Journal of Global Social Work Practice, Volume 1, Number 1, November/December 2008
|
An Investigation into the Similarities and Differences An investigation into differences concerning what constitutes "best practice" was conducted using a convenience sample from two United States (US) schools of social work and two European Union (EU) schools of social education. The research findings from the 183 respondents reveal that both US students (n=96) and EU Social Education students (n=87) significantly value "empowering clients," "identifying clients strengths," and "reflective practice" as most important in their practice. US students are strongly averse to "assessment and research" but strongly positive towards "social policy." EU students are less interested in social policy and mildly negative in their attitudes about the value of assessment and research to "best practice." Study implications conclude that an internationalized practice model for work with individuals, groups, and communities would integrate the EU's extensively developed milieu interventions with the extensively developed assessment and evidenced-based practice evaluation techniques in the US. The study also uncovered a number of additional considerations for transatlantic model building. Keywords: Keywords: International Best Practices Research, Common Base of International Social Work Practice Contents Introduction In 2004, three United States (US) social work programs (Providence College, RI; University of Maine at Orono, ME; Barry University, FL) and three European Union (EU) social education programs (Peter Sabroe Seminariat, Aarhus, Denmark; Plantijn Hogeschool, Antwerp, Belgium; Universidad of Ramon Llul, Barcelona, Spain) received a three year Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education(FIPSE) grant, titled TRANSPRAC - TRANSatlantic Alliance for Creating a New Social Services PRACtice Model (Werrbach, Grossman, McPhee, Verjans, & Hanson, 2004) - to integrate the strengths of the EU and US models into a practice model for work with individuals, groups, and communities that could usefully be employed on both sides of the Atlantic. In most EU countries, generalist social work practice is called "social education" or "social pedagogy" (Werrbach et al., 2004) and its strengths include an extensive range of milieu and socialization skills interventions as well as a broad philosophical foundation in social theory (Aero, Friese & Wrangel, 2002; Companini & Frost, 2004). Among other strengths, the US is accomplished in scientific assessment, especially quantitative evaluation methodology and outcomes measurement for evidenced-based practice (Argyris & Schön, 1974; Ferguson, Cooper & Jones, 2008; Goldstein, 2001; Johnson, 2004). It seemed promising that an EU/US partnership could yield a "best practices" transatlantic model. To that end, faculty analyzed each other's written materials, exchanged intensive annual visits that included observation and interviews with field instructors, agency personnel, faculty, and students. In addition, the authors gathered quantitative evidence from both the EU and US concerning similarities and differences as to what is considered "most" to "least" important concerning "best practice" (Ferguson, Cooper, & Jones, 2008). This article presents those findings. Social Education and Social Work The EU social education and US social work schools share a history and commitment to professional social service practice with individuals, groups, and communities (IFSW Definition of Social Work, 2004). They also share grounding in the values of social justice, client empowerment, and client self-determination (Abbott, 1999; Ruijssenaars, van den Bergh, & Schoorl, 2008). The European professional and educational equivalent to the US Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) direct practice and program curriculum is called social education in Belgium and Spain, and social pedagogy in Denmark. In all EU countries, social education is taught at the post-secondary level for at least three years' duration, and is awarded with a diploma or other equivalent qualification (Lindemulder, 2008). In Belgium, Denmark, and Spain, as well as in France, Holland, Sweden, and Germany, social education workers are educated at bachelor-level training institutes. In new European countries like Poland and Hungary, this training program is a university-level discipline. EU programs are accredited by The European Association of Training Centers for Socio-educational Care Work (FESET) and International Association of Social Educators (AEIJI), the major professional organizations related to social education - accrediting bodies similar to the US Council on Social Work Education (CSWE, 2004). A social educator is a professional who works with at-risk individuals, groups, and communities to promote the socio-emotional, developmental, economic, political, and personal potential and well-being of their clients (as well as remediating deficits in these areas) through methods, techniques, interventions applied in the context of the client life-space, and through continuous and contextual participation in their clients' lives (EuroEducation, 2004; FESET, 2008). Whereas EU Social Education is definitionally synonymous with BSW direct service practice, its focus is synonymous with a US social group work orientation. Given that there are differences in focus and methodology concerning what constitutes "best practices" (Russell & Munby, 1991; Schön, 1991), the authors thought it important to investigate these differences prior to attempting to construct an integrated transatlantic practice model. Origins of Social Education The term "social education" is derived from the German concept "Heilpädagogik." Originating, at the turn of the 19th century, as a field of practice for the care for disabled children and the suppression of "Kinderfehler" (the misbehavior of children), "Heilpädagogik" merged with medical care and judicial care in the middle of the 20th century to become what is today known as social education (Asperger, 1965; Moor, 1958). Until the mid 20th century, the care and education of the deaf, blind, or mentally handicapped was provided under the auspices of physicians (Bopp, 1930, 1958). Children who committed (petty) crimes were the concern and under the care of the police and judicial system. Heilpädagogik energized an interdisciplinary construction of a direct service model to help the disabled and the problemed person (Cruickshank & Johnson, 1958). The Dutch and Belgian training programs in social education began in 1827 when King Willem I from Holland stipulated that universities develop the