A Re-Membering Conversation with Howard Goldstein

Previous articleNext article FreeThe Life and Career of Matthew O. HowardJeffrey M. JensonJeffrey M. JensonUniversity of Denver Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreMatthew O. HowardView Large ImageDownload PowerPointOn December 15, 2018, social work and the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research (JSSWR) lost one of its most prolific scholars, outstanding teachers, and thoughtful mentors in recent memory. Matthew O. Howard, PhD—the Frank A. Daniels Distinguished Professor of Human Services Policy Information and associate dean for doctoral education in the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill—passed away following a lengthy hospitalization. As an associate editor for JSSWR, Matthew had a significant impact on improving the quality and influence of the journal. He will be sorely missed by our editorial team.Matthew was a consummate scholar who possessed a singular ability to understand and conceptualize social problems of all types. His research contributed greatly to existing knowledge of the etiology, prevention, and treatment of substance abuse, alcohol dependence, and mental health disorders. And, Matthew’s provocative articles assessing the state of social work education, practice, and research set forth ideas that will affect the trajectory of social work for years to come. His passion for knowledge—conveyed quietly and effectively to countless graduate students—was felt deeply by the many lives he touched over the course of an academic career that included appointments in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington, the Department of Psychiatry at the Oregon Health Sciences University, the George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, the School of Social Work and the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Michigan, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Matthew’s training in social work coincided with my own enrollment in the University of Washington School of Social Work doctoral program in 1984. Matthew and I became immediate and close friends during our graduate studies in Seattle, and we spent hours discussing social work, class assignments, and the research projects we worked on as doctoral students. Many of these conversations occurred in an alley coffee shop in Seattle’s University District, just a stone’s throw from the School of Social Work. Known by the employees as “Matt and Jeff,” we were treated as regulars who would sit at our customary window table for what was likely far too long. It was a time of great intellectual pursuit, and I had found the perfect colleague and friend with whom to share ideas and discuss future plans. It was the beginning of a personal friendship and professional relationship that lasted 34 years.Matthew entered doctoral education with a well-developed interest in understanding the etiology of alcohol and other substance use disorders. Over the nearly four decades that followed, he devoted his career to conducting basic and applied research aimed at ameliorating substance abuse dependence and co-occurring problems associated with alcohol and drug abuse. He became particularly well known for his basic research and intervention studies addressing the vexing problem of inhalant abuse (e.g., Howard, Balster, Cottler, Wu, & Vaughn, 2008; Howard, Bowen, Garland, Perron, & Vaughn, 2011; Howard & Jenson, 1999b). Matthew’s innovative and rigorous research in this area led to three grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and to widespread recognition as one of the world’s foremost experts on inhalant abuse. In recent years, Matthew extended his work to testing mindfulness-oriented interventions for people with chronic pain and opioid misuse. His coinvestigator in much of this work was Eric Garland, professor and associate dean for research in the University of Utah College of Social Work. Eric, a former student of Matthew’s at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, describes some of the important lessons he learned under Matthew’s tutelage in an accompanying article in this issue (Garland, 2019).Matthew also made significant contributions to social work education and research. In the Aaron Rosen Lecture at the 2015 Annual Conference of the Society for Social Work and Research, Matthew traced key developments in social work during the past 30 years and reflected on a vision of the field that stretched to 2044—30 years into the future (Howard & Garland, 2015). The ideas he shared in this lecture have provided a useful framework for assessing the relatively recent history of social work and addressing the challenges in educating master’s-level practitioners and doctoral students in the future. Matthew delivered a similarly thought-provoking lecture on the current state and future of social work doctoral education at the 2016 Annual Conference of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education. Ideas presented in his lectures were coupled with action. One such example is illustrated by Matthew’s early development of a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill doctoral-level course on conducting systematic reviews. Students in this class often produced publishable papers as a result of Matthew’s fastidious attention to breadth and quality. In earlier work at the Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, Matthew and colleagues advanced the idea of evidence-based practice as a paradigm for training MSW social work practitioners (Howard, McMillen, & Pollio, 2003). Enola Proctor, the Shanti K. Khinduka Distinguished Professor in the Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, was a colleague of Matthew’s at the time. She remembers Matthew as… a brilliant scholar and dear person. Highly regarded for his excellence in the classroom at the Brown School, he was demanding yet was a frequent winner of student-elected teaching awards. Matthew used his seemingly boundless energy to better the fields of addiction research and social work practice. He had my highest respect and unending affection. His passing is a tremendous loss to our field and community of scholars [and] saddens me deeply. (E. Proctor, personal communication, January 9, 2019)In 1999, Matthew and I had the good fortune to guest edit a special issue of Research on Social Work Practice that explored the utility of clinical practice guidelines for social work practice (Howard & Jenson, 1999a). Collectively, Matthew’s lectures and published papers assessing the state of social work education and practice stimulated debate and produced tangible curricula changes in schools across the country.A prolific writer, Matthew published more than 250 peer-reviewed papers in his career. His written work also included 40 book reviews, editorials, and government reports. Matthew’s h-index of 55 and nearly 9,000 citations of his work to date illustrate