PERIYAR INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
Name
:
Course
:
Title
:
Executive Summary
Social processes such as increased poverty and the movements of large population groups in search of economic opportunities have contributed to the fragmentation of social solidarity and the social safety-net in the past decades. Innovative programs or ideas in curricula or fieldwork practice have been developed by social work educators as a way to meet these profound challenges. An email survey was carried out based on Schools of Social Work who are IASSW members to map innovations introduced in social work education and analyzed using qualitative methods. This survey, with 31 respondents, revealed three major types of innovation: 1) new theories, practice models or methods that are incorporated into the curriculum, 2) the establishment of new programs, sometimes inter-disciplinary ones, that meet the needs of new populations or better serve the diverse student body; 3) collaborations between community agencies or coalitions to involve students, faculty or both in social change or social activism. Three additional types of innovation were also reported: 1) programs that helped with the personal growth or social development of the students 2) administrative changes and 3) technological changes. In keeping with with the academic mission mission of the schools, the most common beneficiary of the innovation was students, and faculty or other staff was also frequently mentioned. To a much lesser extent, the beneficiaries were mentioned as being clients, the community or society at large. The implications of these findings for for the future of social social work education are discussed.
2
Executive Summary
Social processes such as increased poverty and the movements of large population groups in search of economic opportunities have contributed to the fragmentation of social solidarity and the social safety-net in the past decades. Innovative programs or ideas in curricula or fieldwork practice have been developed by social work educators as a way to meet these profound challenges. An email survey was carried out based on Schools of Social Work who are IASSW members to map innovations introduced in social work education and analyzed using qualitative methods. This survey, with 31 respondents, revealed three major types of innovation: 1) new theories, practice models or methods that are incorporated into the curriculum, 2) the establishment of new programs, sometimes inter-disciplinary ones, that meet the needs of new populations or better serve the diverse student body; 3) collaborations between community agencies or coalitions to involve students, faculty or both in social change or social activism. Three additional types of innovation were also reported: 1) programs that helped with the personal growth or social development of the students 2) administrative changes and 3) technological changes. In keeping with with the academic mission mission of the schools, the most common beneficiary of the innovation was students, and faculty or other staff was also frequently mentioned. To a much lesser extent, the beneficiaries were mentioned as being clients, the community or society at large. The implications of these findings for for the future of social social work education are discussed.
2
Introduction
Several social processes have developed around the world in the past decade: increased poverty and social distress, regression in social rights and government support for social services, growing disparities between different groups of the population, the movements of large population groups away from traditional homelands and regional territories in search of economic opportunities and the fragmentation of social solidarity. The impact of globalization, pluralization, social exclusion and other macro developments that affect the practice of the social work have been reviewed by several authors (e.g. Dominelli, 1996; Powell, 1998; Penna, Paylor & Washington, 2000). These processes pose a challenge not only to social welfare agencies and social service providers but also to educational systems, which prepare and train social work professionals. Innovative programs or ideas in curricula or fieldwork practice have been developed by social work educators as a way to meet these profound challenges. This literature review examines the nature of o f these innovations in schools of social work.
Conceptual Framework for Understanding Innovation Rogers (1983) defines ³innovation as an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new to an individual or another unit of adoption´ . ³Diffusion is defined by Rogers (1983) as ³the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system´ . According to Rogers the messages being diffused in the system are concerned with new ideas and this newness gives the diffusion its special character. This process entails a certain degree of uncertainty and is primarily a process of social change. Wejnert (2002) provides a conceptual framework, for integrating the numerous models of diffusion of innovations found in the literature. The suggested framework groups the array of variables defined in diffusion research into three major categories including the characteristics of the innovation, the characteristics of the innovators and the environmental context.