program known as Orthopedagiek/ Orthopedagogie, the science that studies social education and socio-educational care work interventions (Schoorl, van den Bergh & Ruijssenaars, 2000). By the 1960's socio-educational care work had become a specialized program at universities in most EU countries (Plantijn Hogeschool, 2008). Currently, the idea of socio-educational care work is well developed throughout Europe, although it has various names depending upon the EU country in which it is practiced. In Belgium, social educators are called gespecialiseerd opvoeder-begeleider. In France, social education is called educateur specialize. In Spain social educators are educador social, while in Italy, the term educatori speciali is used (FESET, 2008). Social Education's Philosophical Foundation EU social education is supported by three theoretical frameworks. One, an American philosophical framework, is built on the social philosophies of Jane Addams (1902, 1910) and John Dewey (1933): the Settlement House movement and Pragmatism. The second influence is from continental philosophy, particularly German Idealism; the two most influential being G.W. Hegel and Immanuel Kant. Hegel's and Kant's thinking were further developed by Paul Natorp and Frederich Tönnies who, together with Dewey, were most influential to the third framework of EU Social Education, the pedagogical orientation (Hjarne, 2003; Hokenstad, Khinduka, & Midgley, 1992). American Influence on Social Education EU social education gives strong recognition to the social thinking and practical endeavors of Addams (1902, 1910) and Dewey (1933). Addams, in addition to pioneering social work, was an internationalist and intellectual. She adopted the idea of the settlement house from England and brought it to the United States, founding Hull House with Ellen Starr in 1889 (Addams, 1902). In collaboration with Dewey, she promoted social education as a foundation for democracy. The educational activities of the Settlement House movement as well as its philanthropic, civic, and social undertakings, were aspects of an attempt to socialize individuals to democracy. These American roots, grounded in a commitment to social service practice as well as promoting the values of social justice, client empowerment, and client self-determination, have become institutionalized in both EU and US curricula and practice models (Hopps & Pinderhughes, 1992). However, in the US, pragmatism and the Settlement House movement have been integrated with the positivist orientation embedded in Mary Richmond's casework model. With the publication of Social Diagnosis (Richmond, 1917), in which she presented a scientific method for social work, the social work profession began to promote the value of systematic, empirical investigations of the client system and of the interventions used. Thus, assessments and interventions could be observed, measured, and chronicled over time for evaluation of effectiveness. US social work has increasingly oriented itself to the specialty of assessment and outcome measurement for evaluating social work interventions and social programs (Goldstein, 2001). It has developed sophistication in those areas. The EU practice has remained focused on qualitative aspects of practice, and has advanced a milieu modality for intervention with individuals, groups, and communities (Aero, Friese, & Wrangel, 2002; Eraut, 1994; Richardson, 1990; Schön, 1991). Their orientation is more intuitive/theoretical than scientific. Continental Influence on Social Education Drawing from the works of continental social theorists, social education gives major attention to how individuals integrate into society. Hegel, in the Philosophy of Law, identifies family, civil society, and the state as the spheres into which an individual must integrate (O'Connor & Mohr, 2006). These spheres make demands on the individual to act for the common good as well as sustain each sphere as a community. Social educators focus on how to optimally assist the social integration of all members of society. Kant's view of the Will influenced both Paul Natorp, who believed that "morals" are created in and are the task of the community, and Ferdinand Tönnies' theories of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (Tönnies & Harris, 2001). Natorp believed that no individual can be solely responsible for his actions and that all members of society are vital contributors to the morals of the individual. He furthermore held that social education for democratic participation could close one of the gaps between rich and poor, creating greater harmony (O'Connor & Mohr, 2006). Thus, the EU uses milieu-based interventions to increase the democratic behaviors of its members. Tönnies (2001) conceived of individuals as naturally directed towards sociability. He saw democracy as permitting the growth of an optimally healthy citizenry, allowing individuals to develop their natural will and thus create an inclusive and pluralistic participatory experience for all (Norlin & Chess, 1996). These continentalists strongly influenced the EU philosophical orientation towards "helping" and have contributed to the EU focus on assisting the development of leadership and membership skills among small groups toward positive socialization (re-education) experiences for problem individuals. In addition to working with at-risk individuals, families, and groups, social educators focus on more general (recreational/preventative as opposed to remedial/therapeutic) community work, including providing group experiences for the elderly, adults, and youth for creating and sustaining democratic participation (Lindemulder, 2008; Schön, 1967). Pedagogical Influence on Social Education Rejecting stances that place extensive responsibility upon the individual, social educators emphasize reciprocity between self and others (Norlin & Chess, 1996). Natorp and subsequent social educators viewed man as fundamentally social with intents, wants, and will that can only truly flourish with respect for the intents, wants, and will of others. Since individuals are viewed as simultaneously educating and learning from one another, social education can advance prosocial goodwill through assisting successful participation and joint problem-solving in groups (Husén, 1974; Schön, 1991). Similarly, Dewey (1933) saw that the development of independent, self-sufficient individuals occurred through educational experiences in which the choosing capability is fostered. He therefore espoused the method of "learning by doing." He appreciated that learning by doing, though awkward at first, resulted in achieved competencies and creative capacities, necessary ingredients for prosocialness and the "good life." This pedagogical orientation argues that children should be helped to behave and become responsible by means of the social educational power of the milieu - the context in which interaction takes place. This process helps individuals develop a firm character and integrate into the community in which they live. The pedagogical ideals and methods were seen as the core of the socialization process and the means through which true democratic participation could take place (Gustavsson, Hermansson, & Hamalainen, 2003; Hjarne, 2003). Social Education and Social Work Group Work Approximately 25% of the social education curriculum is applied activity subjects, such as drama, movement, textile, carpentry and ceramics. As an example, the following chart displays the third year course requirements from the US and EU schools. US EU Third Year Curriculum Comparisons
