Responding to Environmental Disasters in India and Nepal

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.

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. …

Social work education and practice has primarily been dominated by a medical model worldview. Traditional social work frameworks and medical models have focused on deficits or psychopathology and limited wellness to bio-psycho-social dimensions. In 2005, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa (TWOA) introduced a social work degree that incorporates Māori holistic models of well-being and practice. The degree was further developed into a four-year degree in 2016. This chapter looks at the contribution made by this bicultural social work degree to social work education and practice. This innovative and bold initiative by TWOA accords privilege to Māori and other indigenous bodies of knowledge and practice frameworks equal to those of western theories and frameworks. The bicultural degree argues that an indigenous approach to social work education and practice frameworks are not in competition or antithesis to western frameworks but are complementary and complete the helping process.

ABSTRACTSocial work practice is often criticised for lack of support of theories and research evidence. This article attempts to learn from business practice and proposes the creation of a plan as an essential part of social work practice and education to encourage the use of theories and research evidence in social work practice and to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of social work practice. Based on logic modelling, a modified logic social work practice plan is presented and illustrated using a case example. The plan incorporates basic social work elements and the elements of alternative interventions, monitoring and control as well as cost. The potential benefits of inclusion of practice plan in social work practice and the ways to promote the adoption of a practice plan in social work education and practice are discussed.

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.

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.

Green social work is an emerging and futuristic concept within the realm of social work profession. It aims to identify the overlaps between ecological issues and social problems, including poverty, inequity, and social exclusion, in light of a rapidly mounting universal environmental crisis illustrated in climate change, disasters, biodiversity loss and pollution. By promoting social and ecological well-being through sustainable practice and in the spirit of environmental justice, green social work aims to initiate balanced development in the social and ecological well-being of individuals, especially the vulnerable groups who are at the periphery of development. Literature in Green Social Work acknowledges the necessity of contesting this scenario in order to integrate completely ecology within social work practice, policy and advocacy for social justice. This article describes the various approaches of the green social work in practice, including its theoretical roots, methods, challenges, and future implementation for lively and sustainable co-existence of human and the environment. Green social work also is aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 13 (Climate Action), 10 (Reduced Inequality), 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) highlighting its contemporary relevance to society and practice at grassroots to complement the SDGs concerns globally.

Social work has long history with practice in diverse places. Indigenous social work traditions have long been grounded in place and land. There has been little attention to the role of place in Western and Northern social work practices. Place-based theories attend to the fundamental role of place in social work practice and provide principles that social workers can use to recognize place in their practice. There has been little practical guidance on how social workers can apply these principles to identify and modify place-based levers for improving practice and outcomes within Western contexts. To address these gaps and advance the use of place in practice, principles of place-based power dynamics are described here in relation to the micro, mezzo, and macro levels of the key areas of social work practice: assessment, intervention, and evaluation. Place-based principles of form, function, location, time, threshold, and relations, provide a framework that social workers can incorporate into social work practices at all levels and throughout social work practice phases. Social workers can use these principles to examine how social work practice can better assess, intervene, and evaluate the role of place in the social environment and in the daily lives of the participants and populations they serve. Incorporating place-based principles can illuminate malleable place-based levers to fit the needs of service users. Attending to place in social work practice can also heighten practitioners’ awareness of power and decision-making to identify and intervene at the root causes of social problems.

Interpersonal Social Work Skills for Community Practice

This bibliography examines the influence of the formal pan-European political and economic structures on the practice and development of social work, social services, and social care in Europe, with particular reference to human rights, social welfare policy, and the practice of social work. Europe as a continent stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains, from the Arctic Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea, from Portugal to Russia (beyond the Urals), and from Finland to Greece, while also including island states such as Cyprus, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, and the United Kingdom. The continent includes not only some of the most economically and socially developed countries in the world, but also some of the poorest. It comprises the forty-seven democratic countries that are members of the Council of Europe (CE), with a total population of around 740 million. All the member states have ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (also known as the European Convention on Human Rights, or ECHR), including respect for its legal institutions. Belarus, Kosovo, and the Holy See (in Rome) are also within the region but are not members of the Council. Twenty-eight of these countries are also members of the European Union (EU), a political union with common institutions and legal frameworks that have supremacy over national parliaments. Social work as a profession has been well established in Europe for over a hundred years within a variety of social welfare models; the countries in central and eastern Europe have reestablished social work since the 1990s, following the ending of the Communist political systems. The practice of social work has evolved differently in each country, but it shares common characteristics. The main political and social structures of Europe—the Council of Europe (CE) and the European Union (EU)—have a significant influence on the development of national social policies through EU Directives (laws), the human rights principles, and the conventions of the Council of Europe and convergent visions. The key instruments that impact on social work policy and practice are identified alongside analysis of their significance.

