Specific Training in Social Work Programmes. Themes and associated excerpts from this final stage were reviewed by all authors who agreed that they comprehensively and reliably represented comments made by participants. Data were managed using QSR International’s NVivo 11.

Findings

A description of survey respondents is presented in Table 1. Most study respondents identified as White (66.7%) and female (77.3%) with an average age of 47.5 years. While many respondents did not graduate from schools offering international social work streams (43.2%), a strong minority (38.6%) took at least one international social work course or workshop during their MSW studies. The majority of respondents graduated over 10 years ago (46.7%). The most common employer was government (34.9%), followed by private practice (25.6%). The jobs held most often by respondents were that of field worker (42.4%), followed by programme manager (22.5%).

Table 1.

Description of sample.

Variables	Proportion/M (SD)N = 44
Gender
Female	77.3
Age	47.5 (13.7)
Ethnicity
White	66.70
Black	4.8
Hispanic	2.4
East Asian	7.1
South Asian	11.9
Middle Eastern	2.4
Mixed	4.8
International Social Work Training Provided in MSW
No international social work opportunities provided	43.2
International social work courses/workshops	38.6
International social work field placements	27.3
International social work stream	22.7
Time since graduation
Less than 10 years	33.3
10 years and above	66.7
Work location
Abroad	50.0
Locally	22.7
Currently not working	27.3
Job sector
Domestic NGO	16.3
International NGO	23.3
Private practice	25.6
Government	34.9
Job role
Senior management	10.0
Programme manager	22.5
Field worker	42.5
Consultant	5.0
Research/policy	12.5
Educator/trainer	7.5
Job length
Less than a year	4.9
1–3 years	14.6
4–6 years	17.1
6–10 years	17.1
More than 10 years	46.3

MSW: master of social work; NGO: non-governmental organization.

All key informants identified as female and had 11–20+ years of international social work experience, working domestically and/or abroad at one time or another. At the time of the interview, five of six participants held positions as staff or faculty in a social work graduate school; of these, three also held roles in international social work organizations or associations based in Canada and the United States. All interviewees held leadership positions who could also provide unique insights into education and practice.

Knowledge, values and skills most frequently acquired and expected

Table 2 provides an overview of the knowledge, values and skills most frequently documented by respondents as acquired in school and expected from employers.

Table 2.

Description of items of scales with proportion agreed.

Scale/items	Schools prepare	Employers expect
International social work knowledge
Knowledge of international treaties/conventions	27.5	61.5
Expertise working in high conflict/emergency areas	10.3	56.4
Culturally relevant policy development, analysis, and implementation	25.0	53.8
Expertise when dealing with communication to press	25.0	51.3
An ecological/person-in-environment model	82.5	71.8
Attention to power dynamics and the lingering impact of colonialism	62.5	66.7
International social work skills
Team building	53.8	85.0
Grant/report writing	25.0	57.5
Programme monitoring/evaluation	43.6	80.0
Communication with media/high-level officials	20.0	55.3
Budgeting/financial management/fundraising	18.0	61.5
Research skills	70.0	66.6
Relevant language skills	33.4	64.1
Project management in international contexts	33.3	66.7
Active listening skills	92.5	71.8
The capacity for developing strong interpersonal relationships	87.2	79.5
International social work values
Cultural sensitivity	70.0	84.6
Empowerment approach	87.5	71.8
Reflexivity and self-reflection	82.9	56.4
Client-centred framework	77.5	69.3
Valuing diversity	82.5	87.2
Strengths-based approaches	90.0	68.4
A social justice orientation	75.0	61.5

Knowledge

There was relative congruence between perceptions of preparedness and employer expectations with respect to the importance of an ecological framework (82.5% prepared vs 71.8% expected), as well as awareness of power dynamics and the lingering impacts of colonialism (62.5% prepared vs 66.7% expected). However, considerable incongruences appeared with knowledge of international treaties and conventions (27.5% prepared vs 61.5% expected), knowledge of high conflict or emergency contexts (10.3% prepared vs 56.4% expected), culturally relevant policy development/implementation (25% prepared vs 53.8% expected) and expertise in media management (25% prepared vs 51.3% expected).