US social group work has roots in the settlement house, youth organization, recreation and adult education movements (Alissi, 1980; Toseland & Rivas, 2008). The original group workers' skills included program media and activities which emphasized non-verbal skills. However over time, caseworkers asserted that the use of program, play, and activity was a "non-serious" method and when it accepted group work, it was within the traditional casework frame in that it was in clinical and psychotherapeutic settings (Alissi, 1980). The original group workers, as well as the current social educators, hold the multiple roles of caseworker, care worker, activity leader, and community worker (Specht & Courtney, 1994). Both group workers and social educators understand the power and purpose of activities, in that "activity" creates a vehicle for connecting and building a relationship in a non-threatening way, and individuals and groups can be helped to deal with their problems, learn rules and norms, and become active and productive members of society through activities. For therapeutic intervention to occur, the social educator creates an environment - a milieu - conducive to doing activities in which verbal and non-verbal skills are required (Alissi, 1980). These interventions are delivered in a variety of settings, including within a family's home, in residential treatment, day care, prisons, in the community, and in street out-reach ("milieu ouvert"). All types of program activities become the vehicle through which groups attain their goals (Toseland & Rivas, 2008). Activities provide a shared experience that facilitates rapport and relationship building. With the focus of the activity on both the process and the product of the activity (Toseland & Rivas, 2008), the participants increase their ability for self-reflection, self-awareness, and empowerment. The creativity of the social educator and group worker in implementing such planned activities helps the participants develop their own creativity and enhance their sense of personal productiveness and democratic participation, while also assisting the development of problem solving skills since they also provide a means for ventilation, tension release, and the promotion of self confidence. A TRANSPRAC group of US social work educators believed that US social work might benefit from a reacquaintance with the EU direct practice orientation, which is most closely aligned with the American settlement house philosophy. It was thought that US social work practitioners and BSW students could become more internationally skilled by learning from abroad practice models (Hokenstad, Khinduka, & Midgley, 1992) and by adopting/adapting them for innovations at home (Hokenstad & Midgley, 2004). TRANSPRAC was designed to address significant and critical training needs both in the US and the EU for a 21st century practitioner capable of delivering complex social services that reflect the achieved wisdom of the US and EU models in education and service delivery in direct care settings (Werrbach et al., 2004). Therefore, transatlantic information on what is actually and specifically valued and rated as important to best practice was required (Ferguson, Cooper, & Jones, 2008). A total of 183 respondents completed a task involving ranking 35 statements about Social Work/Social Education Practice. These statements were generated from five sources: a literature review of EU and US practice texts, focus group discussions with EU social educators working as practitioners on fellowships in the US, focus group discussions of US practitioners in various fields of practice, focus group discussions with Danish and Flemish social education professors, and focus group discussions with US social work professors and social work students. The responses were analyzed using the Q Methodology (Q-Sort), which is designed to identify common themes (Shinebourne and Adams, 2007). It requires that each statement be assigned a rank using a Likert scale of seven to nine categories and that the distribution of scores be both symmetric and normal (Brown, 1996; Stephenson, 1953). Consequently, the most frequent scores are ranked as zero (Neutral), and the least frequent ranks are the two extremes (-4 and +4). This task utilized nine categories ranging from - 4 (Least Important to Practice) to + 4 (Most Important to Practice). Each respondent ranked all 35 statements. Analysis of a Q Methodology involves a factor analytic process whereby three separate "factors" or clusters of items are "extracted" from the data. Unlike traditional factor analysis, which attempts to find clusters of items within the array, the Q Methodology attempts to identify clusters of "sort patterns" (in effect, factoring individuals) that reveal similar ratings of the items. For this investigation, there were four theoretical clusters, or subscales, within the items provided to the students: a "Social Policy" cluster (SP), a "Community Practice" cluster (CP), a "Working with Individuals" cluster (Ind), and an "Assessment and Research" cluster (A&R). Consequently, the data were analyzed using the equivalent of a confirmatory factor analysis to determine if those clusters were similarly perceived by the student respondents. Additional analyses involved examination of the mean rankings assigned to each of the 35 statements to determine the relative importance (positive or negative) placed on each. These were conducted three times - once for the US sample, once for the EU sample, and once for the combined sample. The final analysis examined the average ratings within the items that were theoretically related to the four clusters described above. Sample A convenience sample of social work and social education students from four of the