The Routledge Handbook of Field Work Education in Social Work

Rajendra Baikady, Sajid S. M., Varoshini Nadesan, M. Rezaul Islam, Rajendra Baikady, Sajid S. M., Varoshini Nadesan, M. Rezaul Islam

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2022
• Print ISBN: 9781032466286
• eBook ISBN: 9781000540987
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Regional Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

This Handbook provides an authoritative account of international fieldwork education in social work. It presents an overview of advances in research in social work field education through in-depth analyses and global case studies.

Key features:

• Discusses critical issues in teaching social work and curriculum development; health care social work; stimulated learning; field education policies; needs, challenges, and solutions in fieldwork education; reflexivity training; creativity and partnership; resilience enhancement; integrated and holistic education for social workers; student experience; practice education; and ethical responsibility of social work field instructors
• Covers social work field education across geographical regions (Asia and the Pacific; North and South America; Australia and Oceania; Europe) and major themes and trends from several countries (U.S.A.; Canada; Australia; China; Hong Kong; Sweden; Aotearoa New Zealand; England; Ukraine; Spain; Estonia; Italy; Ireland; Slovenia; Poland; Romania; Greece; Norway; Turkey; and the Czech Republic)
• Brings together international comparative perspectives on fieldwork education in social work from leading experts and social work educators

This Handbook will be an essential resource for scholars and researchers of social work, development studies, social anthropology, sociology, and education. It will also be useful to educators and practitioners of social work in global institutions of higher studies as well as civil society organisations.

Part I
Transforming Practice Teaching Perspectives from Asia and the Pacific

1 Reclaiming a Macro Lens, Recasting Multilevel PracticeSocial Work Field Education in Hong Kong

Andrew Pau Hoang, Lo Kai Chung, and Lucy Porter Jordan

DOI: 10.4324/9781032164946-3

How might we make sense of the phenomenon that the selection of field practicum in the community development (C.D.) field—and macro practice more broadly—is increasingly rare amongst Bachelor of Social Work (B.S.W.) and Master of Social Work (M.S.W.) students in Hong Kong? As social work educators, we have consistently observed our students’ preferences for micro-level theories and practices to engage with individuals, families, and groups through case management, counselling, and therapeutic services. However, the macro-level praxis of community capacity building and planning, policy advocacy, and organisational and social change is equally important to Hong Kong’s social development, the well-being of its most marginalised and disadvantaged residents, and social workers’ professional identity. This is especially true given the region’s high level of economic inequality, crisis of public housing, unequal opportunities for quality education, and continued social unrest over public governance.

Social workers have long been on the front lines of addressing these enduring public issues. In fact, Hong Kong social workers have historically been most visible in terms of their social and political participation (Chow, 2008). During the colonial period (1842–1997), social workers—particularly those in community work settings—played an active role, alongside the lower classes, opposing their domination by colonial bureaucrats and ruling interests (Wong, 1993; Chiu & Wong, 1998). Although their ‘radical’ political actions were suppressed in the 1970s, social workers earned greater legitimacy over the next two decades by taking active roles in opening the political system and standing for elections to represent silenced and deprived communities. Despite the staunchly conservative welfare ideology of the colonial government, social workers played a major role in increasing government social welfare expenditures leading up to the change of sovereignty in 1997. However, the welfare landscape of Hong Kong—and, therefore, the possibilities for domains of social work practice—has transformed significantly since the establishment of the social work profession and the region’s reintegration with mainland China. Of particular concern is how field education opportunities—and, therefore, future social work practice—in C.D. have become increasingly stifled. This chapter examines some of the historical contributions of C.D. and the social and political conditions of its present formation as a setting for social work education and practice. Advocating for a revival of C.D. services is beyond the scope of this chapter. Nonetheless, we argue that a macro lens in social work needs to be reclaimed and that the practice-guiding principle of ‘person-in-environment’ should be honoured through field education that cultivates a multi-level practice orientation among social work students.