just how much his scholarship was valued by colleagues. His written contributions will be recognized and used by practitioners, policymakers, and researchers for decades to come.Matthew was a fellow and a board member of the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare and a fellow of the Society for Social Work and Research. A proponent of interdisciplinary work, he also was a faculty research fellow in the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at the time of his passing. Matthew’s devotion to empirical research and scholarship is widely recognized. However, what may be most impressive about Matthew’s career is the recognition he received as both a scholar and a teacher. He was awarded eight outstanding teaching and mentoring awards from students and colleagues at Washington University in St. Louis and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Two of Matthew’s doctoral students at North Carolina (Eric Garland, University of Utah; and Carrie Pettus-Davis, Florida State University) received Doctoral Fellow Awards from the Society for Social Work and Research. Matthew connected with his students by combining high scientific standards with a compassionate approach to helping people succeed. He was soft-spoken, but his ideas and words carried great weight and influence.Matthew’s service to the fields of social work and addiction was also exemplary. He reviewed manuscripts for more than 60 different academic journals in his career. He was on the editorial boards of more than 50 journals—including serving a JSSWR associate editor for the past several years—and he previously served as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Social Service Research, Social Work Research, and the Journal of Addictive Diseases. Matthew also was vice president and served on the Society for Social Work and Research Board of Directors from 2005 to 2008.The task of summarizing the life and career of a prolific and impactful scholar, teacher, and mentor like Matthew is daunting. Mark Fraser, professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the founding editor of JSSWR, was a longtime friend, collaborator, and colleague. Reflecting on Matthew’s career, he recalls,As a scholar and a teacher, Matthew was eloquent and encyclopedic. Students flocked to his classes. A gentle spirit who treasured collaboration with others, his greatest joys came in exploring new ideas and reading recent research. In the profession as a thought leader, Matthew was a tour de force. At once, he was creative, insightful, sensitive, critical, and thorough. Matthew was—quite simply—incomparable. (M. Fraser, personal communication, January 8, 2019)Tangible accomplishments like those summarized here do not tell the complete story of a person. Matthew had an uncanny ability to effectively express his strong personal beliefs and ethical values in everyday interactions with friends and colleagues. He had a deep interest in applying the lessons gained from his own empirical work to promote fairness and equity for all people. Matthew’s invaluable input and feedback to students and colleagues about their ideas, papers, or projects came with great civility and kindness. He was an insatiable reader whose knowledge extended to topics well beyond social work or the addictions. In this sense, one could discuss a wide range of topics with Matthew with the preordained understanding that he had very likely already read much of what had been written on the topic. Matthew’s longstanding practice of underscoring written text with yellow highlighters was applied to thousands of empirical and conceptual articles and manuscripts during his career.On a personal level, Matthew enjoyed taking walks, listening to music, and reading novels and poetry. His wry sense of humor often left many of his closest friends and colleagues writhing in laughter. I was among them.JSSWR is proud to count Matthew as one of its most influential associate editors and contributors. His place as an important teacher and scholar in social work education and research is secure. Matthew’s many contributions will be discovered anew by emerging scholars for decades to come. His presence in social work and the broad field of the addictions will be missed by us all.NotesJeffrey M. Jenson, PhD, is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research and the Phillip D. & Eleanor G. Winn Endowed Professor Children and Youth at the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work.Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Jeffrey M. Jenson, University of Denver, 2148 S. High St., Denver, CO 80208 or via e-mail to [email protected]ReferencesGarland, E. L. (2019). Standing on the shoulders of giants: Matthew O. Howard as a mentor and his influence on the science of mindfulness as a treatment for addiction. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1086/702654First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O. (2016, March 31). Hot topics in doctoral education. Presentation at the 2016 Annual Conference of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education, Chapel Hill, NC.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., Balster, R., Cottler, L. B., Wu, L., & Vaughn, M. G. (2008). Inhalant use among incarcerated adolescents: Prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 93, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.08.023First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., Bowen, S., Garland, E. L., Perron, B. E., & Vaughn, M. G. (2011). Inhalant use and inhalant use disorders in the United States. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 6, 18–31.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., & Garland, E. L. (2015). Social work research: 2044. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 6, 173–200. https://doi.org/10.1086/681099First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., & Jenson, J. M. (1999a). Clinical practice guidelines: Should social work develop them? Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973159900900302First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., & Jenson, J. M. (1999b). Inhalant use among antisocial youth: Prevalence and correlates. Addictive Behaviors, 24, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4603(98)00039-2First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., McMillen, J. C., & Pollio, D. (2003). Teaching evidence-based practice: Toward a new paradigm for social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 234–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731502250404First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research Volume 10, Number 1Spring 2019 Published for the Society for Social Work and Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/702653HistoryPublished online February 04, 2019 © 2019 by the Society for Social Work and Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