TRANSPRAC participating schools was used. The surveys received from the Plantijn Hogeschool, Belgium (n=51) and the Peter Sabroe Universariat, Denmark (n=36) were clustered into a European Union category (n=87), while the surveys from the University of Maine (n=30) and Providence College (n=66) were combined into a United States category (n=96). The mean age of all respondents was 22.7 years. The majority of respondents (86%) were under age 25. Female respondents outnumbered males by 4 to 1. Data Analysis The raw data were entered into a software program called PQMethod (Schmolck, 2002), designed for Q Methodology analyses. The results from each analysis were examined for thematic dominance. The raw data were transferred to SPSS software for further analysis. Basic demographic data were obtained from each respondent (age, gender and school affiliation). Average or mean ranks were obtained for each statement across all subjects to determine the relative importance assigned to each statement by the respondent (ranging from high ranking statements (i.e., approaching + 4 for Most Important to Practice) to low ranking statements (approaching - 4 for Least Important to Practice). Separate compilations of mean ranks were created for each cluster of the affiliated schools (US vs. EU). This allowed a direct comparison of mean ranks so that differences in the endorsement of the 35 statements could be readily observed. Findings Factor analysis The factor analysis results are presented in Tables 1 to 3. Each table presents the statement that was sorted, the theoretical cluster to which it belongs, the factor(s) on which it loaded in the analysis, and the relative strength (z-score) of each loading. All items are statistically significant at p < .05. Those that are significant at p < .01 are denoted with an asterisk (*). Where there are two asterisks separated by a semi-colon (*;*) in the significance column (Sig.), the combined sample factors are statistically significant at p < .01. Table 1: Comparison of Theoretical Loadings with Q-Sort Factor Loading - Combined Sample
Key: Ind. = Works with Individuals; CP = Community Practice; A&R = Assessment and Research; SP = Social Policy. Table 1 reveals that the first factor agreed most closely with the "Works with Individuals" (Ind.) theoretical cluster. Half of the theoretical items within that cluster (Ind.) have primary loadings on factor 1. The second factor appears to reflect "Social Policy" (SP) items. The third factor is less clearly defined, but may capture some of the "Assessment and Research" (A&R) cluster. And the final factor appears to capture the "Community Practice" (CP) cluster. Table 1a : Correlations among Factor Scores - Combined Sample
While none of the correlations among the four factors are especially powerful, some approach moderate strength. Stronger correlations among the factors indicate less independence and greater overlap. Consequently, there is considerable overlap between factor 1 (Ind.) and each of the other factors. Furthermore, factor 3 (A&R) is also moderately correlated with factor 2 (SP). This commonality may explain why factor 3 does not emerge as clearly as others. Factor 4 (CP) is fairly independent, with the exception of its moderate correlation with the first (Ind.). The US sample Table 2 presents the results of the Q Methodology factor extraction for the US sample alone (n=96). Once again, the theoretical clusters are compared with the four extracted factors. Table 2: Comparison of Theoretical Loadings with Q-Sort Factor Loading - US Sample
Key: Ind. = Works with Individuals; CP = Community Practice; A&R = Assessment and Research; SP = Social Policy. In the US sample, the four theoretical clusters are not easily identified within the factor extraction results. The first factor appears to be most strongly related to the A&R cluster. The second has its strongest affiliation with the SP cluster, although the loadings are not very strong. The third reflects both an Ind. cluster and a SP loading, but is the strongest Ind. factor in the array. The fourth has no strong loadings but has the most CP items of any. Examination of the correlation matrix helps explain this lack of clarity. The correlations reflected in Table 2a for the US sample indicate moderate correlations among all of the factors, particularly between 1 and 3 (0.5600) and between 1 and 4 (0.5047). It is clear that the US respondents did not differentiate the four theoretical clusters as clearly as there is a great deal of overlap in their sorting of the statements. Table 2a: Correlations among Factor Scores - US Sample
The EU sample Table 3 presents the results of the Q Methodology factor extraction for the EU sample alone (n=87). Table 3: Comparison of Theoretical Loadings with Q-Sort Factor Loading ñ EU Sample
Key: * = p < .05; ** = p < .01 Key: Ind. = Works with Individuals; CP = Community Practice; A&R = Assessment and Research; SP = Social Policy. In the EU sample, the four theoretical clusters failed to fully emerge from the Q Methodology analysis. The first factor apparently captures the Ind. cluster. The second, however, is also highly correspondent with the Ind. cluster. The third is weakly representative of the A&R cluster, while the final emerges as a fairly strong representation of the CP cluster. That left the SP cluster without clear representation in the EU sorting. Examination of Table 3a further explains why the results of the Q Methodology analysis for the EU sample are difficult to characterize. The correlations among the four factors are quite strong, particularly between 1 and 2, 1 and 3, and 2 and 3. Only 4 appears to be independent of the others. Table 3a: Correlations among Factor Scores - EU Sample
Conclusions regarding the Q methodology analyses When the combined sample (both US and EU) was analyzed, the results provided an adequate replication of the theoretical clusters within the four extracted factors. However, when the US and EU samples were analyzed separately, the cluster replication emerged less clearly (with the US sample) or failed to emerge at all (with the EU sample). Further analysis was conducted comparing the mean ranks of individual items in an attempt to improve our understanding of the findings. Comparison of means The second analysis involved generating the mean or average ratings (possible range from -4 to +4) applied to each item by the respondent pool. Table 4 presents the mean ratings of statements for the entire respondent pool, the US sample, and the EU sample. Each statement was statistically compared using the Mann-Whitney U test to determine if the differences between the US and the EU samples reached significance. Table 4: Comparison of Mean Item Ratings by Sample
