Educación Popular in the Netherlands: Politicization of Community Development as a Strategy Against Neoliberal Governance

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.

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.

The Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) created its Research Capacity and Development Committee in 2017 to build research capacity across the careers of social work scholars. The committee has initiated multiple conferences and webinar sessions that have increasingly focused on antiracist and antioppressive (ARAO) research, including "Mentorship for Antiracist and Inclusive Research" and "Strategies for Supporting Antiracist Pedagogy & Scholarship: Reimagining Institutional Systems & Structures." This commentary integrates themes from these sessions and other discussions among committee members about strategies to advance ARAO research. Although SSWR board members reviewed and approved this submission, it is not an official statement of SSWR or its board of directors.

The most common type of employer for social workers is a private, nonprofit, or charitable organization (34.3% of all social workers); however 41% of social workers work for the government when combining together federal, state, and local governments (The George Washington University Health Workforce Institute, Profile of the social work workforce, http://www.socialserviceworkforce.org/resources/profile-social-work-workforce, 2017). Given these organizations focus on individuals who are indigent, have serious behavioral health challenges and are typically covered through Medicaid and/or Medicare, ensuring social workers know how to supervise within public sector limitations while simultaneously being steeped in compliance related material, such as medical necessity, is vital to their success. However, most social work schools fail to offer targeted classes in these areas, often leaving graduates to learn from those with little or no formal training in key subject areas. While it may appear that addressing these concerns is relatively simple, there are many obstacles to doing so, including faculty having a lack of familiarity with new content and a distrust of public mental health systems (Hoge et al., in Clin Supv 30:184, 2011). Establishing a core set of public sector-based knowledge areas that build on the Council on Social Work Education nine competencies should be a priority, as otherwise social work education and its future utility may be drawn into question (Council on Social Work Education, Educational policy and accreditation standards for baccalaureate and master’s social work programs, https://www.cswe.org/getattachment/Accreditation/Accreditation-Process/2015, 2015).

Australia's environment is unique and diverse. It is renowned for its extraordinary wildlife and spectacular landscapes. But Australia's environment is also at great risk. Australian social workers have long considered environmental issues in their practice and within social work education. This chapter provides an overview of Australian social work's responses to environmental issues in social work education and practice. It explores the environmental context in which social work is practised in Australia, and the key themes that Australian social work practitioners and academics. The chapter focuses on including practice in relation to climate change-induced disasters, place-based green social work, the relationship between gender and environmental issues, and the role of eco-social transitions, eco-spiritual perspectives, ecological living in social work practice and education, and social work education and the environment. It concludes with a number of recommendations for Australian social work to further embrace green social work practice and education.

Summary This article explores the discourses employed by social work educators in their constructions of social work identity, practice and education. The research data for this qualitative study was collected from in-depth interviews with social work educators from two South Australian universities, who were eligible for membership with the Australian Association of Social Workers. Findings Using Gee’s discourse analysis framework, the key discourses used by social work educators to construct social work, social workers, clients and social work educational institutions are identified. Social work educators drew on professional, helping/caring, emancipatory and social control discourses to highlight the ‘typical’ story of ‘social work’ and construct social workers and social work educators as ‘a who doing a what’, to distinguish social work from other professions. Application Despite being constructed as having the power to act as ‘gate keepers’ to the profession, very little research examines how social work educators reflect on their practice as social workers and social work educators. Further national and international research is required to examine how social work students, service users, employers and other disciplines interpret these social work discourses.

Social work is a discipline and a profession, and learning about social work typically commences with a course of study in a university or tertiary institution. Hence, teaching and learning about social work is key to a solid consideration of social justice. However, given the complex and contested nature of social justice, the approach to teaching social justice needs to be thought through and systematic. This chapter is focussed on teaching and learning for social justice in social work curriculums. In this chapter, we present 48 learning outcomes that would assist in developing an explicit focus on social justice in social work education. We introduce three curriculum design frameworks, and these are used to structure learning outcomes for social justice. These learning outcomes will be useful for educators, students, practitioners and researchers who aim to incorporate social justice knowledge, values and skills into their practice.

Part 1 Social policy and social change: from Socialist to Liberal Utopia - change in Poland's social policy since 1989, Jozefina Hrynkiewicz politics and social policy in the new Poland, Fred Powell current trends in family policy - European Union countries and Poland, Marek Rymsza family policy and family life in Poland, Anna Kwak social policy and the family in the United Kingdom, Gillian Pascall changes in prison policy as part of a political and economic transformation in Poland, Andrzej Mosciskier recent trends in English penal policy, Paul Roberts. Part 2 Social policy and economic change: higher education and the labour market in Britain, Daniel Lawrence trends of the 1990s in Swedish welfare policy - implications for social work education, Lennart Nygren the prevention and relief of unemployment in Britian, Paul Ransome changes in the Polish labour market during the period of transformation, Ewa Giermanowska and Jozefina Hrynkiewicz. Part 3 Social work in the new Europe: the Irish model of social work, Fionnuala Lordon and Izabela Rybka the development of social work in Britain 1869-1996, Mark Lymbery the history of social work in Sweden, Staffan Oberg social work education in Britain, Mark Lymbery delivering social work education in partnership in Britain, Tina Eadie the development of social welfare in Poland, Izabela Rybka.