This special issue in the Journal of Social Work Education is a forum for professional and scholarly discourse on military social work education initiatives developed to educate and train social work professionals and students for practice with military personnel, veterans, and their families across the micro–macro continuum. Special emphasis was given to educational and technological trends, innovations, and challenges related to educating the next generation of social workers to provide evidence-based services to a new generation of veterans that incorporate the CSWE’s (2010) advanced knowledge and practice behaviors in military social work and NASW’s (2012) practice standards. Additional focus was given to university–community and university–military partnerships, collaborations, and initiatives that involve community and military stakeholders. Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, and conceptual manuscripts from researchers, educators, and practitioners on military social work education and practice were solicited from the professional social work community. In this special issue we highlight select exemplars of the social work profession’s unique contributions to military social work education. The issue is divided into two sections: (1) discourse on the integration of military social work into professional social work education and (2) innovative military social work education and training programs for doctoral and master’s students, student veterans, and licensed social work professionals—many including program evaluation and other research components. Each section is described in following paragraphs, including a brief overview of representative manuscripts. Integration of Military Social Work Into Professional Social Work Education Four manuscripts highlight military social work as a field of practice requiring specialized knowledge and skills, teaching strategies based on the CSWE competencies and advanced practice behaviors in military social work, the inclusion of military and veteran culture in social work education curricula, and adapting social work field placements for training in military social work practice. Wooten presents a rationale for military social work as a specialized field of practice, the need for military social work education, and opportunities and challenges for professional social work education. She delineates foundation and advanced knowledge in military social work and concludes by proposing an integrated model of intellectual capital to guide strategic planning for professional military social work education in addition to professional infrastructure needed to develop intellectual capital in military social work. For social work educators unfamiliar with military and veteran culture, Daley provides examples of teaching strategies based on CSWE’s advanced practice behaviors in military social work for integration into social work courses, specifically focusing on their application to CSWE’s Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS; CSWE, 2008). He identifies foundation and advanced year military social work educational goals based on EPAS 2.1.1 to 2.1.10 and suggests that the infusion of military social work across the social work curriculum will assist students and faculty in becoming more sensitive to the issues faced by military service members, veterans, and their families. Continuing the application of CSWE’s EPAS to military social work education, Canfield and Weiss proposes the inclusion of military-related material into the foundation courses of undergraduate and graduate social work education because social workers providing services in civilian settings not focused on military-related difficulties may encounter military personnel, veterans, and families who seek services outside of the DoD and VA. Key issues, military examples, and resources are recommended for the integration of military culture into human behavior in the social environment, generalist practice, research methods, and social policy core curricula. With a focus on field education as the signature pedagogy of social work education, Selber, Chavkin, and Biggs advance a promising field instruction model in military social work with the growing student veteran population on American campuses. This innovative approach to field education expands placement opportunities beyond the VA for professional training in service delivery to current and past military cohorts.

The use of technology in social work practices has increased due to the global pandemic of COVID-19. This situation has also revealed new ethical issues and opinions in the field of social work practices. This research aims to explore ethical issues and the increase of technology in social work practices from the perspectives of social work students. Social work students at the undergraduate level in Turkey constitute the sample of the research. The research data were collected through an online questionnaire consisting of students' socio-demographic information and their opinions on technology use and ethics in social work practices. It was tried to reach social work students through the student groups in social media by the typical case sampling technique. Statistical tests including descriptive and comparative statistics were applied in analyzing the data. There was a significant relationship among opinions of the participants on the use of technology in social work practices and ethics by gender, number of practice terms, and taking courses about ethics in social work.

An unnecessary and unfortunate divide has existed historically within social work both in the United States and also in the United Kingdom between social reform or anti-oppressive practice, and direct social work practice or social care. In this article, the limitations of such a dichotomy will be explored, and ways that social work educators may more effectively integrate critical reflection approaches into their pedagogical practices will be identified. Building upon Denzin's methodological elaboration of C. Wright Mills' concept of private troubles–public issues, this article will discuss the usefulness of applying methods from critical, interpretive qualitative research to help social workers achieve critical consciousness in social work education and practice. This article will also address ways to help social work students overcome impediments to achieving critical consciousness, including the anxiety attendant upon changing one's belief systems. Finally, this article will describe the development of a concentration-year MSW elective, Transformative Social Work Practice, which sought to assist social work students in becoming more critically reflexive in their clinical work.

Abstract: The social work degree was established in 2002 to improve the status and competency of social workers. However, since then social work education continues to be subject to a series of significant changes. The aim of this study is to identify how the degree can illuminate the dilemmas of contemporary social work practice. A qualitative case study of a social work degree programme in England was undertaken after obtaining ethical approval. Data were collected at two different points in time by means of interviews and focus groups. Interviews were conducted with academics (10), practice educators (8) and academics involved in practice learning (2). Two focus groups were undertaken with service users (11) and three focus groups with students (17). A total of 48 participants were involved in the data collection. A thematic analysis approach using versus coding was adopted. The findings indicated that the social work degree contained inherent contradictions which were reflected in social work practice. The contribution of this study lies in the identification of dichotomies in social work education and practice. Any successful and lasting reform of social work education would have to adopt a critical framework able to address contemporary dilemmas.Keywords: social work degree; social work education; reform; dilemmas

A commitment to co-production in which social workers co-create research, knowledge, and practice with people from multi-disciplinary backgrounds and people with direct lived experience of accessing services, who are termed experts by experience (EbEs), underpins social work ethics and values. EbEs are understood to be people who use their experiences of accessing health and social care services to influence and change all forms of social work. Despite this, EbEs have, to date, had limited involvement in teamwork in social work practice, although their contributions to social work education, research and practice innovations, as peers in the team, are of growing significance. A narrative review was undertaken to explore the gap in the routine involvement of EbEs in different forms of social work practice-based teamwork. This narrative review identified three over-arching themes to understand how EbEs contribute to social work teamwork: involvement in team relationships and in decision-making, involvement in knowledge production, and involvement in health and social care practice innovations. However, it must be acknowledged that the everyday involvement of EbEs in social work, including in multi-disciplinary teamwork, apart from small pockets of mental health practice, such as peer support workers, is lacking. It appears that EbEs are involved in practice innovations, rather than everyday practice; therefore, despite social work’s political and ideological commitment to co-production, it is less advanced than is often claimed.