Key: * = p < .05; ** = p < .01 Table 4 reveals that several items received significantly different rankings by the two samples. The US sample reveals strong preferences for social justice (SP), helping clients, and ethical practice (Ind.), while exhibiting an equally powerful aversion to utilizing quantitative and qualitative methods for assessment (A&R), as well as resistance to applying theory to practice. The EU sample reveals a strong preference for working through relationships with clients (Ind) and reflective practice in teams and individually. The EU sample exhibited a strong aversion to legislative advocacy (SP) and coordination of services, but is neutral regarding assessment and theory (A&R). When examined in light of the theoretical clusters, it becomes apparent that there are considerable differences between the two samples regarding Social Policy, Assessment and Research, and Community Practice. Final analysis The last analysis involved calculating the mean rank assigned to the items which constituted each of the four theoretical clusters: Works with Individuals, Community Practice, Assessment and Research, and Social Policy. These mean ranks were then compared between US and EU respondents, once again utilizing the Mann-Whitney U test for statistical significance. The results of this final analysis are presented in Table 5. Table 5: Comparison of Mean Theoretical Cluster Ratings by Sample
Key: * = p < .05; ** = p < .01 This final analysis confirms the findings cited earlier that there are considerable differences between the US and EU samples. The largest difference is in the area of Social Policy. Important dissimilarities are also indicated regarding Community Practice and Assessment and Research. It is interesting to note that the US sample rates Works with Individuals and Community Practice as positive aspects of social work while ranking the other two clusters negatively, with a fairly symmetrical distribution across the four clusters. The EU sample similarly rates Works with Individuals as important in their practice commitments but are neutral about Community Practice, moderately negative regarding Assessment and Research, and very strongly opposed to Social Policy as related to their interventions. Four theoretical clusters or subscales - "Works with Individuals," "Social Policy," "Community Practice," and "Assessment and Research" - were used to compare mean differences in the ranking of the 35 best practices statements by EU and US respondents. Similarities EU and US respondents both strongly and equally favored the "Works with Individuals" cluster (Table 5; p>.5, no significant difference). Three items within the cluster were highly valued as "best practice," with rankings of +4, +3 and +2, by both US and EU students. The first relates to "promoting client strengths," the second to "promoting social justice," and the third to the importance of all practice strategies "being reflective." In addition, both groups of students gave high rankings to statements supporting "the individual development of the practitioner." Although age differences appeared to pay little part in the selection of statements, one item was differentiated. Younger respondents highlighted "promoting social justice," which may reflect greater optimism in the political process. Older respondents highlighted "professional relationships with clients," "being a competent, reflective practitioner," and "learning new theories to apply to practice." Both recognized the importance of the "individual development of the practitioner" to best practice. Appreciation for these similarities, though, should be tempered by an understanding that EU interventions to "promote client strengths" in "work with individuals" differ from the US in that EU practitioners work with clients indirectly in recreational or naturally occurring groups to promote client strengths, normalizing the interventive process. The US primarily promotes client strengths by working directly with individual clients/families in a therapeutic setting towards remediatation of problems. Differences Study findings revealed significant differences in rankings of the "Social Policy," "Community Practice," and "Assessment and Research" clusters (Table 5) by EU and US respondents. These are surprising and, perhaps, deceptive findings. The most powerful dissimilarity centered in the "Social Policy" cluster (Table 5; p<.01). The US respondents gave high rankings to the items "creates more helpful social welfare," "works with social policies," and "provides political and legislative action to correct social problems". EU students gave these items neutral rankings. These ratings were contrary to understandings the investigators developed through interviews and analysis of written materials, where it appeared evident that the EU exhibited widespread and more constant commitment to those activities. One interpretation of this paradox is that social policy interventions are so ubiquitous to social education practice, as well as to the welfare state orientations of the nations in which they reside, that they do not necessarily stand out and the EU students, therefore, rated them neutrally as neither important nor unimportant. In a similar vein, EU students were neutral regarding "Community Practice," while US students were strongly positive regarding this item (Table 5; p<.01). This finding also ran counter to the investigators' accumulated understanding from other aspects of the TRANSPRAC effort. Once more, it seemed plausible to understand that the extremely embedded quality of the social education's commitment to community oriented concerns in every aspect of their practice made such endeavors less visible, neither positive nor negative, as interventive foci. The third major difference between the US and EU rankings concerned "Assessment and Research." US students ranked the cluster very low (-4, -3) compared to EU students (Table 5; p<.05) who were mildly negative (-1,-2). Within the cluster, US students were most dismissive of the importance of evaluation and research ("evaluates outcomes by applying quantified measures to track changes in behavior"; "evaluates outcomes by applying qualitative measures of clients and workers") to "best practice." This finding was the most provocative to the investigators. Assessment and research are fundamental activities in US social work practice. In searching for explanations, it seemed important to note that, as consequently revealed in interviews, US students have strongly negative personal reactions to the research and evaluation demands made upon