3
The current study is concerned with innovation in higher educational organizations, specifically schools of social work and academic departments of social work. Zaltman (1973) defines an organization ³as a social system created for attaining some specific goals through the collective efforts of its members´. The organizational environment consists of all the physical and social factors that are taken directly into account in the decision-making behavior of individuals in the organization. Wright (2003) states the fact that institutes of higher education, and specifically schools of social work, have parallel sub-cultural systems present in typical organizations: faculty members who educate the students; support staff who work to enhance the operations of the school; and dean or director, who holds the executive function in the organization.
Innovation in Schools of Social Work The types of change common in educational institutions are policy, curricular and structural. In part, these are in response to patterns of globalization and within-countries migration that have changed the demographic structure of the student body in institutions of higher education. This is reflected in an increasing diversity of ethnic, cultural and educational backgrounds among the students, who in turn represent the shift in demographics of the client populations served by the social work profession. Innovations can affect these systems in various ways. These include changes in the level of resource use and mix, instructional processes, management and organizational structure (Zaltman, 1977). Much has been said about the importance of innovation to organizational survival. According to this view, organizations must find their environmental niche in order to compete successfully for customers and improve their financial relations with their external environment (Stensaker & Norgard, 2001).
Similar to other organizations,
proper external adaptation is crucial to the survival of educational systems. In other words, the educational organization has to change as the environment changes (Wright, 2003). Considering the rapidly changing society around the world, that is not a simple task. In some areas around the world, indigenous populations are also undergoing rapid social change and those students who originate in these areas must accommodate to the changing profile of their home communities. For example in Aotearoa/New Zealand one
4
of the challenges is to respond to the needs of indigenous students in ways that reflect the renaissance of indigenous groups in the wider society (Nash, Munford and Hay, 2001). The same developments can be expected in other countries. Migrant populations will also create new demands in social work programs as the needs of diverse populations need to be met through social work practice. Numerous factors such as financial pressure, growth in technology, changing faculty roles, public scrutiny, changing demographics, competing values, and the rapid rate of change in the world both within and beyond national borders, characterize the challenges educational systems have to face (Kezar & Eckel, 2002). According to Savel¶ev (2002), the rapidly changing conditions of life make it necessary ³to employ updated methods of understanding which are oriented towards a transition away from the typical (model) approach and abstracted generalization and toward an integral synthesis of the elements of actual situations.´ . According to the author, higher education will need to be better connected to reality. He defines innovative education as ³based on new kinds of knowledge and innovative dynamics´ , consisting of three aims: a. to foster the student¶s high level of intellectual, personal, and spiritual development; b. to create the conditions needed for the student to master skills of scientific research; and c. to ensure the mastery of the methodology of innovations in social, economic and professional spheres. Students world-wide are required, not only to understand the local contexts of the society in which they live but to also understand the global influences on this context. This is one of the major challenges in social work education in the last decade. Programs that may assist in meeting these challenges include: learning new skills such as in the use of computers and the internet, program development and fund-raising, handling conflict and emergency situations, dealing successfully with the mass media and with political bodies. However, the pressure universities face is double-sided: in addition to the need to be innovative, higher-educational institutes have to conform to certain structures and standards to attain legitimacy and ensure survival (Stensaker & Norgard, 2001). This double-sided pressure is reflected in Markward¶s (1999) discussion about accreditation requirements in social work education. The author agrees that curriculum innovation is needed to reflect the changing nature of social work practice in the post-industrial era.