ABSTRACTThe evolution of the social work education and welfare system in Cyprus is inextricably linked to the country’s recent turbulent history. Social Work in the Republic of Cyprus, although shaped by the country’s turbulent political past and present, is also influenced by Western theory as in many other countries in the Asian and African continent [Gray, M., & Fook, J. (2004). The quest for a universal social work: Some issues and implications, Social Work Education, 23(5), 625–644; Rankopo, M. J., & Hwedie, K. O. (2011). Globalization and culturally relevant social work: African perspectives on indigenization. International Social Work, 54(1), 137–147; Yip, K. S. (2007). Tensions and dilemmas of social work education in China. International Social Work, 50(1), 93–105]. In contrast with social welfare which has a long history (since late nineteenth century), social work education is still at an early stage of development in Cyprus. A non-surprising situation given that social work practice and education, in its early stages, is essentially a modernist Western invention which has a history of silencing marginal voices and importing, into diverse cultural contexts across the world, Western thinking primarily from the UK and the USA (Gray & Fook, 2004). However, if an indigenous social work character is to be developed in Cyprus, and a more distinctive identity with regard to the social work academic curricula is to be demonstrated, then Payne’s [(2001). Knowledge bases and knowledge biases in social work. Journal of Social Work, 1(2), 133–136] views on social work knowledge need further exploration.

Given our commitment to highlighting current issues, challenges, and responses within social work practice and education globally, the Spring 2021 issue of Advances in Social Work is pleased to present 11 full-length papers written by 40 authors from across the U.S. and Canada. We begin with four papers calling for greater involvement of social work educators and practitioners in arenas including information literacy, dyslexia, digital equity, and independent living. These papers are followed by reports on seven empirical studies in areas of practice as diverse as kinship care, legal representation, collaboration in a dental clinic, and dance and mindfulness. We hope you find these selections on emerging areas of social work practice and education to be informative and inspiring. Each contribution to this issue is introduced below. Sprecial Issue Alert: Just a heads up that our next special issue, Dismantling White Supremacy in Social Work Education, will be released in late summer 2021. With over 100 abstracts submitted, this special issue has garnered incredible interest. We are looking forward to bringing you 34+ original papers (our largest issue to date!) addressing ways that social work education can move forward positively and intentionally in ways that acknowledge the damage wrought by white privilege, promote racial justice and anti-racist practice, and embrace new ways of knowing, teaching, and learning. The Indiana University School of Social Work, through publishing Advances in Social Work as an open access scholarly journal, is grateful to play a role in knowledge production and dissemination in social work. We are continually amazed at the dedication and hard work of our social work colleagues globally who work tirelessly to advance social and economic justice. Marshall on, colleagues! Tribute to Retiring Board Members: Before closing, I would like to take this opportunity to express sincere appreciation to three outgoing AISW Board members who recently retired from the Indiana University School of Social Work: Dr. Karen Allen, Dr. Larry Bennett, and Dr. Bob Vernon. Your contributions to not only Advances in Social Work but to the IU School of Social Work and to the social work profession at large are very much appreciated. Special accolades to Dr. Vernon who has served on the AISW Editorial Board since its inception in 1999. Best wishes to each of you in your next adventures!

Social work is a human rights profession and assumes that human rights are embedded in social work practice and education. However, in Africa where human rights violations are rife, with severe implications for social work practice and education, thus far, a human rights focus in social work education has not yet received the attention it deserves. A critical analysis of human rights education in social work in Africa in the context of decolonisation and development shows the interrelatedness of human rights and human development, which, in turn, informs the learning content of the social work curriculum and pedagogy of human rights in social work. Social work educators in Africa are encouraged to take up the challenge of adopting and integrating a pedagogy that will fast-track the infusion of human rights values in the social work curriculum.

This manuscript is the first to consider the emergence of spirituality as a topic in Canadian social work scholarship and practice. A broad overview is provided of three time periods, beginning with the origins of the profession and ending with present-day considerations. These three periods are ones in which spirituality had/has strong influence in shaping practice, research and pedagogical discourses. First, we emphasize the overwhelming significance of spirituality to the early history of social work, prior to its emergence as a secular, professional discipline taught in university contexts. Second, we examine how spirituality continued to have a place within the writings of several major social work scholars in Canada, up to 1970 at which point spirituality seems to fade from scholarly social work literature. Third, spirituality re-emerged as a Canadian topic for research in the 1990s - at the beginning of the third millennium the spirituality and social work literature has emphasized three major themes: social justice work and community organizing; social work pedagogy; and social work practice. Finally, we briefly consider barriers to, and prospects for, the continued emergence of spiritually infused social work research and practice in Canada.

