Validating a model for indicating the professionalisation of social work in China

Abstract

Summary The social work profession has developed at an unprecedented rate in the past decade in China. This article addresses the much-debated question of whether the international standards of social work can be applied in the Chinese context. Employing Weiss-Gal and Welbourne’s conceptual framework of the professionalisation of social work, this study aimed to identify validated indicators to define social work professionalisation in China. A questionnaire with 11 indicators was designed, and responses were received from 748 social workers in Guangzhou. Formative measurement was adopted as an analytic strategy. Findings Five of the 11 indicators were validated: perception of public recognition, perceived adequacy of the knowledge base, involvement in professional organisations, congruence with ethical standards, and perception of professional autonomy. Contrarily, six indicators had no significant impact on social work professionalisation in China: public recognition in terms of qualification levels, professional education, satisfaction with professional organisations, monopoly (self-perception and entrance criteria) and prestige and remuneration. Applications This study extends the application of Weiss-Gal and Welbourne’s conceptual framework to China. Utilisation of this framework suggests that social work professionalisation in China may diverge from international standards in social work, while the professionalisation measures for social work implemented by the Chinese governments may be ineffective. In particular, this study highlights the continuing challenges for the development of social work in China and provides evidence of the need to strengthen the professional power of Chinese social work.

A Political Economy Analysis of Social Work’s Development in China: A Social Development Perspective

“…A culture of experimentation, local management, and risk prevention char acterized service provision in the early 2000s until a major policy change in 2011 brought the marketization of services, as neoliberalism became further entrenched. With this change, welfare provision through outsourced social ser vices brought controlling contractual and financial obligations to social work organizations (Chan & Lei, 2017;Enjuto Martinez, Qu, & Howell, 2021;Howell, Fisher, & Shang, 2020;Lei, Luo, &, 2022;Xu, Li, & Cui, 2022). To achieve legit imacy, the social work profession required government sanction and integration within the country's social welfare regime and service culture and, thus, had to adapt to this policy change.…”

How would you respond to stereotype pressure? The effects of perceived occupational stigma on social workers’ proactive behavior in China

“…Several empirical studies have found that Chinese social workers encounter stigmatization and stereotypes from all sides: the public, staff in community neighborhood committees, family and peers (Zeng et al. , 2019; Lei et al. , 2022).…”

“…Due to the top-down development model in China, the social work profession has little room to evolve its own identity, and the public remains ignorant about and misunderstands both social workers and their fields (Yang et al, 2021). Several empirical studies have found that Chinese social workers encounter stigmatization and stereotypes from all sides: the public, staff in community neighborhood committees, family and peers (Zeng et al, 2019;Lei et al, 2022). Researchers have noted that numerous social workers in China have shown a departure from proactive behavior in their work in this context (Zeng et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2020), while various pioneers have demonstrated high perseverance and enthusiasm (see An and Chapman's interviews, 2014).…”