5
However, after reviewing Council on Social Work Education curriculum policy and accreditation standards, she concludes that ³standards that currently regulate MSW education deter curriculum innovation within the context of contemporary thinking about curriculum´ Organizational change and diffusion of innovation in higher education has been the subject of numerous analyses in recent years. Some of these studies are theoretical in nature (Stensaker & Norgard, 2001; Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Lueddeke, 1999), suggesting approaches and change strategies helpful in diffusing innovation in higher educational systems. Some of the work focuses on curriculum reform and the implementation of updated teaching paradigms (³Building conditions,´ 2002; ³Curriculum reforms,´ 2002), while others are concerned with the actual participation of students in educational organizations (Visser et al., 1998). A current literature search in the field of social work education revealed a different picture. The importance of innovation in social work education is demonstrated in a National Seminar on Standards for Assessment of Quality in Social Work Education, organized by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, and sponsored by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council of India in 2003. The seminar aimed to develop minimum and quality standards in social work education, for the NAAC criteria of assessment and accreditation of social work education programs. The article provided details on the outcome of the seminar and the minimum and quality standards for Social Work Education (Tata Institute of Social Sciences, 2003). Innovation appears in the article as a quality standard of various educational areas such as fieldwork practicum and instruction and program staff management, where staff innovations and creativity are expected to be encouraged. In addition, the article provides standards of recommended practices in social work education, including the introduction of interventions in new areas such as working with voluntary organizations or developing new programs in the absence of effective NGOs or government agencies, preparation of students for new jobs, identification of new placements, response to emerging community concerns and initiatives undertaken for peace, human rights, social justice, sustainable development and projects aimed at influencing social policy and laws in various levels.
6
Developing a Classification of Innovation in Schools of Social Work We conducted a targeted literature review on innovation focusing on material particularly relevant to our research questions (see questionnaire below). In a thorough review of the literature, Hardcastle & Bisman (2003) identified five major areas of innovation in teaching social work research: a) innovations produced by the evidenced based practice approach, which requires the integration of practice methods with research methods. The purpose of such innovations is to make practitioners competent in measurement and to make research skills practice tools; b) instructional programs introducing more explicit ideology into research learning. Based on the conclusion that research is basically ideological and value laden, this position argues that students must learn the importance of social context in any research activity. The authors list several teaching approaches rooted in various ideological perspectives such as the feminist, the heuristic post-modernism heuristic and the social justice perspectives; c) instructional innovations integrating multiple curriculum areas such as: field practicum, practice class, research and policy, the basic assumption being that practice involves a range of skills and that so should the curriculum; d) technology driven innovations, which according to the authors account for much of the innovation in research instruction; and e) group based research that focuses on creative ways to enhance student learning. For example, educators are developing innovative strategies for teaching research and for bringing the µreal¶ context into the classroom (see for instance Munford and Sanders, 2003). A similar typology of innovation areas was identified in general social work education according to studies retrieved from current social work literature. The largest proportion of studies consisted of reports of technological innovations introduced in various ways to social work educational programs. Distance education helped by computer assisted classroom, interactive television and the Internet encourage innovative teaching approaches (Hick, 2002; Freddolino, 2002; Sandell & Hays, 2002; Faria & Perry-Burney, 2002; Sarnoff, 2003; Abell & Galinsky, 2002) and new multidisciplinary collaborations in training program development (Cuable & Dinkel, 2002). Among its many advantages, Web delivery makes educational programs more accessible to remote
7
communities, disabled people and students with special needs. It can create online multicultural and cross-national learning communities, provide course materials and class notes online and encourage the use of web links to state, federal and professional websites containing updated information relevant to var ious courses (Sarnoff, 2003). However, technology assisted training is not challenge free. First, computer accessibility, knowledge and skills are required of both faculty and students. Advanced hardware needed to implement a wide range of teaching strategies can be costly and limit the number of users who can access them. Second, the virtual learning environment might displace the real learning context and has the potential of being demanding on faculty (Hardcastle & Bisman, 2003). A second cluster of articles contains descriptions of social work educational projects which developed innovative teachings methods. Schuster et al.¶s (2003) description of the development and implementation of an undergraduate life course theory is an example of an educational endeavor aimed at creating an interdisciplinary, team-taught course. According to the authors, such teaching models, in addition to providing multiple disciplinary perspectives on the life course, actually reflect the world that students enter after graduation, thereby providing an important working model. The authors¶ experience included innovative teaching methods such as having each member of the team sharing her life story, while applying life course theory together with the use of music, food and other artifacts in order to approach the learning experience through multiple senses. Another example of an effort to model intervention methods in the teaching program is described by Nuttman-Schwartz and Hantman (2003). This paper describes an innovative teaching model aimed at promoting greater awareness among students of the social worker¶s social role. The purpose of the teaching model, based on the community participation and role modeling approaches, was to teach the students to assess and intervene while considering the social dimension of the clients¶ problems. Essentially, small student task force groups planned and implemented µcommunity interventions¶ in their classes, modeling macro intervention methods learned from their practice methods teachers.
