Core competencies in disaster management for social workers in China: A modified e-Delphi study

Abstract

Summary

A modified e-Delphi study was conducted to identify the core competencies required by social workers for disaster management in China. A list of competencies was compiled through an integrative review and in-depth interviews. We then conducted a three-round e-Delphi survey with 25 experts including social work practitioners and academics, government officials and other professionals. After a 4-month period of data collection and analysis, we proposed a specific social work competence framework for disaster management in the unique context of China.

Findings

A total of 87 competencies were identified and categorised into knowledge, values and skills needed for the mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery phases of disaster management (a total of 15 categories). Through a further thematic analysis, we identified four interconnected themes related to disaster resilience building and social justice in various phases.

Applications

This ground-breaking competence framework can inform Chinese social work practice and training in disaster management, thus enabling social workers to better identify their specific professional roles and tasks in disaster contexts. The framework can also enhance transdisciplinary collaboration among social workers and the various disaster management stakeholders, and can also be of value when developing social work core competencies outside of China.

Keywords

Social work competence social work education social work practice social workers

Introduction

Disaster management is now more important than ever due to the increasing number of hazards worldwide, and refers to the process of planning, organising and applying resources or measures aimed at reducing society's potential vulnerability to hazards and strengthening its resilience. The process includes mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery phases (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2017). Chinese social work interventions in disaster contexts were first implemented after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake (Sim et al., 2013), and social workers’ involvement in the disaster response phase has increased since the 2012 Ludian earthquake (Wang & Lum, 2013). Social workers contribute to livelihood reconstruction, offer mental health support and help to rebuild social relationships and communities after disasters occur (Ku & Ma, 2015; Wang & Lum, 2013). However, few studies have examined their contributions to disaster mitigation and preparedness (Ng, 2012).

Social workers should develop the specific competencies required in disaster management, which may help to define their specific roles and tasks in developing professional practice and training for the four phases of disaster management (Drolet, 2019). In this study, we aim to identify and validate a competence framework consisting of the knowledge, values and skills needed for Chinese social work practice and training in disaster management. The results can offer an initial basis for improving relevant social work training, practice and policymaking in China.

Discourse on social work core competencies

The concepts of knowledge, value and skill in social work have been extensively discussed and are the three main domains integrated into the generic social work core competence framework (Council on Social Work Education, 2015; Trevithick, 2012). Concerns have been raised that competence-based training is mechanistic, deductive or anti-reflective, and can thus de-professionalise social work, weaken professional autonomy or cause their education system to become bureaucratic, but this approach does have some advantages (Dominelli, 1996; Lymbery, 2003). It can, for example, ensure that social workers have the appropriate qualifications in specific practical contexts (Lymbery, 2003).

However, no comprehensive competence framework for social work in the disaster management context has currently been identified. The lack of a systematic analysis of the specific knowledge, skills and values required (e.g., Maglajlic, 2019; Ng, 2012) can exacerbate the challenges brought by the insufficient training and supervision of Chinese social workers (Sim et al., 2013; Wang & Lum, 2013), which has impeded their development in the disaster management context. We aim to comprehensively identify the core competencies required for Chinese social workers in this context, which can also inform other stakeholders in disaster management (e.g., government officials, local community members and professionals from other disciplines) about the abilities of professional social workers, thus encouraging transdisciplinary collaboration.

Current competence-based training resources in disaster management

Although research on social work practice in disaster management situations has increased in recent years, investigations into relevant education approaches are still lacking (Drolet, 2019; Wu, 2021), particularly in terms of competence-based training. Some studies have addressed these competencies or training approaches, but they have not adequately examined the specific knowledge, skills and values required across the four phases of disaster management. For example, Dominelli (2012) noted the importance of cultural competence in disaster response and Rowlands (2013) focused on psychological support in disaster recovery. Alston et al. (2019) stressed the importance of applying culturally appropriate and gender-sensitive theories to disaster-related social work practice, and Wu (2021) called for the establishment of a community-contextualised and disaster-specific social work curriculum. The development of social work education is generally determined by national policies (Dominelli, 2015; Wu, 2021), and the authorities involved typically issue guidelines rather than systematically developing a competence framework specific to disaster management. Discussions of disaster management-related social work education at conferences or in practical reflections only provide a limited and fragmented view of the knowledge, skills and practical guidance required for social workers (e.g., Gillespie & Danso, 2010).

The International Council of Nurses (2019) identified a list of competencies nurses should possess in disaster contexts. These covered eight dimensions, emphasising the standard practices nurses should follow or the tasks they may need to perform. However, these dimensions’ relationships to disaster management phases were not considered. Other disaster-specific, competence-based training frameworks for emergency workers such as firemen, paramedics or other medical professionals have been developed, but none identify a clear list of competencies or cover all four disaster management phases (e.g., Horrocks et al., 2019).

Thus, in this study we take the novel approach of combining a competence framework and the disaster management cycle when considering disaster-specific social work education. We also establish a comprehensive list of competencies in four disaster management phases. Our aim is to encourage transdisciplinary collaborations with various stakeholders in disaster contexts, which is essential when tackling ‘wicked problems’ such as disasters in dynamic situations (Sim et al., 2019b).

Evidence-informed practice in social work

Evidence-informed practice (EIP), which is based on technical rationality, can be combined with reflective practice (Lymbery, 2003) in the social work profession. EIP enables social workers to be conscientious, explicit and judicious when applying their experience (Sheldon & Chilvers, 2000). Reflective practice ensures that they can be flexible in their actions and thoughts when faced with complex and uncertain situations (Taylor & White, 2000). Through a review of the international social work literature and in-depth interviews with Chinese experts, we have combined the research and practical wisdom of social workers engaged in disaster management worldwide. We applied a three-round e-Delphi survey to obtain a consensus about the proposed list of competencies initially obtained from the review and interviews. This process thus combines international and local experiences.