We begin by providing a brief background of social work field education and C.D. in Hong Kong. Social work has gained an increasingly professionalised status, despite the widespread acknowledgment that welfare programmes—particularly in the C.D. field—continue to be slashed. We situate this problem in relation to the devaluation of macro social work, whose telos is social action and social change and the concomitant advancement of micro-focused, remedial social work approaches. These approaches emphasise helping individuals adapt to and improve social functioning within existing social environments. We connect the past to the present (and society to the field) by highlighting the trend of consistently low student enrolment in C.D. placements based on data collected from the field office of our university. This trend is largely consistent across the region and is connected to the depoliticisation of social work observed by scholars since at least the mid-1980s (Chiu & Wong, 1998). C.D. continues to be hollowed out by the diminishment of opportunities for students to receive field education and training in this area of social work practice. In our substantive discussion, we consider how the present social context of depoliticisation dovetails with the intensification of neo-liberalisation and managerialism in social work education and training. With an emphasis on implications for field education, this chapter concludes by engaging with recent calls to reclaim and reimagine macro social work education (Netting et al., 2016), including social workers’ political roles as an aspect of professional practice (Lam & Blyth, 2014). Despite the precariousness of C.D. as a welfare institution, we argue that its broader macro praxis can and must be salvaged. To this end, we offer suggestions for what it means to ‘reclaim and recast’ social work field education and practice in the region.

Social Work in Hong Kong

The social work profession was established in Hong Kong following World War II, when relief organisations from Western countries set up offices in the region (Chow, 2008). Professional social work education in tertiary institutions began in 1950 at the University of Hong Kong, and many other educational institutions soon followed by establishing their own social work programmes. Leading up to the 1990s, however, this was not the only path for individuals to become social workers. Practitioners who occupied a ‘social work post’ at a social work agency for more than a decade before the early 1980s were also considered social work professionals (Social Workers Registration Board, 2016). The journey to social work professionalisation culminated in the establishment of the Social Worker Registration Ordinance (the Ordinance) on June 6, 1997. The Social Workers Registration Board (S.W.R.B.) was then established as a statutory body strictly governed by the Ordinance, ensuring professionalism by monitoring the quality of social workers and protecting the interests of service users and the general public (Chan, 2017). As of February 2020, there are 24,442 registered social workers serving the Hong Kong population of nearly 7.5 million (S.W.R.B., 2020).

The S.W.R.B. is responsible for setting criteria and standards of competency required for professional accreditation of the social work education and training institutions (Chow, Cheung, & Chan, 2018). In 2019, there were 14 such institutions which provided social work education programmes for qualification, ranging from Higher Diploma to Postgraduate/Master’s-degree level (S.W.R.B., 2019). Such accreditation recognises fieldwork placement/practicum as the signature pedagogy of social work education and competency-based assessment (Chow et al., 2018). Field education is regarded as a necessary component to be qualified for registration as a social worker and aims to reflect the multiple levels of assessment and intervention (from micro to macro) where future social workers can be expected to practice (Donaldson, Hill, Ferguson, Fogel, & Erickson, 2014).

Field Education in Hong Kong

Fieldwork placement is an essential methodology and process for social work educators to engage with students and provide them a platform to integrate classroom knowledge with experiential learning in different social work settings (Dash & Roy, 2020). Various terms synonymous with ‘fieldwork’ are often used, including field practicum, placement, practice learning, and field experience. They are all characterised by a specially designed learning experience in which students learn to become independent social work practitioners (Chan, 2017; Ford & Chui, 2000).

Social work students consider multiple factors before choosing fieldwork placements during their studies. Throu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsements
• Half-Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Contributors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Signature Pedagogy – A Practice Laboratory of Social Work Education
• PART I Transforming Practice Teaching: Perspectives from Asia and the Pacific
• PART II Strengthening Field Education in Social Work: The North and South American Experience
• PART III Current Realities of Social Work Field Education in Australia and Oceania
• PART IV Social Work Field Education in Europe
• PART V Social Work Field Education under COVID-19
• Conclusion: Technological Advancement and Changing Landscape of Social Work Practice – Challenges Ahead of Next-generation Practitioners
• Index