Global standards for the education and training of the social work profession*

Abstract

This is the final document adopted at the IASSW and IFSW General Assemblies in Adelaide, Australia, 2004. However, as the use, implementation and review of the Global Standards is to remain a dynamic process, please send your comments or recommendations to Vishanthie Sewpaul.

Beyond Legalism in Turbulent Times: Re-grounding UK Social Work in a Richer International Human Rights Perspective

“…In more recent years, human rights perspectives are gaining prominence in the statements of international social work organisations (Jones and Truell 2015;IFSW and IASSW 2014;IFSW-Europe 2012;Sewpaul and Jones 2005;IASSW and IFSW 2004;IFSW 2000) and social work theory internationally; many are claiming that the coupled principles of social justice and human rights enable the profession to face the challenges brought about by neoliberal capitalism and globalisation (e.g. Huegler et al 2012;Staub-Bernasconi 2011;Ife 2008).…”

Professionalism, Postmodern Ethics and the Global Standards for Social Work Education and Training

“…Acknowledging some of the criticism and limitations of the international definition of social work 2 (Sewpaul & Jones, 2005;Yip, 2004), the document accepted the definition as it was adopted by the IFSW and IASSW as a point of departure. The Standards are located in alignment with the core purposes of social work, which range from advocacy, social activism and policy formulation to the protective and direct service delivery functions of the social worker.…”

“…The document (Sewpaul & Jones, 2005) reflects a set of nine broad standards, each of which contains detailed sub-standards. The nine sets of standards relate to:…”

Globalisation, Western Hegemony and Chinese Particularism: Implications for Social Work and Social Policy1

“…Leung (2007:393) contends that the polarisation of the East and the West serve as blocks to mutual understanding and collaboration and claims that "Globalisation means that China has to consider common international practice, standards and law, rather than emphasise its uniqueness." The debates between the universal and the particular are complex and the solution is to see the particular in the universal and the universal in the particular; the world is not an either/or place (Sewpaul, 2005). A total de-emphasis on the particular can produce a crisis of values.…”

“…Contrary to the "settled views" of the West, it is perhaps the self-doubt of Chinese social work that holds the potential for fluidity and dynamism that might contribute to innovation in social work education and practice. While Chinese social workers have opened themselves to the values, principles and practice scope embodied in the international definition of social work (IASSW, 2006) and the global standards for social work education and training (Sewpaul & Jones, 2005), they have at the same time challenged concepts and highlighted possible contradictions that exist (Jia, 2007;Leung, 2007;Yip, 2004a).…”