Method

The Delphi technique is a rigorous approach to obtaining consensus among experts on a specific research topic (Hasson et al., 2000). Its four key features are anonymity, multiple iterations of a questionnaire, controlled feedback, and statistical derivation and dissemination of a group response (Toma & Picioreanu, 2016). The Delphi approach allows researchers to obtain group judgements when addressing complex problems that lack sufficient evidence (Hasson et al., 2000). Modified Delphi approaches have frequently been applied to the development and validation of competence frameworks (e.g., van Houwelingen et al., 2016). Preselected items from literature reviews, interviews or surveys can be applied instead of an open-ended questionnaire in the first round or in the preparation stage before the Delphi survey is conducted. This can help to increase the response rate and enhance the rigour of the Delphi survey by incorporating information gathered from other sources (Chalmers & Armour, 2019). The Delphi technique can be applied through electronic questionnaires or online platforms (e-Delphi) and is increasingly used to collect the opinions of a Delphi panel, due to its efficiency (e.g., van Houwelingen et al., 2016; Wester & Borders, 2014). Compared to the traditional postal Delphi method, e-Delphi has the advantages of convenience in terms design and control, time and cost savings and better data management (Chalmers & Armour, 2019). We therefore conducted a modified e-Delphi study involving a pre-Delphi round, the Delphi preparation and three rounds of questionnaires to obtain a consensus (see Figure 1). Our aim was to develop and validate a basic framework of disaster management competencies for Chinese social workers, which can inform practitioners, educators and researchers along with other stakeholders involved in disaster management and who collaborate with social workers in disaster contexts.

Figure 1.

Study design and the process.

Pre-Delphi round: curating a list of potential items

As the literature has only identified a limited number of disaster management competencies for Chinese social workers (Ng, 2012), we developed a list of items by conducting an integrative review of the international literature and in-depth interviews with Chinese stakeholders. We carefully selected and reviewed 183 out of 1,288 relevant international publications and identified an initial list of social work core competencies in disaster management for our integrative review. We then conducted a content analysis (Sim et al., 2022) in which we considered the conceptual social work competence framework (CSWE, 2015; Trevithick, 2012) and the disaster management cycle (UNDRR, 2017). Finally, we identified 73 core competence items across the disaster management phases based on the integrative review.

We interviewed 18 social work academics and frontline social workers with relevant disaster management experience to elicit their views on what constitutes social work core competencies. We also interviewed 14 government officials, professionals from various disciplines and survivors of two recent major earthquakes in China who had experience working with social workers in disaster contexts (Sim et al., 2023). The content analysis generated 42 items. We then combined the findings from the review and the interviews in the following three-round e-Delphi consensus survey.

Questionnaire development and review

We analysed all of the items generated from the review and interviews by iteratively separating and combining them to achieve a balance between the level of detail and scope (Dey, 2003). We also considered social work expressions in Chinese and provided relevant examples by translating the items idiomatically from English to Chinese. We thus developed a list of 83 items that addressed knowledge (37 items), values (20 items) and skills (26 items) in social work practice across the various phases of disaster management (see Figure 1). This list provided the basis for the first-round Delphi consensus questionnaire, in which we used a 7-point Likert scale to assess the importance of the items (1 = ‘not important at all’ to 7 = ‘very important’). A 7-point Likert scale is more reliable and sensitive than a 5-point scale (Toma & Picioreanu, 2016). Participants could select a mid-point option (neutral response), which helped to eliminate any social desirability bias (Toma & Picioreanu, 2016). We also designed open-ended questions at the end of each item and category so that the experts could provide feedback, and invited them to add, delete, revise or change any of the items.

We then invited two external Chinese professional social workers to critically review the first-round Delphi questionnaire along with three research team members. Our five reviewers thus represented experienced local social work researchers and practitioners in the field of disaster management. With their input, the content, design and translation of the first-round Delphi questionnaire were improved and revised. This is a common review step in Delphi studies as it increases their reliability (e.g., Lee et al., 2012).

Panellist recruitment

We ensured that the ‘experts’ in the Delphi panels were sufficiently knowledgeable to make valid contributions by considering their experience and ability to influence policy (Baker et al., 2006). The heterogeneity of the panel was also important to ensure the diversity of opinions (Bolger & Wright, 2011). We applied purposeful and snowball sampling methods. All of our panellists had experience collaborating with social workers in disaster situations and were familiar with the operational, political and cultural contexts related to disaster management in China. We established the following set of inclusion criteria for recruiting experts with different perspectives:

experienced social work practitioners with at least 5 years of work experience and at least 1 year of direct experience in disaster management;

leading social work academics with at least five peer-reviewed publications in Chinese and/or English that were related to social work practice in disaster management, and with at least 1 year of experience working with social workers in disaster management;

local- and/or national-level government officials with at least 1 year of experience working with social workers in disaster management; and

professionals from other disciplines with at least 1 year of experience working with social workers in disaster contexts, such as medical doctors and nurses, psychologists, psychotherapists and geologists.

In such studies, a sample of 25–30 participants should be ideal, as any more will not provide any particular benefit (Chalmers & Armour, 2019), while retaining 20–25 participants is sufficient which can ensure a relatively high response rate (Mullen, 2003). We thus aimed to retain about 25 panellists for each Delphi round to ensure validity and reliability by sending invitations to 32 experts who met the inclusion criteria, while considering their representativeness in terms of age and gender. Eventually, 25 experts agreed to participate in the e-Delphi survey.