8
Another trend in teaching social change intervention strategies to social work students involves university-community projects aimed at promoting social justice in the community (Kaufman, 2004). The Ben-Gurion University Department of Social Work, in Israel, has initiated such a project in collaboration with local community human services and national social advocacy organizations. The purpose of the project was to promote the right to food security in Israel, while at the same time instilling values and skills associated with social change in the university community. Through the project, the undergraduate students experienced methods of social activism including the definition of a social problem, framing solutions based on the principle of social entitlement, collecting data from affected communities to support their position and mobilizing the community for policy change (Kaufman, 2004). At Massey University in Aotearoa/New Zealand social and community work students introduced new approaches to teaching community development. They became involved in community scenarios using a structural analysis framework which informed their practice from locating themselves in communities, to analysis and action to critical reflection (Munford & Tapiata, 2000). Approaching the issue of social problems and public policy from a different angle, Lens (2002) described the construction of an innovative classroom exercise for analyzing public discourse using basic content analysis of media text. Based on the knowledge that the media plays a crucial role in policy making, Lens (2002) suggested that social work students need a better grasp of the media¶s role in shaping public policy. The reported exercise was aimed at teaching students how to read news critically and assist them in identifying the different ideologies that underlie social problems. Altshuler and Bosch, (2003) described the implementation and evaluation of a Problem-Based Learning (PBL) model in two graduate level social work courses. Borrowed from medical education, PBL encourages students to take a more active role in their learning, by creating ³real life´ situations where practitioners often lack the necessary information for solving clinical problems, and for which no clear-cut solutions can be reached. The main purpose of the model is turn students into effective problemsolvers.
9
Finally, in response to the external force on social work education of the rapid growth of the aged population and increasing demand for social services for older adults, and to expose students to a wide range of social work practice existing in the field of gerontology, Ivry and Haden (2002) developed and implemented a new field practicum rotation model. Essentially, students were placed in two agencies, receiving supervision from a field instructor in the primary site and from a task supervisor in the associate site, instead of spending three days in one field site for the entire academic year. This model ensured that students receive complementary and contrasting field experiences. According to the authors, despite practical difficulties during the implementation phase, the field rotation model was found valuable and was evaluated positively by the majority of students and field instructors. The third group of articles focused on the introduction of new curriculum areas. This rather smaller group of reports included such endeavors as integrating women¶s knowledge into social work curriculum (Nichols-Casebolt, Figurea-McDonough & Netting, 2000), the internalization of social work educational programs (Healy, 2002; Johnson, 2004) and the numerous curricular innovations, including assignments, projects, workshops and courses, in the field of Gerontology, fostered by GeroRich Projects throughout the USA (as reported by the Hartford Geriatric Enrichment in Social Work Education website 2004). The rights of disabled people and their families are also becoming central to some social work programs (see Nash, Munford and Hay, 2001). The smallest group of papers concentrated on new methods of curriculum development, based on learning skills identified by the learners (Biegel, 2002; Pointdexter, Lane & Boyer, 2002). This participatory method of program development is based on the assumption that success is maximized by having potential learners shape the content of the learning process and using focus groups to achieve their educational goals (Pointdexter, Lane & Boyer, 2002). Interestingly enough, very few studies report on educational programs initiated as a result of the need to face the current challenges of increased poverty, social distress and reduced government social spending. One of them is a project developed at the Bob Shapell School of Social Work at Tel Aviv University, aimed at training and assisting professionals working within the government social service system to be social
10
entrepreneurs. This project was designed to improve the capacity of these professionals to initiate, plan and implement innovative social programs within their agencies. The project was conceived as a kind of "social incubator," on the model of a business incubator, in which the university would provide the knowledge and personal support that would enable practitioners to bring their ideas to fruition.