Values

Both schools of social work and employers appeared to place a strong emphasis on valuing diversity (82.5% prepared vs 87.2% expected), empowerment (87.5% prepared vs 71.8% expected) and cultural sensitivity (70% prepared vs 84.6% expected). Yet, while schools of social work emphasized reflexivity (82.9% prepared vs 56.4% expected), strengths-based approaches (90% prepared vs 68.4% expected) and social justice orientations (75% prepared vs 61.5% expected), these values appeared slightly less critical to employers.

Skills

Both schools and employers appeared to emphasize active listening (92.5% prepared vs 71.8% expected), interpersonal relationship skills (87.2% prepared vs 79.5% expected), research skills (70% prepared vs 66.6% expected) and, to a lesser extent, team building (53.8% prepared vs 85% expected). However, findings demonstrated significant gaps in skills with respect to grant/report writing (25% prepared vs 57.5% expected), programme monitoring and evaluation (43.6% prepared vs 80% expected), media and high officials communication skills (20% prepared vs 55.3% expected), project management in international contexts (33.4% prepared vs 66.7% expected), relevant language skills (33.4% prepared vs 64.1% expected) and budgeting/financial management/fundraising (18% prepared vs 61.5% expected).

Differences between knowledge, values and skills acquired versus expected

Table 3 presents mean comparisons between knowledge, values and skills taught at the schools of social work and expected by international social work employers. There was a statistically significant difference between knowledge offered (M = 18.1, SD = 5.1) at schools and knowledge expected (M = 21.4, SD = 4.6) by international social work employers (t(36) = 3.4, p < .001). A statistically significant difference was also observed between skills offered (M = 31.3, SD = 8.8) at schools and skills expected (M = 39.4, SD = 5.9) by international social work employers (t(33) = 5.6, p < .001). However, no such difference was found between values offered (M = 29.2, SD = 5.9) and values expected (M = 27.7, SD = 6.6) (t(36) = 1.2, p = .25).

Table 3.

Comparison of means of scales between school and employer.

Scale	Schools prepareM (SD)	Employers valueM (SD)	M difference	t value	df	p value
International social work knowledge	18.1 (5.1)	21.4 (4.6)	3.2	3.4	36	.00
International social work skills	31.3 (8.8)	39.4 (5.9)	8.1	5.6	33	.00
International social work values	29.2 (5.9)	27.7 (6.6)	1.4	1.2	36	.25

A thematic analysis of the interview data affirmed the disparities noted in the survey data between expected and acquired training. In addition, the qualitative data provided a deeper understanding of existing gaps and revealed the impact and consequences of these gaps to those in international social work.

Social work perspectives align well with international social work

Participants stressed that foundational social work training made graduates ideal candidates for international jobs. Appreciating the importance of systems, being trained to move beyond presenting issues to seek deeper understandings of challenges and understanding and exploring issues of diversity were seen as particularly relevant for international and humanitarian work. The array of knowledge and values that all trained social workers possess was highlighted by Jerry:

I think many of us are attracted to sort of political policy work and that’s because we understand the systems. We even got the basic family system and I think we can apply that on a macro level. And also, I feel that social workers are very curious. We question, we don’t accept that this as an answer. And we think out of the box. We know how to do that. That’s what we’re encouraged to do. We’re not encouraged to just to accept things at face value . . . [we] incorporate the culture competency side of it . . . [we] understand systems, [we] understand people, [we] know how policies impact practice. Our practice has to be including policy and programming. So, I think that that goes back to really appreciating . . . It really does remind us that we have a hell of a lot of offer and, you know, go forth and do well.

Jane affirms the value of social work’s macro lens, stating, ‘all social work takes place in a macro context’. Her comment suggests that whether the starting point of practice is working with an individual/family or working with a community, social workers are trained to see the links between the broader social context and the presenting issues, a critical focus for embarking on international work.

That social work perspectives were felt to align well with international work provided some affirmation that the value and framework compatibilities we noted in our quantitative analysis were supported by our key informants.

Missing critical skills impacts international social work trainees and graduates

While theoretical foundations and professional values were seen as crucial assets to thriving in international positions, developing and leveraging technical skills were considered paramount to successfully attaining and retaining international social work positions. To this end, Jerry mentions advising students on taking macro skills-based classes in their MSW programmes, based upon the experiences of her past students who had studied abroad:

I think that the feedback we’ve had from students who have been abroad is, you know, they need more skills. They absolutely want more skills . . . So, you know what I think I’ve tried to do is to direct students to ensure that they take like a program development class, that they take one of the macro classes that would be a benefit to, you know, the work that they are doing when they’re away.