them. They are widely convinced that they lack the analytic skills to develop competency in performing, or even properly comprehending, quantitative research. It is necessary to acknowledge that social work students highly committed to "helping those in need" will seldom easily relate to the slow, precise, intellectual activities required for valid evaluation and knowledge building. The EU students also expressed disaffection toward research and evaluation, but on a lesser scale. Their greater comfort with those activities seems attributable to social education's use of qualitative assessments, based on shared judgments and library research, rather than quantitative assessments which require "objective" skills, often foreign to feeling students most anxious about learning how to operationalize their humanitarian concerns. Implications This study was initiated as part of a larger effort (TRANSPRAC) to identify factors in EU and US practice with individuals, groups, and communities that could assist subsequent attempts to build useful transatlantic models of "best practice." The major perceived similarities in practice retrieved through the Q methodology were all located within the "Works with Individuals" cluster, including "promoting client strengths," "promoting social justice," "reflection-infused interventions," "developing practitioner strengths," and "values empowering clients." All were assigned high value on both sides of the Atlantic. This confluence regarding emphasis on strengths was mildly surprising in light of the US' announced commitment to focusing primarily on rehabilitation-oriented casework. On closest examination and after follow-up, in-depth interviews with study participants regarding their interpretations of those statements, the highly rated statements were reaffirmed as emphasizing a growth/strengths orientation rather than a problems/rehabilitation one. This shared priority on both sides, combined with the many philosophical commonalities on both sides that affirm strong social and democracy-supporting objectives, suggests a nucleus for a successfully joined transatlantic approach to practice. The major study finding related to dissimilarities between the EU and US regarding Social Policy ("creates more helpful social welfare," "works with social policies," "provides political and legislative action to correct social problems"). US students place greater value on social policy and community practice than do EU students, a surprising finding given the EU's significantly greater overall commitment to policy solutions to social problems. Belgium and Denmark, among most EU nations, have far more comprehensive and universalized social services with more economic and social commitments supporting these than the US (Healy, 2001). Follow-up interviews clarified for the investigators that US students were likely responding more strongly to the social policy and community practice areas precisely because they were less present in the systems they attended. US students perceived a crucial need for social policy advocacy and legislative and political practice only too well, whereas the EU students could attend the preventative, developmental and socialization needs of individuals, groups, and communities more fully because extensive governmental supports for security were in place. Student ratings also differed regarding the importance of assessment and research, with US students strongly negative concerning their value and EU counterparts only mildly so. At first, this finding also presented problems to the investigators, as US schools of social work are far more committed to empirical evaluations than EU social education programs. Scientific evaluation and assessment are ordinarily understood as major strengths of US practice. Interviews made it clear that US social work students often feel inadequate to the demanding intellectual tasks that accompany research and evaluation and, since they are confronted with such demands far more regularly than EU students (who employ qualitative methods, with much reliance upon group discussions and library research), their more intense distaste was understandable. Given the degree to which our explanations for the apparently paradoxical findings above do or do not account for their jarringness, it is apparent that both social policy and evaluation play very different roles in the curricula and practice of US social work and EU social education, and that these differences present significant stumbling blocks to any joined model for transatlantic practice. It is also clear that political, cultural, and economic factors beyond both professions, play significant roles in shaping those investments and behaviors. European social education can concern itself entirely with improving socialization and advancing growth and interactional skills because their governments ensure security through universal services. US social work has to attend to the consequences of poverty on individuals because the government is not committed to making serious poverty impossible. (It is also likely that a portion of the US' commitment to scientific evaluation is a consequence of the ways US culture defines and rewards prestige.) It is also clear, though, that these political and economic influences are changing in Europe. Social educators in both Belgium and Denmark are beginning to experience pressure to justify their priorities with some form of "measurement." The relentless recent waves of predominantly Muslim immigrants, into the otherwise heterogeneous populations of the "old" EU countries, especially Belgium, Denmark, and Spain, is threatening each nation's capacity to sustain universal protections and programs. For the first time in recent history, the normative homogeneity of the social welfare recipients is threatened. Instead of the traditional "we" mentality to social welfare services and funding, an "us" (native-born) and "them" (immigrant) mentality has resulted from the influx of a largely Muslim population who are receiving the extensive social welfare benefits. Debates about how to prevent further immigration and how to move the immigrants to self-sufficiency are current critical political issues and of paramount importance to social education. Both Belgium and Denmark are in policy and economic flux. Both governments have begun to solicit evidence for claims on the budget, as well as conceptual policy solutions to the many difficulties stemming from these changes in the population. It is clear that the contexts for social policy and evaluation will continue to change for decades, with a portion of those changes pushing social education closer to US social