This chapter attempts to cross-compare social work field education in India and China. It reviews the development of social work education and field work practice and presents the current status of social work education and field work in these two developing countries. In doing so we aim to understand the structure, nature, and challenges faced by social work field education in these countries figuratively listed in the global south. Neither social work education nor social work practice in both India and China is well established or recognised. Nevertheless, both these countries have different administrative structures that either encourage or restrict the development and growth of social work education and practice. While social work is a State-mandated profession in China, Indian social work is still struggling for public recognition and State support despite 84 years of education and practice. This chapter examines the challenges faced by these two countries with respect to social work education with special reference to social work field education.

Bridging Traditions and Innovations: the First International Social Pedagogy Conference

Field education is an integral part of social work education in many respects. Social work practice has three pillars: knowledge, skills, values. None alone are enough to succeed in social work practice. With this base, social workers are equipped with knowledge and skills in their four years of study. Social work is a profession that requires the carrying out of professional interventions in various social areas and at different levels including micro, mezzo, and macro. Therefore taking a deep look at the sources of social work theory and practice and of field research, student preparation, dual supervision (academic counsel and institutional counselling), and the coordination of field education within the larger educational programme may provide some information about field education in Turkey. Problems such as providing social work education with open education, increasing numbers of students, lack of teaching staff are some of the current issues in social work education in Turkey. These problems are also reflected in practice education. This chapter offers an insight into the current context of field education in social work programmes in Turkey.

Although professional social work in Egypt has a 100-year history, there is a dearth of information in English about social work in Egypt and other non-Western countries. Five domains of social work in Egypt are (1) the international flow of Western social work practice into Egypt, (2) modern social work, (3) social work research and social work interventions, (4) social work education, and (5) fields of practice. These five domains that inform modern social work in Egypt were produced from international flows of Western social work practice into Egypt. It was also produced from social work research and social work intervention. Modern social work also comes from teaching bachelor of social work students professional social work courses. Social work knowledge was adapted, authenticated, and indigenized to meet local context. These five dominated themes have been detailed and explained. International flows of Western social work practice into Egypt include transmission (transplantation), authentication, and indigenization. Modern social work in Egypt includes social work practice and social welfare policy. Social work research has included explanatory, descriptive and experiment social work research studies. Social work intervention has included social work intervention of aiming at solving problems and stressors and social work intervention of aiming at applying resources for change. Fields of social work practice includes family and child Social Work and school social work. Social work education is focused only on Bachelor of Science in Social Work covering the professional social work courses group work practice, social casework practice, community organization, social welfare planning, policy and administration, fields of social work practice. A synthetic approach that knits together these five themes entail that modern social work has been produced from international flows of Western social work practice into Egyptian context. It is also produced from social work research and social work intervention. Modern social work also comes as results of teaching Bachelor Social Work (BSW) students the professional social work courses.

This article chronicles the collaborative partnership that was established to submit a book proposal to an Australian publisher, and reflects on the process of writing an introductory text aimed at building a literature bridge between social work and human service practice. The book, entitled ‘The Road to Social Work and Human Service Practice: An Introductory Text’ (Chenoweth and McAuliffe 2005) was published by Thomson Learning. The authors are social work practitioners turned academics, who worked together in an Australian school of social work. The idea for this book was borne from the author’s shared experiences of social work practice and education, and awareness of the increasingly contested space that professional degrees occupy in the field of human services. At a time when common ground is being sought between those working in designated social work positions requiring eligibility for membership of the professional association, and those with a range of other degrees in human services, community practice, counselling and social policy, the development of common purpose, values, frameworks and theory is critical. The writing of texts for social work and human service practice in this contemporary environment is challenging, and this article gives examples of some of those challenges within a context of reflection on social work education and practice. This paper argues that collaborative writing can be a powerful strategy for critical reflection on practice.