For some, however, relevant skills were simply lacking in MSW programmes. For example, Jessica, who had a bachelor’s degree in social work, stated that she chose to complete a master’s degree in another discipline in order to gain what she termed ‘technical [macro] skills’. Other key informants echoed Jessica’s views on the salience of macro skills such as programme planning, budgeting, policy, community organizing, planning and development and administration to be important to human rights and social justice work internationally. These findings lend additional support to our quantitative data which noted macro skills as both important to international work and sorely missing from social work graduate training programmes.

Graduating without macro skills perpetuates misunderstandings

According to participants, the failure of many social work graduate schools to ensure their trainees graduated with macro skills served to perpetuate misconceptions in the international community about the fit between social work training and international work. Natasha and Jane comment on this misperception in the following statements:

[Social workers are] (m)isunderstood. I don’t think people quite understand how social work could be applied internationally because they still see social work as very case management-focused. And very micro in scope. (Natasha)

I just think [employers] don’t understand the role of social work and the breadth of social work in terms of what we do . . . years ago we were trying to consult with a number of these NGOs about changing their job descriptions and I think they really think social work, and they think clinical. And they don’t think about the macro aspect of social work and the way that macro skills are so tied into humanitarian efforts and development efforts and how we overlap so much with those. (Jane)

One of the ways social workers have mitigated misperceptions about social work during the hiring process has been to strategically de-emphasize their professional discipline, and place the emphasis, instead, upon their skills. As Jane describes,

[what] we’ve been doing this now for a couple of years is to structure [graduating students’] cover letters in a way that you almost can’t tell that they have an MSW when you first look at their cover letter. They’re talking about the skills that they bring to the position. Program development, research evaluation, data analysis, grant writing, you know, the things that this type of work lends itself to so that you wouldn’t know whether they were coming from international relations or political science or social work . . . Because that’s the only way that they are going to be seen.

Such a strategy requires that the requisite skills noted above were obtained over the course of one’s degree. Unfortunately, as was evident in both our quantitative and qualitative findings, this was not the case for many social work graduates.

Barriers to expanding international social work-specific training in social work programs

Several reasons were noted by participants to shed light on why macro skills-based international social work programmes may not be proliferating. Both funding constraints and historically lower enrolment in international streams were mentioned as issues preventing social work schools from providing adequate training and focus on international specializations or streams, as Tanya detailed:

Well I think one very important one is funding. There is a cut in funding. First things that go in a country that’s looking at its economic balance is any international programs and any international efforts . . .

Jane expressed that more research on the landscape of international possibilities could mitigate barriers to funding by arming social work programmes with critical information that would support efforts to seek targeted funding for international training:

So that kind of research is a great help and I think having more information about what people do, what they don’t do, where they’re going, you know, what’s beneficial is always of importance. I think having research on the numbers of where people are, you know, the impact they’re making, what outcomes are they having, would also be really incredible because then you can say to funders or to other people here’s our impact, here’s where we, you know, here’s the importance of social work in this arena, this is why you need to put us in job descriptions or whatever.

Overall findings from our key informant interviews revealed that the foundational knowledge and values underpinning social worker training position social workers exceptionally well for international work. However, macro skills valuable to positions in international social work, such as grant/report writing, monitoring and evaluation, budgeting, financial management and fundraising, may not always be offered in schools, potentially hindering new MSW graduates from entering the international job market. In these instances, not only do candidates from other disciplines obtain international positions, but employers affirm their beliefs that social work is not an ideal training ground for international work. Key informants recognized systemic barriers to providing market-driven knowledge and skills to social work graduate students, as they urged social work programmes to provide expanded opportunities for students to learn these skills in school. This was viewed as crucial so that, upon graduation, new graduates can both be more competitive in the global job market and more prepared to assume international social work positions.

Discussion

Our combined survey and interview results identified a number of important gaps between MSW training provided and international social work employer expectations. Most notably, knowledge of international treaties and conventions, expertise working in high conflict areas, culturally relevant policy development, analysis and implementation, communicating with the press and high media officials, grant writing and financial management/fundraising were seen as critically important to employers and sorely missing from current social work training programmes. Results of our online survey further suggested that disparities between knowledge bases and skills taught versus expected were statistically significant and pedagogically meaningful.