Three-round e-Delphi study procedure

Three Delphi rounds over a period of 4 months are typically sufficient as this does not compromise the response rate (Stone Fish & Busby, 2005), so we applied a three-round e-Delphi structure and conducted the rounds between January and May 2021. This considered the time constraints and possible diminishing enthusiasm of the expert panel. In each round, the panellists were asked to reply within 2 weeks. Reminders were sent on the 7^th and the 14^th days after the questionnaires were sent out, and an additional week was given to panellists who did not respond within 2 weeks in each round.

All 25 panellists answered the questionnaires in all three rounds. In the first round, all panellists were contacted via e-mail and were sent e-copies of the first-round questionnaires. In the second and third rounds, we followed one panellist's suggestion and used the Credamo online platform to collect the completed questionnaires. To avoid any access and security issues (Chalmers & Armour, 2019), we conducted a pilot test within the research team to ensure that only invited panellists could access the shared link. We revised the questionnaire according to the data analysis results from the responses in each round. We also sent reports to the panellists and responded to their comments before sending out the questionnaires for the subsequent rounds.

Data analysis

We used the median score and interquartile range (IQR) to determine consensus, which are common indicators (e.g., Doughty, 2009; Wester & Borders, 2014), and analysed the importance rating of each item. The median value represents the central tendency and minimises the likelihood of skewed distributions, and is appropriate for use in this type of small-scale Delphi study (Doughty, 2009; Wester & Borders, 2014). The IQR measures statistical dispersion, and a smaller IQR indicates a greater consensus. An IQR of 1 or less on a 7-point Likert scale can be regarded as an indication of a high level of consensus (Turner et al., 2020) in terms of panellists’ opinions, which then indicates an item's importance and thus that it can be accepted. We thus accepted items with IQRs of less than 1 and medians of at least 6 out of 7. If the IQR did not exceed 1 and had medians of less than 6, we considered that the panellists had reached the consensus that these items were of low importance and so we dropped them. However, as all items were generated systemically based on our review and/or in-depth interviews with local stakeholders in the pre-Delphi phase, the research team was cautious about excluding an item and deliberated before making a final decision.

In the second and the third rounds, the panellists were required to re-rate only those items that they failed to reach a consensus (i.e., IQR > 1) (see Figure 1). During the subsequent rounds, we provided the panellists with the average score for each item based on our analysis of previous rounds. We also revised items according to the panellists’ comments when necessary. The research team carefully reviewed any commented on items that met the criteria of acceptance or rejection (IQR ≤ 1) and revised them when necessary, and then these items were considered again in re-rating rounds. We also considered panellists’ suggestions for new items. We compared any suggested items with those already obtained and excluded those with similar meanings. All newly suggested items were repeatedly rated until the panel reached a consensus in the second and/or third rounds.

Results

Panellist background and response rate

As mentioned, all those who agreed to be panellists participated in all three rounds of the e-Delphi survey. The response rate was therefore 100%. A high response rate can indicate that all panel experts highly regarded the research project and were committed to it.

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the 25 experts who attended the three rounds of the e-Delphi survey. The panel consisted of 16 men and 9 women, and their average age was 41. Out of the 25 experts, 14 were working in Sichuan, a Chinese province that experiences frequent natural disasters, and the others were working in Yunnan, Chongqing, Guangdong, Beijing, Shaanxi, Shandong and Xiamen. The panel included nine social work academics, nine frontline social workers, one local government official, one national government official and five professionals in other fields (a geologist, a nurse, a counsellor, a primary school principal and a social organisation manager). All panellists had an average of 75 month work experience with social workers in disaster management settings, and eight had continued to collaborate with social workers after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. The sociodemographic factors (e.g., gender or age) or professional variables (e.g., years of experience) of the panellists had no significant effects on the shifting of opinions between Delphi rounds, but the controlled feedback the panellists received from previous rounds influenced their responses and the achievement of consensus (Barrios et al., 2021).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the experts.

Characteristics	Frequency	Proportion
Expertise
Social work academics	9	36%
Frontline social workers	9	36%
Government officials	2	8%
Professionals from other disciplines	5	20%
Gender
Male	16	64%
Female	9	36%
Age
26–35	7	28%
36–45	13	52%
46–55	3	12%
56 and over	2	8%
Location
Sichuan	14	56%
Yunnan	2	8%
Chongqing	2	8%
Guangdong	2	8%
Beijing	2	8%
Others (Shaanxi, Shandong and Xiamen)	3	12%

Consensus and data distribution

We accepted 55 items in the first round, 31 items in the second and 1 item in the third round. Five of these were new items suggested by the panellists. For example, ‘knowledge of secondary disaster’ (see K4–5 in Table 2) is a new item suggested by a social work academic panellist in Delphi round 1. Table 2 presents the 87 accepted items in 15 categories (i.e., knowledge, values and skills in the four disaster management phases), ranked according to their average scores (mean).

Table 2.

Means, medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of accepted competencies.