The idea was to take
practitioners with rudimentary ideas for innovative social programs and to help them develop and implement the programs within the agencies in which they worked (Savaya, Namir, Stange & Packer, 2003). Other examples are reported anecdotally from the field in Aoteroa/New Zealand (personal communication, Robyn Munford, 2006). Often, community work programs are the first to try to meet the needs of particularly impoverished or disadvantaged groups. Once these programs become established or have proven their efficacy, they become part of the mainstream social work education programs. Another variation of these types of innovations comes from social agencies serving these populations that introduce new programs to meet their needs and then try to partner with universities to have them incorporate these programs into their mainstream curriculum. It should be noted that the current literature search has come up with very few empirical investigations concerned with innovation in social work educational systems. Those that describe innovations are mainly case studies that take place in a small number of institutions. It is possible that innovations may not be reported by educators who don't see them as such, due to a lack of comprehensive perspective on social work education. Another issue is that innovations may not be documented or evaluated, since to do so require additional resources and skills.
11
Study Aims
As senior faculty members of Schools of Social Work, we are interested in the question of how social work educators approach the concept of innovation as a way to meet the profound challenges outlined above. Specifically, we want to map innovations in training and education that have been introduced in programs of social work education in all regions of the world. We believe that these innovations may provide a potent method and theory for addressing these global trends and to enable students to be well prepared to work in diverse contexts.
Table 1.Countries of Respondents in the Survey
Number of
Country
responses
USA
6
Australia
4
New Zealand
4
South Africa
4
Israel
4
Canada
3
India
2
Denmark
1
England
1
Hong Kong
1
Turkey
1
Total
31
12
The questionnaire
The short questionnaire (see appendix 1) included closed and open-ended questions. Participants were asked to describe innovations that have been introduced in their social work training program in the past five years, and to explain why they consider the initiative as innovative. In addition they were asked to specify: In what program (e.g., BA, MA, PhD, Continuation Education) or target
y
population (e.g., academic staff, administrative staff) the innovation was introduced; y
Expected benefited and outcomes of the innovation;
y
Whether or not the innovation met with resistance or negative reactions from any of the groups involved;
y
Whether or not any formal evaluation accompanied the innovation; and
y
Information about the school and program in which the innovation was introduced.
Results
The results are presented in the order of the questions as presented in the questionnaire. When we report the specific answers of the respondents, we presented them verbatim (in italics).
Typology of Innovations
The first question asked the respondents to describe any innovations that were introduced in their social work training program in the past five years, who initiated the innovation and for what purpose. Respondents could describe more than one innovation and could include changes such as structural innovations, resource use, and/or policy and management. The results show that there are three major clusters of innovations described and three minor ones. Major Innovations
The three major ones are: 1) innovations in theories, practice or methods that are incorporated in some way in new courses, programs or field practices, 2) the establishment of new programs and centers within the university or academic arena,
13
sometimes with changes in the structure of the school or department or through adding new degree programs 3) the development of collaborations and coalitions that involve the teaching staff and students in some type of social activism or community project for social change.
Minor Innovations
Three smaller types in the typology include: 4) programs for the social development of the students which may be with community or coalition involvement, 5), the introduction of technological innovations and 6) administrative changes. Examples of each of these types of innovations are shown in Table 2.
Some of the
innovations were listed in more than one category according to t he thematic analysis.