Our combined findings also indicated that while values and frameworks specific to social work were well aligned with international social work, the absence of specific knowledge and skills applicable to macro practice in general and international work more specifically may have contributed to the invisibility of social work as a viable training ground from the perspective of employers. Participants understood these more focused knowledge bases and skills may be the first to be taken out of the social work curriculum when faced with budget cuts and limited demand. However, actions to overcome these barriers were considered paramount if social work schools and programmes were committed to ensuring their graduates were armed with crucial knowledge and skills to practise on the global stage.

This is not to suggest that social work training is not valuable. In fact, our study’s findings affirmed that social workers excel in bringing values of social justice, knowledge of complex systems, and critical thinking and reflexivity skills into the international realm. Prepared further with specific concrete skills valued by employers, social workers are well positioned to be change agents from within international NGOs, promoting and operationalizing inclusivity, anti-racism and anti-neocolonialism. In order to fully accomplish this, however, it may be true that social workers will need to develop their portfolios in order to assume leadership roles. Findings from this study further underscore that social work graduate students seeking international career opportunities need to effectively promote the vast array of skills they possess and effectively communicate that knowledge to potential employers. Otherwise, graduates may find they are shut out of positions for which they may well be qualified because of limiting assumptions on the part of employers about what social workers can and cannot do (Kahn and Sussman, 2015). These sentiments, including those of social work being seen as largely clinical, are also reported by one of our key informants, Jane.

A number of key recommendations emanating from this work are suggested. First, while training-to-the-job-market should not be the primary driver of curricula, schools of social work are, nonetheless, professional training programmes; macro skills are valuable in expanding opportunities for social work to positively impact society. Claiborne (2004) argues that one of the challenges for social workers seeking employment in NGOs is the lack of opportunities to gain educational practice experience in international social work. Results from this study suggest that generalist training should consider inclusion of macro skill development sorely missing from current social work curricula and thus limiting social work graduates’ employability (Austin et al., 2016; Gingrich and Ansell, 2012; Jönsson and Flem, 2018; Kahn and Sussman, 2015; Netting et al., 2016; Reisch, 2016; Sims et al., 2014). Second, to address barriers to offering specialized international training such as funding limitations and additional demands on schools of social work, supplemental exposure to internationally focused skills and knowledge could be created by partnering with other faculties that provide these technical skills. This could be done formally by offering joint degrees or through advising by assisting students to locate supplemental courses within the university to supplement their training (Bronstein, 2003; Bronstein et al., 2010; Falck, 1977; Gilbert et al., 2015; Schmitz et al., 2012). Finally, MSW programmes may do well to link graduating students with international social work mentors in the field. Mentors can provide practical advice on the types of courses they should enrol in, experience they should gain during the course of their graduate work, and how to effectively represent their skills in CVs, cover letters and interviews. These tactics were identified as important to counter bias among employers who may hold limiting beliefs about the depth and breadth of social work practice.

Strengths and limitations

The findings of this study should be interpreted in light of four important limitations. First, due to our method of sample recruitment, we are unsure how many participants were invited to complete our survey and why participants who started to complete it did not continue. As such, this study has potential coverage and self-selection biases and the views expressed in the surveys may not be generalizable to other international social workers employed on the global arena. Second, the current study relied solely on international social workers’ reporting to capture both training received and expected by employers. Their perceptions may differ from employers themselves. It is noteworthy, however, that many of the survey participants were themselves senior managers who also employed and supervised international social workers. Third, while a third of our sample graduated from MSW programmes during a time period when international social work was gaining more prominence within schools of social work, two thirds did not. Thus, it is possible that a sample of more recent graduates would have identified fewer gaps. Finally, the study was limited by its reliance upon international social work participants from the Global North, specifically only Canada and the United States. Future research should not only privilege the voices and experiences of international social workers from the Global South, but be led by them, as well. Alongside these limitations, it is also noteworthy that this study is one of the first to use mixed methods and a sequential, explanatory strategy that included both an online survey and key informant interviews to examine the relationship between knowledge, values and skills learned in MSW programmes and expected by international social work employers. The rich data generated from this approach provide important guidance to schools of social work seeking to prepare global-ready graduates.