Phases	Accepted Competencies	Mean	Mdn	IQR
	Knowledge (K)
All-phases (1)	K1-1. Social work professional paradigms and theories	6.44	7	1
	K1-2. Disaster risk reduction related knowledge	6.40	7	1
	K1-3. National disaster management related systems and policies	6.40	6	1
	K1-4. National conditions in China, local culture and systems, folk culture, and indigenised knowledge	6.28	6	1
	K1-5. Methods of supporting social workers’ physical and mental health	6.24	6	1
	K1-6. Knowledge of vulnerability and vulnerable group interventions	6.16	6	1
	K1-7. Theories and methods of community construction and development	6.00	6	0
	K1-8. Knowledge of resources and service coordination	5.96	6	1
	K1-9. Theories and methods of stress and trauma support and interventions	5.84	6	1
	K1-10. Concepts and perspectives of sustainable and environmental development	5.64	6	1
	K1-11. Gender perspective	5.64	6	1
	K1-12. Research methods	5.48	6	1
	K1-13. Frameworks and policies of global climate change and disaster risk reduction	5.44	6	1
Mitigation (2)	K2-1. Means of citizen participation	5.44	6	1
Preparedness (3)	K3-1. Knowledge about how people response to disasters and their coping strategies	6.24	6	1
	K3-2. Theories and approaches of planning, managing, and coordinating with stakeholders or disciplines	6.20	6	1
	K3-3. Methods or approaches on promoting community preparedness and resilience	6.16	6	1
	K3-4. Transdisciplinary strategies for disaster risk reduction and psychological first aid training	6.00	6	1
	K3-5. Legislation and emergency action plans for the local area	5.84	6	1
	K3-6. Theories and methods of psychosocial support*	5.68	6	1
Response (4)	K4-1. Basic information of emergency rescue	6.24	6	1
	K4-2. Social survey and assessment approaches	6.04	6	0
	K4-3. Knowledge of grief and loss*	6.04	6	1
	K4-4. Knowledge of community loss, resources, and capacities assessment*	6.04	6	1
	K4-5. Knowledge of secondary disasters	6	6	1
	K4-6. Theories and methods of psychosocial support*	5.72	6	1
	K4-7. Rights, responsibility and actions of volunteers	5.72	6	1
	K4-8. Knowledge of social work boundary and supervision*	5.56	6	1
	K4-9. Models and approaches of counselling and mental support*	5.52	6	1
	K4-10. Casework and case management theories and techniques*	5.40	6	1
Recovery (5)	K5-1. Knowledge of economics and livelihood reconstruction	6.09	6	1
	K5-2. Knowledge of grief and loss*	6.04	6	1
	K5-3. Knowledge of community loss, resources and capacities assessment*	6.00	6	1
	K5-4. Casework and case management theories and techniques*	6.00	6	1
	K5-5. Theories and methods of psychosocial support*	5.80	6	1
	K5-6. Knowledge of social work boundary and supervision*	5.72	6	1
	K5-7. Social conflicts and resolution models	5.72	6	1
	K5-8. Models and approaches of counselling and mental support*	5.56	6	1
	K5-9. Knowledge of civil rights and responsibilities	5.40	6	1
	Values (V)
All-phases (1)	V1-1. Person centered and meeting specific group needs	6.52	7	1
	V1-2. Be understanding and show respect	6.52	7	1
	V1-3. Equal treatment and democratic participation principles	6.44	7	1
	V1-4. Social work professional ethics	6.40	7	1
	V1-5. Confidentiality	6.40	7	1
	V1-6. Principles of mutual help and self help	6.32	7	1
	V1-7. Awareness of sustainable development	6.28	6	1
	V1-8. Localisation and contextualisation orientations	6.24	6	1
	V1-9. Emphasis on mutual help among neighbors	6.24	6	1
	V1-10. Altruism and volunteerism	6.16	6	1
	V1-11. Emphasis on development with social harmony	6.08	6	0
	V1-12. Transdisciplinary, across sectors, bottom-up and top-down collaboration principles	6.08	6	1
	V1-13. Be receptive, inclusive, and non-judgmental	6.08	6	1
	V1-14. Vulnerable groups first	6.08	6	1
	V1-15. Open-mindedness	6	6	0
	V1-16. Individualisation principle	5.84	6	1
	V1-17. Spirit of repeat exploration and practice with a perspective of critical reflection	5.72	6	1
	V1-18. Social inclusion	5.68	6	1
Mitigation (2)	NIL^#
Preparedness (3)	NIL^#
Response (4)	V4-1. Positivity	6.32	7	1
	V4-2. Community-based orientation*	5.92	6	0
Recovery (5)	V5-1. Community-based orientation*	6.36	6	1
	Skills (S)
All-phases (1)	S1-1. Community facilitating and organising skills	6.72	7	1
	S1-2. Self-protection and self-care skills of social workers	6.60	7	1
	S1-3. Skills in resources and service coordinating and networking	6.46	7	1
	S1-4. Empathy skills	6.36	7	1
	S1-5. Skills in casework, group work and community work	6.36	6	1
	S1-6. Conflict mediation, regulation and resolution skills	6.28	6	1
	S1-7. Skills in investigating, observing and understanding local contexts and providing indigenised interventions	6.20	6	1
	S1-8. Advocacy skills	5.88	6	1
Mitigation (2)	S2-1. Skills in promoting knowledge transfer	5.96	6	0
Preparedness (3)	S3-1. Skills in public education on disaster risk reduction and organising drills	6.24	6	1
	S3-2. Skills in planning of emergency supplies for vulnerable groups	6.16	6	1
	S3-3. Skills in assessing community resources and capacities	6.12	6	1
Response (4)	S4-1. Collaboration skills with various stakeholders*	6.52	7	1
	S4-2. Assessment skills	6.20	6	1
	S4-3. Risk and uncertainty management skills*	6.12	6	1
	S4-4. Skills in crisis intervention, stress and trauma support*	6.12	6	1
	S4-5. Community development skills*	6.04	6	1
	S4-6. Counselling skills*	5.88	6	1
	S4-7. Volunteer management skills	5.88	6	1
Recovery (5)	S5-1. Collaboration skills with various stakeholders*	6.40	7	1
	S5-2. Community development skills*	6.28	6	1
	S5-3. Skills in providing professional service to special groups	6.16	6	1
	S5-4. Skills in building platform, linking and networking communities, social organisations and social workers and managing volunteers	6.16	6	1
	S5-5. Skills in analyzing, explaining and preaching social policies	6.08	6	1
	S5-6. Risk and uncertainty management skills*	5.96	6	0
	S5-7. Skills in crisis intervention, stress and trauma support*	5.84	6	1
	S5-8. Counselling skills*	5.56	6	1

Note: a. competencies under “all-phases” are common competencies that are throughout the whole disaster management cycle; b. competencies with “*” are competencies that are across two or three disaster management phases; c. no values specific to mitigation and preparedness have been identified, see items with “#”.