This article reviews the 15 years of research development efforts of the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR); delineates IASWR's roles in relation to the social work practice, education, and research communities; presents the transdisciplinary and transorganizational partnerships in which IASWR engages to influence national-level policy; identifies markers that demonstrate increased capacity; and, finally, points toward opportunities for the profession to carry gains to the next level. Specifically discussed are IASWR's role in partnerships and coalitions to influence federal policy and research resource development and IASWR's leadership work in promoting evidence-based practices in social work. KEY WORDS: collaboration; evidence-based practice; infrastructure; policy development; resource development; social work research ********** The Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR) was created in 1993 to be an infrastructure through which the profession's research capacity and knowledge development could be both strengthened and demonstrated (Zlotnik, Biegel, & Solt, 2001; Zlotnik & Solt, 2006). IASWR HISTORY Despite the dual traditions of social work research and social work practice, there have been few organized and sustained national efforts focused on developing social work researchers or building social work research resources. In 1988, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Director Lewis Judd funded the creation of the Task Force on Social Work Research (Task Force), recognizing that whereas 70% of mental health services are provided by social workers, fewer than one-half of 1% of NASW members identified their primary professional activity as research (Task Force, 1991). The Task Force met for three years and gathered input from a broad range of social workers and other stakeholders to assess the current state of social work research. The culminating report, Building Social Work Knowledge for Effective Services and Policies: A Plan for Research Development (Task Force, 1991) stated the following: There is a crisis in the current development of research resources in social work.... This has serious consequences for individuals using social work services, for professional practitioners, for the credibility of the profession, and for the American society. Billions of dollars are being spent for services to deal with critical social problems, including services provided by social workers. Extremely little is being spent on research to improve the effectiveness of such services. (p. viii) This report laid the groundwork for IASWR's creation. IASWR's founding organizations, NASW; the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE); the Association of Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors (BPD); the National Association of Deans and Directors of Schools of Social Work (NADD); the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE); and, in 2000, the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) made a long-term commitment to the importance of social work research for the profession and for their organizations and constituents. IASWR's mission is to advance the profession's knowledge base by building research capacity; by increasing support and opportunities for research; by promoting linkages among social work practice, research, and education communities; and by representing the profession within the national scientific community. IASWR's work follows two parallel paths: one focuses on building research capacity and research practice connections within social work, and the other focuses on advocacy and increased social work research visibility with federal agencies, with legislators, and with sister scientific societies. SUPPORTING RESEARCH AND BUILDING RESEARCH CAPACITY Building capacity within schools of social work required development of expertise in writing and reviewing federal research grants. …

ABSTRACTThis paper offers a critical analysis of existing literature on historical and contemporary gender dynamics in Australian social work education and practice. Analyses of gender dynamics and inequalities have the potential to illuminate pathways for inclusive social work education and practice, for both practitioners and people who access social work services. This critical review of the literature demonstrates that Australian social work education and practice have been shaped by gendered discourses, structures, and power dynamics since its inception. In a contemporary sense, women constitute the majority of social work educators and practitioners, while men disproportionately dominate positions of power and prestige, although rigorous Australian data on the roles and representation of men and women are not readily available. Our findings point to the need for further engagement with gender as a unit of analysis in Australian social work research, including further engagement with inclusive and intersectional feminisms.IMPLICATIONSEnhanced knowledge of Australian social work history, particularly in relation to gender, allows for a greater understanding of current gendered power relations in social work education and practice.Gender dynamics are underresearched in contemporary Australian social work education and practice.Up-to-date data on the status and representation of men, women, and nonbinary people in social work are needed as the foundation for transformative and inclusive social work education and practice.

This study attempts to cross-compare social work education, curriculum, research, fieldwork, and professional social work practices across India and Australia. It reviews the development of social work education along with its best practices in both these countries. In doing so, it aims to understand the policies related to social work and social welfare in both the countries. In India, the social work training began in the year 1936 whereas in Australia, it started in 1940 with its launch in the University of Sydney. In Australia, the professional association called Australian Association for Social Work (AASW) accredits course work authority while in India it is the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the National Accreditation and Assessment Council (NAAC). Social work education in Australian universities is generic and its aim is to produce graduates with a broad range of skills in a considerable range of practice settings. India offers both generic and specialised course works. Interestingly, to date, social work in none of the countries has a registration in compliance with any state or federal agency. However, self-regulation alongside continued professional development, and peer supervisions are encouraged and followed. In Australia, the practice standards are maintained by the Australian Social Work Education and Accreditation Standards (ASWEAS) who also regulate and guide curriculum development for social work programs in Australia. Fieldwork placement of social and community work students are dependent on the voluntary good will of the managers of social service agencies to support and resource.