Conclusion

This sequential mixed-methods study revealed a number of significant knowledge and skills gaps between the training provided in MSW programmes across North America and that expected by international social work employers. Most notably, knowledge and skills related to macro practice were both sorely missing and highly valued for international work. As a result, the unique social work lens which prioritizes reflexivity and social justice was rendered invisible by prospective employers who instead thought of social work as a largely micro-based profession. Actions to reclaim macro knowledge and skills within the social work curriculum are paramount if social work programmes are committed to carving a prominent space on the global stage.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Hanna Kim

Mohammad Nuruzzaman Khan

Author biographies

Hanna Kim is a PhD Candidate at McGill University’s School of Social Work. Her doctoral research consists of exploring pre- and post-migration narratives of resettled refugee women in Toronto, Canada.

Tamara Sussman is an Associate Professor at McGill University’s School of Social Work. She has a programme of research in the area of social work pedagogy and is the former Director of the School’s Field Education programme.

Mohammad Nuruzzaman Khan is an Assistant Professor of Social Work at the University of Manitoba. He studies the financial capability, economic resilience, and well-being of immigrants.

Sarilee Kahn is Adjunct Professor at the McGill University School of Social Work. Her research focuses on global social work practice and psychosocial dimensions of acculturation for multiply marginalized migrants.

References

Austin

M.J.

Anthony

E.K.

Knee

R.T.

Mathias

(2016) ‘Revisiting the Relationship between Micro and Macro Social Work Practice’, Families in Society 97(4): 270–7.

Barner

J.R.

Okech

(2013) ‘Teaching Globalization to Social Work Students: In and Out of the Classroom’, Social Work Education 32: 1061–74.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) ‘Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101.

Bronstein

L.R.

(2003) ‘A Model for Interdisciplinary Collaboration’, Social Work 48(3): 297–306.

Bronstein

L.R.

Mizrahi

Korazim-Kőrösy

McPhee

(2010) ‘Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Social Work Education in the USA, Israel and Canada: Deans’ and Directors’ Perspectives’, International Social Work 53(4): 457–73.

Canadian Association for Social Work Education (2014) ‘Institutional Membership’, Available online at: http://caswe-acfts.ca/members/institutional/

Caragata

Sanchez

(2002) ‘Globalization and Global Need: New Imperatives for Expanding International Social Work Education in North America’, International Social Work 45: 217–38.

Claiborne

(2004) ‘Presence of Social Workers in Nongovernment Organizations’, Social Work 49(2): 207–18.

Council on Social Work Education (2014) ‘Program Membership’, Available online at: http://www.cswe.org/Membership/27021.aspx

10.

Creswell

J.W.

(2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd edn. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

11.

Dababnah

Goodkind

Frost

C.J.

Olsen

J.K.

(2016) ‘Increasing Global Context in Social Work Education: Role of Internationally Experienced Faculty’, International Journal of Best Practices in Global Development 2(2): 1–12.

12.

Dillman

Smyth

Christian

L.M.

(2009) Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design. New York: Wiley.

13.

Estes

(2010) ‘United States-Based Conceptualization of International Social Work Education’, Paper prepared for Council on Social Work Education, Katherine A. Kendall Institute for International Social Work Education, Washington, DC. Available online at: https://repository.upenn.edu/spp_papers/181/

14.

Falck

H.S.

(1977) ‘Interdisciplinary Education and Implications for Social Work Practice’, Journal of Education in Social Work 13(2): 30–7.

15.

Ghorayshi

(2004) ‘The Discourse of Globalization and the Alleged Inevitability of Our Global Future?’, in Samuelson

Antony

(eds) Power and Resistance, 3rd edn, pp. 201–24. Halifax: Fernwood.

16.

Gilbert

D.J.

Held

M. Lehman

Ellzey

J.L.

Bailey

W.T.

Young

L.B.

(2015) ‘Teaching “Community Engagement” in Engineering Education for International Development: Integration of an Interdisciplinary Social Work Curriculum’, European Journal of Engineering Education 40(3): 256–66.

17.

Gingrich

Ansell

(2012) ‘Preferences in Context: Micro Preferences, Macro Contexts, and the Demand for Social Policy’, Comparative Political Studies 45(12): 1624–54.

18.

Gray

Fook

(2004) ‘The Quest for Universal Social Work: Some Issues and Implications’, Social Work Education 23(5): 625–44.

19.

Greenfield

E.A.

Davis

R.T.