The use of simulated service users or ‘clients’ in social work education has lacked critical analysis in research and teaching. What is often overlooked are attentions to how constituting essentialised clients and simulating them advances historically entrenched forms of injustice in social work education and practice. This gap in research and literature in social work education should signal to the field an issue with the pervasiveness of the hegemonies of biomedical disciplinary knowledge in social work. This gap should also highlight the need to ask how, why and to what end is critical analysis an ongoing omission from a pedagogical practice that is proclaimed as very central and essential to social work practice skills education. This article explores some of these gaps in the literature within the social, historical, and political contexts that shape how neoliberalism/colonialism influence the perpetuation of these omissions in social work education. Specifically, this article explores how the use of client simulation in social work works to reproduce ideas of an innocent professional self and a pathological Other, while ejecting or separating social and political analyses of social problems, marginalising and obscuring critical perspectives, and forgoing attentions to social justice and epistemological nuances within social work.

Over past decade, there has been an increasing recognition that social work should be evidence based. The potential contribution of evidence-based practice (EBP) to effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of social work education and practice has been emphasized (Gambrill, 1999, 2007; Gellis & Reid, 2004; Gilgun 2005; Thyer, 2004). This article reflects on reasons, preconditions, and effects of adopting EBP in social work. These issues are important but are rarely examined. We find that proponents of EBP in social work are conservative toward problem that research evidence is not used by practitioners. They neglect preconditions for implementing EBP and are not sensitive to negative effects of adopting EBP in social work. MEANING AND PERFORMANCE OF EBP IN SOCIAL WORK In terms of meaning of EBP, many scholars in social work (for example, Gambrill, 1999; Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002; Gilgun, 2005; Thyer, 2004) follow definition of evidence-based medicine, such as the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values (Sackett, Straus, Richardson, Rosenberg, & Haynes, 2000, p. 1). Regarding performance of EBR five steps of evidence-based medicine formulated by Sackett et al. (2000) are also followed by social work scholars (for example, Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002; Thyer, 2004). The five steps are as follows: first, to covert one's need for information into an answerable question; second, to search best evidence to answer that question; third, to critically evaluate that evidence; fourth, to integrate critical evaluation of research evidence with one's clinical expertise and with patient's unique biology, values, and circumstances; and fifth, to evaluate one's own effectiveness and efficiency in undertaking previous steps and to strive for self-improvement. REASONS TO ADVOCATE EBP IN SOCIAL WORK A review of literature on EBP in social work reveals two fundamental reasons for academics to advocate EBP in social work. According to Gibbs and Gambrill (2002), Rosen (2003), and Crisp (2004), one obvious reasons to advocate EBP in social work is that social workers in service agencies have seldom applied research evidence to their practice. These academics all based their arguments on studies by Kirk and Rosenblatt (1981), Rosen (1994), and Rosen, Proctor, Morrow-Howell, and Staudt (1995), in which findings revealed that social workers rarely use and value research evidence in their decision making for interventions and other practices. Another reason is that EBP is believed to be able to promote utilization of research findings in social work education and practice. For example, to advocate EBP in social work education, Howard, McMillen, and Pollio (2003) highlighted importance of empirical research to effective social work practice; they argued that scientific findings should guide selection and application of social work practice and that social workers should remain current with a growing scientific database. DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTIONS EBP has potential benefits to social work. First, social work has been obsessed with professional status (O'Neill, 1999). The emphasis of research evidence in EBP social work can enhance credibility of social work profession. Second, it has been found that social workers seldom use research evidence in practice (Rosen, 1994; Rosen et al., 1995; Sheldon & Chilvers, 2000). The emphasis of research evidence in EBP social work can promote integration of research evidence into social work practice. However, realization of benefits of adopting EBP in social work is subject to many factors, such as relevance of evidence to social work practice. A reflection on reasons, preconditions, and effects of adopting EBP in social work indicates that present implementation of EBP may result in much harm. Reflection on Reasons to Advocate EBP A reflection on two fundamental reasons to advocate EBP in social work will reveal beguiling rationale when we make a simple comparison of it with consumers' neglect of industrial products or business services. …

As service populations have changed, social workers in Norway and the UK have responded to the needs of diverse cultures, which often include issues of religion and spirituality. Members of the Norwegian Union of Social Educators and Social Workers (FO) and the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) were sampled to explore attitudes regarding the placement of religion and spirituality in practice and education. UK workers were generally more accepting of religion and spirituality than their Norwegian colleagues. Factors such as secularism, differences in the educational systems, and different historical trajectories in the profession's development may contribute to differences between the UK and Norway. The authors recommend additional research in each country regarding the role of religion and spirituality in social work education and practice, the general culture, the bureaucratic delivery of social services, client and social worker interactions, and in the stratification of social class.