Across the four disaster management phases (i.e., ‘All-phases’), we identified 13 items for knowledge, 18 for values and 8 for skills (see Table 2). Table 2 also shows that fewer social work competencies across the three domains (i.e., knowledge, values and skills) proposed in disaster mitigation and preparedness (i.e., the pre-disaster phases) than in disaster response and recovery (i.e., the post-disaster phases). Only one knowledge item was identified for mitigation: ‘means of citizen participation’, which incidentally had a relatively low average importance (see Table 2). No specific values for social work practice were identified in the mitigation and preparedness phases.

The four most emphasised themes in the competencies

Unsurprisingly, the competencies were found to be interconnected across the domains (knowledge, values and skills) and the disaster management phases (mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery) (Ng, 2012; Trevithick, 2012). Through further analysis we identified four main themes (see Table 3), which grouped competencies across all of the domains and phases, and can thus be regarded as the most important according to the Delphi panel.

Table 3.

Four main themes in the list.

Number	The themes	Competencies that are covered
Theme 1	Community organising, engaging and developing	K1-7, K3-3, K4-4, K5-1, K5-3, V1-9, V4-2, V5-1, S1-1, S1-5, S3-3, S4-5 and S5-2
Theme 2	Collaboration, coordination and networking among stakeholders	K1-8, K3-2, K3-4, K5-7, V1-12, S1-3, S1-6, S4-1, S5-1 and S5-4
Theme 3	The supervision of social work teams and volunteers	K1-1, K1-5, K4-7, K4-8, K5-6, V1-4, V1-10, S1-2 and S4-7
Theme 4	Contextualisation	K1-3, K1-4, K3-5, V1-8 and S1-7

Note: a. the assigned numbers of competencies are the same with Table 2; b. themes covering competencies across four interconnected disaster management phases and across three domains of competence have been included in the table; c. themes have been ranked by the frequency of competencies that are covered.

The first theme, ‘Community organising, engaging and developing’, comprised 13 competencies and emerged in all of the disaster management stages. This theme indicates that Chinese social workers should have an awareness of the resources and unique characteristics of local communities, the relationships among neighbours and the methods through which small communities can be developed (see Theme 1 in Table 3). The second theme, ‘Collaboration, networking and co-ordination among stakeholders’, comprised of 10 competencies and emphasises the need for collaboration among Chinese social workers in disaster contexts, particularly in the post-disaster phases (see Theme 2 in Table 3). The third theme, ‘Supervision of social work teams and volunteers’ (see Theme 3 in Table 3) comprised of 10 competencies including support, training, care, self-help or self-protection, and their management. Finally, the theme ‘Contextualisation’ included relevant knowledge, values and skills across all stages of disaster management, such as policies and systems at national and local levels, Chinese traditional folk culture and local emergency coping strategies (see Theme 4 in Table 3). This indicates that Chinese social workers and stakeholders place importance on respecting the local cultural, religious, economic and political contexts in all disaster phases, particularly when working with ethnic minorities.

Discussion

The contributions of social workers in China's top-down disaster management system are closely linked to their competencies, and the proposed disaster management competence framework reveals a complex and sophisticated set of unique knowledge, values and skills in various disaster phases that are specific to the Chinese context. ‘CCSC’ represents the four interlinked themes highlighted in the competence framework: C = community organising, engaging and developing; C = collaboration, co-ordination and networking among stakeholders; S = supervision of social work teams and volunteers; and C = contextualisation.

Community organising, engaging and developing

Community participation has been emphasised when building disaster resilience worldwide, and is encapsulated in the concept of a ‘safe community’. This was highlighted in the first and second United Nations World Conferences on Disaster Risk Reduction (Liu et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2013). Community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR) or community-based disaster management (CBDM) suggests bottom-up and multi-stakeholder collaboration approaches, which can encourage residents to use their local resources and knowledge when engaging in disaster preparation and rehabilitation. This can appropriately meet their local needs by being rooted in society (Liu et al., 2016). In contrast, a top-down and government-led system has been developed in China (Liu et al., 2016; Sim et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2013), which relies on the five levels of government (provincial, prefectural, county, township and village) for disaster risk reduction or management (Zhang et al., 2013). This structure enables the efficient and rapid co-ordination of resources, and within it the military is an important rescue and reconstruction force under the command of the national government (Sim et al., 2017; Xu, 2017; Zhong & Lu, 2018). Disaster management tasks can also be completed efficiently across government levels and departments (Lixin et al., 2012). However, local abilities and knowledge may be undermined through this ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy or a ‘single-style’ disaster management system, as the cultural specifics of local communities may be ignored (Lixin et al., 2012; Sim et al., 2017). In addition, at-risk, isolated and vulnerable rural communities that live far from government centres may be neglected by this administrative system (Wu et al., 2019).