work practice priorities with respect to social policy and evaluation. As part of the project to develop a transatlantic social service model, an investigation into "best practices" was conducted using a convenience sample (n=183) of EU social education students and US social work students from four member schools of the TRANSPRAC consortium. Each participant ranked the 35 statement concourse which was analyzed by Q methodology to determine what values US social work students and EU social education students place on various aspects of "best practice." The research provided glimpses into similarities and differences in European and American practice. US and EU students strongly agree that reflection-infused interventions in work with individuals to promote client strengths, client empowerment, and social justice are essential to best practice, as is the ongoing professional development of the practitioner. They differed on how important social policy advocacy and community interventions are, with the US students strongly advocating these areas as essential to "best practice" while the EU students remained essentially neutral. These differences were understood, in large part, to reflect the difference in governmental responsibility for social welfare service provision between the US and EU - the EU having comprehensive social welfare programming where little social policy advocacy is needed because extensive economic and social supports are already in place. With the US having a more limited and mixed welfare state (Popple & Leighninger, 2007), US practitioners routinely face the threat of social service provisions cuts and are educated in the importance of legislative analysis and political advocacy targeted to protect services and programs for at risk individuals, groups and communities. They also differed on the importance of assessment and research, with US students strongly negative concerning their value and EU students only mildly so. This was understood to indicate that, while a genuine strength of US practice, the US positivist orientation to evaluation and research frustrates its students who may suspect limitations to a predominantly quantitative focus on practice and/or may feel inadequate to perform scientific methodologies. The US students, though they may not "like" assessment, evaluation, and research, are nonetheless entering a profession where the attendant techniques remain vital. An opportunity to share knowledge relating to quantitative research is approaching since EU governments are starting to demand data to "demonstrate" the effectiveness of social programs. The mildly negative EU students" attitudes on the value of assessment, evaluation, and research seem to reflect a belief that qualitative methodologies alone do not capture all the values inherent in their practice. Though sharing many philosophical and theoretical roots with the US, EU social education practice is decisively characterized by "milieu" and "group" work, and oriented towards the qualitative aspects of practice. Interviews surrounding the Q-sort study elicited information concerning ongoing social and economic changes in the participating EU countries that make clear that social education's relationship to the need for social policy advocacy and the importance of research will necessarily undergo significant changes, probably in directions close to US experiences. Recognition of the effects of these larger societal changes will have to be part of any international model, as well as an understanding that other economic and cultural changes on both sides of the Atlantic will continue to occur, and that curricula will have to incorporate an ability to refresh and reorganize itself in such circumstances. Even the most basic and weight commitments, such as the EU's greater sensitivity to "philosophical" principles over and against the US's "pragmatic" priorities, are likely to change on both sides of the Atlantic, as budgets tighten in Europe and the United States loses more of its world-wide superordinancy and is confronted with many more universal, seldom-changing (philosophic) issues. The investigators plan to next administer the 35 statement concourse to both EU and US practitioners to test the degree to which the results of this study reflect genuine practice, rather than educational orientation, differences. The social work agenda for the 21st century gives priority to developing an evidenced-based, international social work practice model and curriculum by focusing on inter- professional approaches to service delivery (CSWE, 2004). The findings from this investigation are the beginning of that process. To comment on this article or read comments by others, log onto the Common Base of International Social Work Practice blog at http://globalsocialwork.wordpress.com/. Abbott, A. (1999). Measuring social work values: a cross-cultural challenge for global practice.International Social Work, 42(4), 455-470. Addams, J. (1902). Democracy and social ethics. New York: Macmillan. Addams, J. (1910). Twenty years at Hull-House: with autobiographical notes. New York: Macmillan. Aero, L., Friese, P., & Wrangel, M. (2002). The professional bachelor degree: bachelor in social education. Copenhagen: International Committee of the Rectors' Conference. Alissi, A. (Ed.). (1980). Perspectives on social group work practice: A book of readings. New York: Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group. Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Asamoah, Y., Healy, L., & Mayadas, N. (1997). Ending the international-domestic dichotomy: new approaches to a global curriculum for the millennium. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(2), 389-402. Asperger, H. (1965). Heilpädagogik. Wien. Association of Social Work Boards. (2004). Retrieved on October 1, 2004 from http://www.aswb.org. Barker, R. (1991). The social work dictionary (2nd ed.). Silver Spring, MD: NASW Press. Bopp, L. (1930). Heilpädagogik. Freiburg. Bopp, L. (1958). Heilerziehung aus dem glauben. Freiburg. Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 6(4), 561-567. Campanini, A. Frost, E. (2004). European social work: Commonalities and differences. Rome: Carocci. Council of Social Work Education. (2004). Retrieved on October 1, 2004 from http://www.cswe.org. Cruickshank, W. M. & Johnson, G. O. (Eds.). (1958). Education of exceptional children and youth. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. New York: D. C. Heath. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer Press. Etzioni, A. (1968). The active society: the theory of societal and political processes. New York: Free Press. EuroEducation. (2004).