Table 2. Typology and examples of innovations Category
Number
Major Innovations
Reporting
Practice
5
Examples ± Quotation
The College of Social Work felt the need to train
development, adding
social workers to develop their skills in this area of
new
disaster
theoretical
approaches
or
mitigation
and
management.
It
has
introduced a new course on ³Disaster Management:
professional
Social Work Perspectives and Interventions´ as a
directions
continuous education programme for professional social workers.
Our School established an International Social Work Program in 1999. The objective of the 3½ year International Social Work Program is to qualify Social Workers to carry out social work both in Denmark and in international contexts, based upon an understanding of local impacts of globalisation.
14
Innovative or new
3
Integrating new theory and techniques into my teaching
teaching methods
courses,
especially
in
the
area
of
constructivism and evidence-based therapy in the first and second degree«rather than giving a theoretical course I involved students in direct assessment, intervention and evaluation methods and taught all of these through practicing.
Specific
new
academic courses
4
New course on ³Disaster Management: Social Work Perspectives and Interventions´ as a continuous education
programme
for
professional
social
workers
This innovation resulted in a new course we offer ("Practicing and managing social work in religious contexts") and a series of articles and books on the topic.
I introduced two new courses to our Graduate program: Social Work with Diverse Families and Qualitative Research Methods« Both the issue of family diversity and an explicit feminist framework are not common in our school.
15
Table 2. Typology and examples of innovations (cont')
New
learning
3
An integrated problem-based learning has been
techniques/programs
initiated in the MSW program and course-based PBL
±
in the BSW. This teaching innovation is aimed at
problem-based
fostering life-long learning and student-centered
learning
learning.
and
practice
New
academic
15
We have initiated two new specializations at the
programs, new way
BSW level: The First Nations Specialization and the
of getting qualified,
First Nations Child Welfare Specialization were
curricular
initiated to respond to the particular needs of First
changes
or enrichment.
Nations social work practitioners
A part-time program of study for the BSW degree, known as the Alternate Stream, was initiated. This stream allows experienced human services workers with a Bachelors degree to complete their BSW degree taking courses at accessible times on a parttime basis over the course of three years while continuing their current employment.
We have implemented bicultural tutorials so that indigenous students and non-indigenous students have opportunities to work through their issues separately and then they come together to work together to develop skills, theory and knowledge for working bi and multiculturally.
16
New Programs with a
Focus
on
5
New
We have implemented bicultural tutorials so that indigenous students and non-indigenous students have opportunities to work through their issues
Student Populations
separately and then they come together to work together to develop skills, theory and knowledge for working bi and multi-culturally.
A joint part-time 3-year MSW program that drew students from the Navajo and Hopi Nations as well as from the Flagstaff area.
Field development changes
work 2
Problem focused field practice is another innovation
/
where the College organizes field action projects in which students get freedom and opportunity to experiment with new approaches of problem solving process.
17
Table 2. Typology and examples of innovations (cont')
New at the local or
4
MA-structured program in advanced social work practice
national levels
MA-in forensic social work
(being developed at
present) These programs are unique because they are offered by no other university in this country on this level, and is a departure from the nature of programs offered elsewhere in the country.
We are studying under the Health Sciences Faculty. We are taking the social part of the health. We have only two Schools of Social Work in Turkey. It is new to take social work as an health subject
As far as our knowledge goes, with the exception of quite a few NGOs, no department of social work in India has attempted promotion and strengthening of SHGs as a means of empowerment of women among lower income groups.
New
academic
units/institutes
5
The
Qualitative
Research
Center
is
a
novel
organization at my University.
Establishment of a social development research centre titled: Centre for Social Development in Africa.
18
11
Developing collaboration s coalitions
school
The innovation is the delivery of a program to
and
educate and prepare social work practitioners to
(between
become excellent field educators /supervisors. This
and
was developed in partnership with a major statutory
organizations in the
child protection agency.
community, between schools) Working with women¶s Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in the area of micro-credit to enable them to reach economic self-reliance and social empowerment« This program is run with the collaboration of People¶s Action for Rural Development (PARD), an NGO working in the urban poor neighborhoods of Visakhapatnam city.