Within this predominantly top-down Chinese system, social work can contribute to establishing bottom-up CBDRR or CBDM approaches by collaborating closely with local communities (Sim et al., 2017). Theme 1 in the proposed competence framework reflects the need for Chinese social workers to improve the resilience of local communities in the face of collective adversity. They can contribute to developing social capital, facilitate policy changes and improve disaster-related public education in communities. With certain competencies, such as knowledge or skills in assessing disaster impacts and needs of local communities, they can help to build collaborative platforms, enhance communication among neighbours, facilitate the restoration of livelihoods and relationships and encourage mutual help (Boodram & Johnson, 2016; Mathbor & Bourassa, 2012). Social workers should consider local residents as ‘experts’ and encourage their participation in decision-making and in the implementation of CBDM activities where appropriate (Sim et al., 2017). Social workers can then provide therapeutic support to individuals, families and vulnerable groups and improve relationships among community members, between local organisations and their members and among organisations. By facilitating communication channels at the grassroots levels, they can help all stakeholders to understand local needs and develop projects that will promote and protect the local culture (Wu et al., 2019).

Collaboration, co-ordination and networking among stakeholders

The Chinese disaster management system encourages collaboration, particularly through the Paired Assistance to Disaster-Affected Areas (PADAA) programme, which is aimed at addressing disaster recovery. The programme's slogan is: ‘when disaster strikes one side, help comes from all sides’ (yi fang you nan, ba fang yuan zhu) (Zhong & Lu, 2014). The Chinese government has gradually recognised the importance of engagement from social organisations such as non-governmental organisations (Xu, 2017). However, ‘campaign-style governance’ and the sometimes inefficient approach of non-governmental organisations have impeded the development of sustainable collaborations among stakeholders and reduced the level of civic participation (Xu, 2017; Zhong & Lu, 2018). Social workers can thus be an important link between government agencies, social organisations and professionals from various disciplines (Boodram & Johnson, 2016), in terms of collaborations and resources. By developing networks with these stakeholders and sectors in disaster management, social workers can facilitate transdisciplinary research and training, collaborate with national and local governments and mediate conflicts (Dominelli, 2012; Ng, 2012).

Psychosocial needs are often inadequately addressed in top-down disaster management operations, as government bodies often put most of their effort into saving lives and providing facilities (Lixin et al., 2012; Zhong & Lu, 2014). Social workers can help to meet psychosocial needs in society by facilitating the collaborative support of stakeholders in various sectors such as local leaders and professionals. (Wu et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2011). The competencies in Themes 1 and 2 are closely connected, as they both reflect a shift from therapeutic-oriented social work to a ‘social’ orientation in disaster contexts, thus echoing Kam's (2014) framework of ‘6s’: social consciousness; prioritising socially disadvantaged groups; social context; social construction; social change; and social equality.

Supervision of social work teams and volunteers

Social work supervision involves comprehensive monitoring and mentoring at personal, professional and organisational levels, and includes administrative, educational, professional and support functions (Tsui, 2005). Supervision also ensures that recruitment, training and retention are effective (Chiller & Crisp, 2012). However, an over-emphasis on management can impede the professional autonomy of frontline social workers and restrain their creativity and innovation in practice. The supervision of social workers thus requires in-depth analyses of daily practices and participating in reflective learning processes (Noble & Irwin, 2009; Tsui, 2005). Increasingly, peer and group supervision has been applied, so social workers can reflect on the development of knowledge, skills and value (Noble & Irwin, 2009). However, an over-emphasis on supervisor authority and the hierarchical relationships between supervisors and supervisees can be observed in China. This mirrors the top-down nature of Chinese disaster management, in which supervisors may lack specific training regarding social work supervision (An et al., 2017; Tsui, 2005). The significant influence of local governments on policy-making decisions can result in social work supervision being unbalanced, decentralised and regionalised (Mo et al., 2019).

Effective social work supervision is necessary for social workers’ collaboration with stakeholders across sectors and disciplines in disaster management (Manning et al., 2007). The competencies involved in Theme 3 (see Table 3) can help to promote it. For example, self-help and self-protection are emphasised in this framework as important elements for social work supervision, particularly during disaster response (Dominelli, 2012). Culture has an important influence on supervision and the dynamics of supervisors, supervisees, clients and agencies. Their interactions with the environment should be considered in supervisory relationships (Tsui, 2005). China's collectivistic culture should thus be considered in any social work supervision model. The emphasis should be on the development of harmonious supervisory relationships and a balance between the authorities and those they supervise in disaster management contexts (Mo et al., 2019; Tsui, 2005). The localisation of supervision is particularly important for social work practice in Chinese disaster management, as it can help to shift the therapeutic interventions led by western-style supervision (Noble & Irwin, 2009) into practices with foci on community development (also see Theme 1).

Contextualisation

Culture has a central role in social work, as contemporary society is multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-class (Gray, 2005). The social, political and economic context can determine the nature of social work, and local community needs should be addressed through promoting social justice (Gray, 2005). Chinese society includes 55 cultural minorities and Chinese social workers promote culturally competent and sensitive interventions, even in disaster contexts (Wang et al., 2019). Contextual knowledge, skills and values are also emphasised in Chinese disaster governance and supervision at different levels (Xu, 2017), which are linked to the Chinese CBDM system and PADAA mechanisms. Thus, Chinese social workers must be aware of the specific political, cultural, historical and economic contexts in disaster management.

Social, cultural, religious, political and economic factors must be considered in local disaster management, as reflected in Theme 4. Such contextual considerations are essential in such social work interventions, as complex factors in certain contexts inevitably influence communities, groups and individuals (Dominelli, 2015). The competencies relevant to this theme enable Chinese social workers to decolonise and internationalise their work (Pyles, 2017) by challenging the privilege of Western outsiders while simultaneously transferring their international experience to local contexts. The competencies in Theme 4 highlight the need to be culturally sensitive to vulnerable groups by emphasising their psychosocial capacities, thus ultimately enhancing their resilience (Sim et al., 2019a).