Structure of education system in Denmark. Retrieved on November 15,
2004 from http://www.euroeducation.net/ Ferguson, H., Cooper, B., & Jones, K. (Eds.). (2008). Best practice in social work: Critical perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillian. FESET: Formation d'Educateurs Sociaux Européens/European Social Educator Training. (2008).Who can affiliate to FESET?. Retrieved October 4, 2008 from http://www.feset.org Goldstein, H. (2001). Experiential learning: a foundation for social work education and practice. Alexandria, VA: CSWE. Gustavsson, A., Hermansson, H-E, & Hamalainen, J. (Eds.). (2003). Perspectives and theory in social pedagogy. Goteborg, Sweden: Daidalos. Healy, L. M. (2001). International social work: Professional action in an interdependent world. New York: Oxford University Press. Hjarne, G. (2003). Social Education and Social Educational Practice in the Nordic Countries. Nordic Forum for Social Educators. Copenhagen, Denmark: National Federation of Social Educators in Denmark. Hokenstad, M., Khinduka, S., & Midgley, J. (Eds.). (1992). Profiles in international social work. Washington, D.C.: NASW Press. Hokenstad, M. C. & Midgley, J. (2004). Lessons from abroad: Adapting international social welfare innovations. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Hopps, J. G. & Pinderhughes, E. B. (1992). Social work in the United States: History, context, and issues In M. C. Hokenstad, S. K. Khinduka, & J. Midgley (Eds.), Profiles in international social work. Washington, D.C.: NASW Press. Husén, T. (1974). The learning society. London: Methuen. IFSW: Definition of Social Work. (2004). Retrieved on September 24, 2004 from http://www.ifsw.org IFSW: General Information. (2004). Retrieved on September 24, 2004 from http://www.ifsw.org. Johnson, A. (2004). Increasing internationalization in social work programs: Healy's continuum as a strategic planning guide. International Social Work, 47(1), 7-24. Lindemulder, J. (2008). An Exposé on Social Educational Care Work (SPH) Competencies. Keynote speech at the 6th FESET Seminar, Amsterdam April 24 2008. Midgley, J. (1992). The challenge of international social work, in M.C. Hokenstad, S.K. Khinduka, and J. Midgley (Eds) Profiles in international social work. Washington, D.C.: NASW Press. Midgley, J. (2001). Issues in international social work: Resolving critical debates in the profession. Journal of Social Work, 1, 21-35. Moor, P. (1958). Heilpädogogische Psychologie. Bern. Norlin, J. & Chess, W. A (1996). Human behavior and the social environment: Social systems theory. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc. O'Connor, B. & Mohr, G. (Eds.). (2006). German idealism: An anthology and guide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Plantijn Hogeschool. (2008). Bachelor socio-educational care work: Training brochure '08-'09. Antwerpen. Popple, P. & Leighninger, L. (2007). Social work, social welfare and American society. New York: Pearson Education. Rai, G (2004). International fieldwork experience. International Social Work, 47(2), 213-226. Richardson, V. (1990). The evolution of reflective teaching and teacher education. In R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues and programs. New York: Teachers College Press. Richmond, M. (1917). Social diagnosis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Ruijssenaars, A., van den Bergh, P., & Schoorl, P. (2008). Orthopedagogiek. Ontwikkelingen, theorieën en modellen: Een inleiding. Leuven-Apeldoorn: Garant. Russell, T. & Munby, H. (1991). Reframing: The role of experience in developing teachers' professional knowledge. In D. A. Schön (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Schön, D. A. (1967). Invention and the evolution of ideas. London: Tavistock. Schön, D. A. (Ed.). (1991). The reflective turn: case studies in and on educational practice. NewYork: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Schmolck, P (2002).
PQ method software. Department of Education, University of the Federal
Armed Forces Munich D-85577 Neubiberg, GE. Retrieved October 20, 2007
from http//www.lrz-muenchen.de/~ Schoorl, P.M., van den Bergh P.M.,& Ruijssenaars, A.J.J.M. (2000). Inleiding in de theoretische Orthopedagogiek: Hulpverlenen bij opvoeden. Leuven-Apeldoorn: Garant. Shinebourne, P. & Adams, M. (2007). Q-methodology as a phenomenological research method. Existential Analysis, 18(1), 103-116. Specht, H. & Courtney, M. (1994). Unfaithful angels: How social work has abandoned its mission. New York: Simon & Shuster. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q techniques and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tönnies, F., & Harris, J. (Ed.). (2001). Community and civil society. (J. Harris & M. Hollis, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toseland, R. & Rivas, R. (2008). An introduction to group work practice. New York:Pearson Education. Werrbach, G., Grossman, S. G., Mc Phee, D., Verjans, J., & Hansen, G. (2004). TRANSPRAC: TRANSatlantic Alliance for Creating a New Social Services PRACtice Model. Grant P116J040018. Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education Grant. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/FIPSE. Dr. Susan Grossman is an Assistant Professor of Social Work at Providence College in Rhode Island. Dr. Gail Werrbach is an Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of Maine in Orono. Joel Verjans is a Professor of Social Education and Field Instruction at Plantijn Hogeschool in Antwerp, Belgium. Together they created TRANSPRAC (TRANSatlantic Alliance for Creating a New Social Services PRACtice Model), an international collaboration of three US social work programs and three EU social education programs (from Belgium, Denmark, and Spain) designed to exchange faculty and students so as to develop an internationalized practice model that integrates the strengths of the EU and US models. They gathered the evidence concerning similarities and differences as to what is "most" and "least" important concerning "best practice" presented here as part of the fruit of a three year Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE) grant. Dr. Win Turner, Adjunct Professor of Social Work at the University of Maine in Orono and Director of Northeast Research Services, served as the statistician for the research. |