The establishment of the ³The Joint Forum of Faculty and Students for Social Justice´ The Forum initiated a number of community action activities on issues of social justice, providing practical experience in community mobilization for social change at both the local and national level in the area of introducing legislation to establish hot lunch programs in the schools.
19
Table 2. Typology and examples of innovations (cont')
This comprises of networking with some of the industrial groups/houses in the city to develop some of the infrastructural facilities like library, computer centre and faculty board room. The classrooms have been renovated through a collaboration with alumni.
Category Minor Innovations Social
activism,
personal
3
Our first year students are involved in a project (Big
growth,
Brother Big Sister). It gives them the opportunity to
social
be a friend or mentor for a young child/mentee. The
of
organization Partners for Children reached out to our
extra-
university and we first did a pilot project. Because of
mentoring, involvement students,
the success of the project we at the University
curricular activities
requested that all our first year students be involved in this project.
We run µlocating ourselves¶ workshops for all students - these give the students an opportunity to work through their cultural, class, gender etc frameworks and the ways in which these influence their practice and their world views.
Technological innovations
4
The integration of information technology into teaching has been initiated. A number of web-CT courses and web-based course materials are provided to stimulate an interactive and informative learning environment.
20
Administrative
2
changes
In 2004 the Council of the School of Social Work «implemented a blueprint that envisages the School no longer along the old hierarchical lines but as a community in which students and staff are all stakeholders.
In
other
words,
students
and
supervisors are involved in all matters of the S chool¶s administration, its various committees and projects, including community projects outside the Schoo l.
Why is this an innovation?
The second question asked why the respondent considered what they reported an innovation? The responses are not surprising given the types of innovations that were reported. The most common response (8 out of 31) about why what they did or reported on was innovative, was that it was a unique or new program or course that was not being done elsewhere. The innovation was also apparent at the course level where seven respondents felt that they introduced new methods, theories or approaches to established courses, such as the greater infusion of gerontology or international social work to the curricula. Another seven mentioned that their innovation reflected a larger theoretical model (e.g. social development or eclectic social work or viewing social work as a profession that includes health) in the social work profession that allowed the curriculum to give a better educational response to students' needs. Another set of responses suggested that the program or method had been adapted to meet the needs of a population or group that had special educational needs and therefore this adaptation was an innovation (6). An additional cluster of answers gave a practical, utilitarian rationale for their innovation ± that somehow it benefited some
21
group, either students, the community, by recruiting new students or providing better job opportunities for students and graduates (6).
The last cluster of answers articulated that
the innovation was a new organizational approach that brought in collaborative partners and formed coalitions between groups that had not worked together before, either between academic units or universities or across community groups (5). Some stated directly that an innovation had to be "new" and not done before, others were specific about the innovation as a reflection of either personal or social work values. Some felt that the innovation had proved itself not by its content and approach, but by its end-result ± it brought some benefit to some party involved. A small minority wasn't really sure about why it was an innovation or felt that their first answer made it obvious and thus did not answer this question. However, one respondent answered this question at length in the following way: "For me innovation, at the dawn of the 21st century, is often seeing and identifying a reality that most people ignore or do not see. Specifically, I refer to my introduction of the role of religion in social work/social services«. Not reading about religious social services in the literature, I was puzzled and thought to venture into a new area of research; one that was ³tabooed¶ by the social science community."
The level at which the innovation was introduced
Since respondents could check more than one category, the answers reveal the following picture: the most common level was in the BA program (20), the second most common the MA program (12), followed by the Ph.D. program (7), and then variously at the continuing education level (6), the S.W. certificate level (4) and then for the academic staff (3). One project was introduced for administrative staff and four others mentioned other departments including field action projects, research support program, at a research centre affiliated with the School of Social Work. This distribution seems to reflect the distribution of academic resources in Universities ± the most common at the BA, following by MA and Ph.D. level studies which other academic units mentioned sporadically.