Limitations of the study

As mentioned above, Chinese social work in disaster management contexts first emerged after the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake and became more established after the 2012 Ludian Earthquake. However, such practices remain limited in the Chinese top-down disaster management system. This limited the study sample size, and most of the experts were recruited from southwest China as they had specific experience in earthquake-related disaster management. However, Chinese social workers are increasingly involved in a variety of contexts (in both urban and rural settings) and a wide range of hazardous situations in China. Adequately incorporating the proposed competence framework into their practice and training may therefore be challenging. Further studies with a broader sample from different parts of China should be conducted to help contextualise the findings of this Delphi study.

In addition, although the framework includes transdisciplinary psychological first-aid training (see K3–4 in Table 2), cross-training with other professionals should be further promoted, such as developing a cross-training curriculum based on this framework. However, such training should consider the top-down disaster management system of China.

Conclusions

The proposed social work disaster management competence framework, which consists of social workers’ knowledge, values and skills, was validated and localised through a three-round Delphi approach involving Chinese experts. The final 87-item framework can inform Chinese social work education, training and practice in disaster management scenarios. The four identified themes are closely connected and can interact to promote the development of resilience and social justice.

Footnotes

Ethics

Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Subjects Ethics Application Review System (HSEARS) of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Ref No.: HSEARS20171016006).

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this work was supported by the Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee, (General Research Fund Project Number: 15604418).

Conflict of interest

The author(s) confirm that they have no conflict of interest in respect of the material submitted in this article.

ORCID iD

Minying He

References

Alston

Hazeleger

Hargreaves

(2019). Social work and disasters: A handbook for practice. Routledge.

Chapman

M. V.

(2017). Culture and context in Chinese field supervision: A case study from Shanghai. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, 27(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185385.2016.1275981

Baker

Lovell

Harris

(2006). How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of “expert” within Delphi panel techniques. Nurse Researcher, 14(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2006.10.14.1.59.c6010

Barrios

Guilera

Nuño

Gómez-Benito

(2021). Consensus in the delphi method: What makes a decision change? Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 163, 120484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120484

Bolger

Wright

(2011). Improving the Delphi process: Lessons from social psychological research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1500–1513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.07.007

Boodram

C. A. S.

Johnson

E. J.

(2016). Environmental health hazards on industrial disasters: A study on how to achieve community-level social support. Natural Hazards, 84(1), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2410-1

Chalmers

Armour

(2019). The Delphi technique. In Liamputtong

(Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 715–735). Springer.

Chiller

Crisp

B. R.

(2012). Professional supervision: A workforce retention strategy for social work? Australian Social Work, 65(2), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2011.625036

Council on Social Work Education. (CSWE) (2015). 2015 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards. CSWE.

10.

Dey

(2003). Qualitative data analysis: A user friendly guide for social scientists. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203412497

11.

Dominelli

(1996). Deprofessionalizing social work: Anti-oppressive practice, competencies and postmodernism. The British Journal of Social Work, 26(2), 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a011077

12.

Dominelli

(2012). Social work education for disaster relief work. In Grey

Coates

Hetherington

(Eds), Environmental social work (pp. 280–297). Routledge.

13.

Dominelli

(2015). The opportunities and challenges of social work interventions in disaster situations. International Social Work, 58(5), 659–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872815598353

14.

Doughty

E. A.

(2009). Investigating adaptive grieving styles: A Delphi study. Death Studies, 33(5), 462–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180902805715

15.

Drolet

J. L.

(2019). Rebuilding Lives Post-Disaster. Oxford University Press.

16.

Gillespie

Danso

(2010). Disaster Concepts and Issues: A Guide for Social Work Education and Practice. Council on Social Work Education.

17.

Gray

(2005). Dilemmas of international social work: Paradoxical processes in indigenisation, universalism and imperialism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 14(3), 231–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2005.00363.x

18.

Hasson

Keeney

McKenna

(2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x

19.

Horrocks

Hobbs

Tippett

Aitken

(2019). Paramedic disaster health management competencies: A scoping review. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 34(3), 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X19004357

20.

International Council of Nurses (2019). Core Competencies in Disaster Nursing Version 2.0. Retrieved from https://www.icn.ch/sites/default/files/inline-files/ICN_Disaster-Comp-Report_WEB_final.pdf

21.

Kam

P. K.

(2014). Back to the ‘social’ of social work: Reviving the social work profession’s contribution to the promotion of social justice. International Social Work, 57(6), 723–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872812447118

22.

H. B.

Y. N.

(2015). ‘Rural–Urban Alliance’as a new model for post-disaster social work intervention in community reconstruction: The case in Sichuan, China. International Social Work, 58(5), 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872815583073

23.

Lee

Y. F.

Altschuld

J. W.

Lee

L. S.

(2012). Essential competencies for program evaluators in a diverse cultural context. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(4), 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.01.005

24.

Liu

Yin

Chen

Wang

Liu

(2016). A community-based disaster risk reduction system in Wanzhou, China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 19, 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.09.009

25.

Lixin

Lingling

Dong

Junxue

Zhanwu

(2012). An analysis on disasters management system in China. Natural Hazards, 60(2), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0011-6

26.

Lymbery

M. E.

(2003). Negotiating the contradictions between competence and creativity in social work education. Journal of Social Work, 3(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017303003001007

27.