本文目的在於以英國為例，嘗試著說明社會政策治理邏輯的改變如何影響其福利服務輸送體系，進而影響社會工作專業發展，藉此說明社會工作專業發展是如何鑲嵌於特定的國家文化、歷史脈絡和政治經濟脈絡中。在方法上，我們採取歷史追蹤分析方法。本文研究結果發現如下，在戰後福利國家的黃金年代，在以社會行政為基礎的科層治理形塑社會工作的專業主義上，社會工作者對於社會服務使用者的需求評估和處遇擬定都受限於科層體系的規範，也就是那些進入社會工作和社會服務體系的公民的社會權是被專業科層體系和法律所規範。在1980年代之後，西方福利國家立基於新自由主義，而使其治理模式轉往以管理主義以強調效率和選擇等價值，也影響社會工作轉向以管理主義為基礎，在論述上，強調透過個案管理、賦權和使能等概念以強化和正當化對於效率和個人責任的重視。但是，同時，新管理主義在過度強調效率和個人責任的情況下，反而削弱了社會工作者和接受服務者的自主性。2000年之後，社會投資政策理念興起，使得社會政策治理邏輯改以新公共治理為主，不再強調最佳模式，而必須反映了治理客體的現實，因此強調共同生產和網絡治理，且社會工作者可在其中扮演服務協調與創新的角色，而使得未來社會工作教育可能會進一步強調夥伴關係和社會創新等等價值與概念。我們認為本文也提出一些未來研究的可能性，認為未來可以更進一步強化社會政策與社會工作之間的連結，並將台灣的社會工作專業體系置於國際比較的脈絡中。This article aims to identify linkages between social policy and social work. Over the past few decades in Taiwan, social workers and social work educators have emerged as formal professions. However, the relationship between social policy and social work is often ignored, particularly how social work (education) is developed and shaped by social policy. This is because in the process of professionalization and specialization, social policy and social work are treated independently, and the linkage between them goes unacknowledged. Social work studies often focus on micro-level social work practices and methods, and social work is rarely seen as a type of policy model or regime at the institutional level. As a result, social work is often regarded as single undifferentiated policy model, with social work systems and education presented as identical across the world. However, a growing number of comparative studies have identified significant cross-national variations in national social work systems due to idiosyncratic historical, cultural and political economic contexts. This raises the need for additional research on comparative social work systems. In this study, we argue that the key to studying the linkage between social policy and social work is using models of governance to analyze and understand how social work systems are developed and understood. Models of social policy governance influence how social work is practiced and how social work curricula are designed. The remainder of this study is structured as follows: Section two focuses on how hierarchical governance and new public management shapes social policy and social work systems. Section three examines the impact of new public governance on social investment for social work systems. Finally, section four summarises the influence of various models of social policy governance on the development of social work systems, and propose issues for future research. We identify three stages of welfare state development. In the Golden Age of the welfare state, the logic of social administration underpins the model of social policy governance and broader hierarchical governance. The rights and obligations of welfare benefits as well as social work practices were legislatively regulated, along with the relationship between social workers and their clients, resulting in the professionalization of social work. In this stage, client assessments and treatments were be regulated to discipline client behavior and attitudes. However, with the neoliberalism of the Thatcher and Reagan governments, respectively in the UK and the USA, the welfare state shifted towards a workfare state, and the models of social policy governance shifted to a new public management paradigm. The welfare state discursively began to emphasize the role of the market in welfare provision, stressing values such as efficiency and choice, and embedding a managerialist approach in social policy governance. Social work practices and education were therefore transformed, and social workers were/are often regarded and trained as case managers, emphasizing concepts such as case management, choice, empowerment and enablement. Moreover, the relationship between social workers and clients was also transformed into a “manager-consumer” duality, in which the rights and obligations of welfare benefits are regulated by contracts and market mechanisms. This transformed the role of the client into that of the consumer. Third, after 2000, the emergence of social investment concepts has driven the emergence of a new approach to public governance in response to new social risks and the complexities of social problems, raising multiple obstacles to clients accessing welfare benefits. This new public governance pushes concepts of co-production and network governance to cope with social complexities and the emergence of new social risks. This has naturally changed the role of social workers in the provision of welfare provisions from case managers into coordinators of resources and services and policy innovators. The role of welfare beneficiaries is neither client nor consumer, but rather a stakeholder in the coordination and innovation of welfare provisions. In this study, we show that social work practices and education are not identical but are rather shaped by social policy governance and political economic contexts. We compare three models of social policy governance in terms of how social work practices and education are shaped, and propose issues for future research. First, additional attention should focus on the linkage between social policy and social work to provide a better understanding of the development of social work and social work education. Second, the development of social work in Taiwan should be examined in comparison to international practices.