Fedor

J.P.

(2012) ‘The Effect of International Social Work Education: Study Abroad Versus On-Campus Courses’, Journal of Social Work Education 48: 739–61.

20.

Healy

L.M.

(1986) ‘The International Dimension in Social Work Education: Current Efforts, Future Challenges’, International Social Work 29: 135–47.

21.

Healy

L.M.

(2008) International Social Work: Professional Action in an Interdependent World. New York: Oxford University Press.

22.

Healy

L.M.

Wairire

G.G.

(2014) ‘Educating for the Global Agenda: Internationally Relevant Conceptual Frameworks and Knowledge for Social Work Education’, International Social Work 57: 235–47.

23.

Healy

L.M.

Link

R.J.

(2012) Handbook of International Social Work: Human Rights, Development, and the Global Profession. New York: Oxford University Press.

24.

Healy

L.M.

Thomas

R.L.

(2021) International Social Work, 3rd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.

25.

Hugman

(2010) Understanding International Social Work: A Critical Analysis. Chicago, IL: Macmillan International Higher Education.

26.

Hugman

Moosa-Mitha

Moyo

(2010) ‘Towards a Borderless Social Work: Reconsidering Notions of International Social Work’, International Social Work 53(5): 629–43.

27.

IASSW (2019) ‘Global Standards for Social Work Education and Training’, Available online at: https://www.iassw-aiets.org/global-standards-for-social-work-education-and-training/

28.

Jones

D.N.

Truell

(2012) ‘The Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development: A Place to Link Together and Be Effective in a Globalized World’, International Social Work 55(4): 454–72.

29.

Jönsson

Flem

A.L.

(2018) ‘International Field Training in Social Work Education: Beyond Colonial Divides’, Social Work Education 37(7): 895–908.

30.

Kahn

Sussman

(2015) ‘Claiming a Space for International Social Work: Voices from the Field’, Social Work Education, Available online at: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/02615479.2015.1059805

31.

Kendall

K.A.

(2000) Social Work Education: Its Origins in Europe. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

32.

Lalayants

Doel

Kachkachishvili

(2015) ‘Students’ Perceptions of International Social Work: A Comparative Study in the USA, UK, and Georgia’, International Social Work 58(1): 97–110.

33.

Lyons

(2006) ‘Globalisation and Social Work: International and Local Implications’, British Journal of Social Work 36: 365–80.

34.

Mapp

(2014) Human Rights and Social Justice in a Global Perspective: an Introduction to International Social Work, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford.

35.

Midgley

(2001) ‘Issues in International Social Work: Resolving Critical Debates in the Profession’, Journal of Social Work 1(1): 21–35.

36.

Netting

F.E.

O’Connor

M.K.

Cole

P.L.

Hopkins

Jones

J.L.

Kim

Leisey

Mulroy

E.A.

Rotabi

K.S.

Thomas

M.L.

Weil

M.O.

Wike

T.L.

(2016) ‘Reclaiming and Reimagining Macro Social Work Education: a Collective Biography’, Journal of Social Work Education 52(2): 157–69.

37.

Ornellas

Spolander

Engelbrecht

L.K.

(2018) ‘The Global Social Work Definition: Ontology, Implications and Challenges’, Journal of Social Work 18(2): 222–40.

38.

Payne

Askeland

G.A.

(2016) Globalization and International Social Work: Postmodern Change and Challenge. New York: Routledge.

39.

Pittaway

Bartolomei

Rees

(2007) ‘Gendered Dimensions of the 2004 Tsunami and a Potential Social Work Response in Post-Disaster Situations’, International Social Work 50(3): 307–19.

40.

Reisch

(2016) ‘Why Macro Practice Matters’, Journal of Social Work Education 52(3): 258–68.

41.

Schmitz

C.L.

Matyók

Sloan

L.M.

James

(2012) ‘The Relationship between Social Work and Environmental Sustainability: Implications for Interdisciplinary Practice’, International Journal of Social Welfare 21(3): 278–86.

42.

Sims

de Chenu

Williams

(2014) ‘The Global Agenda: Developing International Perspectives and Critical Discourse in UK Social Work Education and Practice’, International Social Work 57: 360–72.

43.

Wehbi

Parada

George

Lessa

(2016) ‘Going Home: Social Work Across and About Borders’, International Social Work 59(2): 284–292.