Maglajlic

R. A.

(2019). Organisation and delivery of social services in extreme events: Lessons from social work research on natural disasters. International Social Work, 62(3), 1146–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872818768387

28.

Manning

Millar

Newton

Webb

(2007). After the wave-the centrelink social work response offshore. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 5(3-4), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1300/j198v05n03_05

29.

Mathbor

Bourassa

(2012). Disaster management and humanitarian action. In Lyons

Hokenstad

Pawar

Huegler

Hall

(Eds), The SAGE handbook of international social work (pp. 294–310). Sage Publications Ltd.

30.

Y. H.

Leung

T. L.

Tsui

M. S.

(2019). Chaos in order: The evolution of social work supervision practice in the Chinese Mainland. The Clinical Supervisor, 38(2), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2019.1610681

31.

Mullen

P. M.

(2003). Delphi: Myths and reality. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 17(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260310469319

32.

G. T.

(2012). Disaster work in China: Tasks and competences for social workers. Social Work Education, 31(5), 538–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2011.581277

33.

Noble

Irwin

(2009). Social work supervision: An exploration of the current challenges in a rapidly changing social, economic and political environment. Journal of Social Work: JSW, 9(3), 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017309334848

34.

Pyles

(2017). Decolonising disaster social work: Environmental justice and community participation. British Journal of Social Work, 47(3), 630–647. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw028

35.

Rowlands

(2013). Social work training curriculum in disaster management. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 12(1-2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/1536710X.2013.784602

36.

Sheldon

Chilvers

(2000). Evidence-based social care: a study of prospects and problems. Russell House.

37.

Sim

Dominelli

Lau

(2017). A pathway to initiate bottom-up community-based disaster risk reduction within a top-down system: The case of China. International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering, 7(3), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.2495/SAFE-V7-N3-283-293

38.

Sim

Chen

Yang

(2023). Roles and Tasks of Social Workers in Chinese Disaster Management. The British Journal of Social Work, 53(1), 471–489. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcac110

39.

Sim

Dominelli

(2022). Social work core competencies in disaster management practice: An integrative review. Research on Social Work Practice, 32(3), 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315211055427

40.

Sim

Y.-T. W.

Quen

Dong

C. H.

(2013). Rising to the occasion: Disaster social work in China. International Social Work, 56(4), 544–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/002087281

41.

Sim

Lau

Cui

Wei

(2019a). Post-disaster psychosocial capacity building for women in a Chinese rural village. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science,10(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019

42.

Sim

Lau

Young

Cui

(2019b). Initiating transdisciplinary research in China: A case study. International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, 22(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.19080/IJESNR.2019.22.556080

43.

Stone Fish

Busby

D. M.

(2005). The Delphi method. In Sprenkle

D. H.

Piercy

F. P.

(Eds), Research methods in family therapy (pp. 238–253). The Guilford Press.

44.

Taylor

White

(2000). Practising reflexivity in health and welfare: making knowledge. Open University Press.

45.

Toma

Picioreanu

(2016). The Delphi technique: Methodological considerations and the need for reporting guidelines in medical journals. International Journal of Public Health Research, 4(6), 47–59. Retrieved from http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/archive2?journalId=718&paperId=3586

46.

Trevithick

(2012). Social work skills and knowledge: A practice handbook (3^rd ed.). Open University Press.

47.

Tsui

(2005). Social work supervision: contexts and concepts. Sage.

48.

Turner

Schoeneberg

Ray

Lin

Y. W.

(2020). Establishing play therapy competencies: A Delphi study. International Journal of Play Therapy, 29(4), 177. https://doi.org/10.1037/pla0000138

49.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (UNDRR) (2017). Terminology, www.undrr.org/terminology.

50.

van Houwelingen

C. T.

Moerman

A. H.

Ettema

R. G.

Kort

H. S.

Ten Cate

(2016). Competencies required for nursing telehealth activities: A Delphi-study. Nurse Education Today, 39, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.12.025

51.

Wang

Lum

T. Y.

(2013). Role of the professional helper in disaster intervention: Examples from the Wenchuan Earthquake in China. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 12(1-2), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/1536710X.2013.784600

52.

Wang

Liu

Fan

Jiao

(2019). The role of indigenous knowledge in integrating scientific and indigenous knowledge for community-based disaster risk reduction: A case of Haikou Village in Ningxia, China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 41, 101309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101309

53.

Wester

K. L.

Borders

L. D.

(2014). Research competencies in counseling: A Delphi study. Journal of Counseling and Development, 92(4), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00171.x

54.

Wu (2021). Integration of the disaster component into social work curriculum: Teaching undergraduate social work research methods course during COVID-19. The British Journal of Social Work, 51(5), 1799–1819. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab110

55.

Wen

Wei

(2019). ‘Community-centred’ as an integrated model for post-disaster social work-the case of earthquake-stricken ludian, China. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, 29(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185385.2019.1567379

56.

(2017). The politics of compassion: the Sichuan Earthquake and civic engagement in China. Stanford University Press.

57.

Zhang

Huang

(2011). Collaboration on disaster prevention education curriculum development project and its implications for social work. China Journal of Social Work, 4(2), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/17525098.2011.589497

58.

Zhang

Zhao

(2013). Community-based disaster management: A review of progress in China. Natural Hazards, 65(3), 2215–2239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0471-3

59.

Zhong

(2014). “One in trouble, all to help”: The paired assistance program to disaster-affected areas in China. In Brassard

Howitt

Giles

(Eds.), Natural disaster management in the Asia-pacific (pp. 87–100). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55157-7_6

60.

Zhong

(2018). Exploring the administrative mechanism of China's paired assistance to disaster affected areas programme. Disasters, 42(3), 590–612. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12262