The multicultural reality in the United States entails a harsh reality of oppressions and various forms of socio-economic injustice. The evolution of policies in the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) represents a shift of recognition and response to this phenomenon. There has been increasing concern in academia for the importance and urgency of enhancing multicultural competence of social work practitioners. This paper introduces and critiques existing NASW and CSWE policies relating to multicultural competence in social work practice and evaluates various conceptual models on multicultural social work practice and education. Implications for Taiwanese multicultural social work education and practices are provided.

Een zoektocht naar de identiteit van het sociaalwerkonderzoek: een reflectie over de kenmerken van een academische discipline

• Summary: This article considers the implications for social work and social care education, policy and practice of including the viewpoints and knowledges of service users. The development of policy and practice for user involvement is critically discussed and the role of service users and their organizations in the construction of social work explored. • Findings: Disabled people’s and service users’ organizations have developed their own knowledges, theories and models, based on their first-hand experience. This paper examines the implications of such users’ knowledge for social work and social care theory, policy and practice. It draws on discussions and developments in the disabled people’s and other movements whose members are the subjects of social work theory and practice. It is informed by the authors’ work and experience as service users, educators and practising social workers, as well as writers, activists and researchers in this field. • Applications: The article examines the progress that has been made in involving service users in social work education, theory building, research, practice development and standard setting. It explores some of the practical and philosophical issues involved in developing a more inclusive and socially constructed social work and suggests that this may offer a route to restoring social work to its core values.

This article portrays the life and work of June Kendrick, a life member of the ANZASW, who has, and continues to have, a passion for social justice, social work education and social work with older people. The authors have both interviewed June at different times to collect her life story. We are writing this after spending a couple of sessions together with June, helping her to go through and sort out her extensive archives. This exercise provided us with a material display of the range of her involvement in social policy, practice and education and professionalism in social work. We have followed a chronological approach to writing this account, followed by reflective commentary on some of the key themes representing June’s achievements and contributions to social work. Her salient interests have been in social policy, residential work, social justice, the ANZASW, social work education and social work with the older person. June continues to live in her home in Auckland and remains active socially. She is also a keen follower of current social and political events and keeps in regular contact with several social workers with whom she has worked over the years.

Defining the boundaries of practice is an important prerequisite for the developing of professional responsibility and a crucial condition of raising awareness and understanding of professional tasks and responsibility of specialists in social pedagogy. Through time in different countries the professional boundaries of social pedagogy have been constantly changing. That's why the concept of social pedagogy is different from country to country. In Ukraine we have an issue of defining clear and understandable boundaries of socio-pedagogical theory and practice. Thus, the aim of given article was to analyze origins and main tendencies of social pedagogy and close practices (social work and pedagogy) in European countries to establish basic parameters. To understand the difference between three social practices, there have been defined basic distinguishing criteria: the idea; the main prerequisite; specific research tasks; specific practical tasks and general characteristic of technologies. The main idea of pedagogy is cognition, while social work practice comes from an idea of integration and social change. And, ultimately, the main idea of social pedagogy is inclusion and empowerment to promote individuals' social functioning, participation, social belonging and social competence. The specific scopes of its responsibility are: problems of inclusion in social processes and life managing. The prerequisite of classical pedagogy is relatively stable social system and established social values / standards. The basic precondition of social work are social problems resulted from violation of human rights, social injustice or difficult/extreme circumstances. And essential for appearance and developing of socio-pedagogical ideas was social injustice as a result of social inequality. Therefore, the main tasks of those social practices are differed as well. Pedagogy have to design the best possible conditions for the cognition and thinking processes development. Social work has to elaborate and improve new social conditions of life and human well-being, while the main task of social pedagogy is designing an individuals', groups' and communities' life perspective.