22
Who benefited and in what ways from this innovation?
Most of the respondents named or implied several beneficiaries of their innovations with, roughly, three major categories of beneficiaries named. The largest set consisted of persons and bodies affiliated with the academic framework in social work education. Of these, the most frequently named beneficiaries were students, named by 25 of the 31 respondents. The other beneficiaries in this category included faculty (11), field instructors (3), and the university in general or the social work program in particular (2). The students, faculty, and field instructors were viewed as benefiting from training programs that enhanced their skills, expanded their knowledge, introduced them to new modes and approaches, as well as from research and the publication of a textbook on a subject hitherto not written about. One respondent stated that the program benefited the faculty by enhancing international cooperation.
The benefits to the universities and to the social work
programs were that the innovation provided publicity that improved their image and visibility.
One respondent mentioned improved enrollment for the benefit of the
university. The next category consisted of the service providers: namely community agencies (7) and practitioners (5). Practitioners were viewed as benefiting through much the same processes as were deemed beneficial to the students, faculty, and field instructors. The agencies were said to benefit from the knowledge and skills gained by practitioners, by the fact that their skills had been up-graded. The sense was that the agencies benefited by being able to employ better qualified practitioners and thus provide better services. The third category consisted of the recipients of the services: the clients or target population (7), the community (7) and society at large (2). In all but a few instances these are described as the indirect beneficiaries of improved training for students and practitioners and the enhancement o f their knowledge and skills.
23
Only in a few of the programs, where groups or interventions had been conducted in the community (e.g. a long distance learning program, a national policy change and a program directed towards increasing the number of minority social workers) specific client groups or populations were mentioned as benefiting from the innovation.
What difficulties were encountered in trying to implement the innovation?
Surprisingly enough, a significant number of respondents (12) reported no resistance or difficulties in implementing the innovation in their program. However, these may be in part due to investment of time and energy to prepare for the introduction of the innovation.
One respondent reported, for example: "We spent several years
gathering data, laying the ground work, planning and implementing this change". Another respondent remarked "It was welcomed and approved by the school¶s committees, the standing committee of the university and community organizations." One respondent gave kudos to the professionalism of staff for easing the introduction of change. This was expressed as "No, there was no resistance, although the workload of staff increased during the development time and when designing new assessments etc. A high level of professionalism of the staff assisted in coping with extra work." However, the bulk of respondents reported some kind of resistance to the new program or innovation; the most common from faculty (13), then students (5), from the administration or university (6) and from the clients themselves (1). However, some of the respondents expected or were not surprised by the resistance and difficulties they encountered.
One respondent expressed it in this way "Both teachers and students
expressed resistance and anxiety in adopting new teaching and learning initiatives" and another "Like every other new pro gram there was resistance from most participants." One source of resistance came from senior faculty who were concerned that the new curriculum changes would render their knowledge obsolete and no longer needed in academia. They reported: "At first we had to convince the lecturers that we are not going to damage them and t heir professional integrity by exposing them to new model."
24
"Some colleagues were concerned that their courses were being abolished. Colleagues who had expertise in certain fields which were no longer the only core training areas were also concerned." At times, the larger university administration was the source of resistance or difficulties. One respondent explained "Although there was support from the social work staff (even if not very active support), the wider school environment was not at all supportive and saw it as an added burden to the school (both financially and in human resources). This meant that there was no help financially... Further, there was no recognition of the work-load impact of this programme on the lecturers, and no encouragement of the students to take part in the programme. It was for these reasons that the programme was discontinued at the end of 2003." This is an example, among the few reported, of an innovation that did not ultimately gain acceptance and was discontinued.
This innovation consisted of two
modules of seven sessions each of experiential personal growth sessions with a focus on values, problems solving, self-awareness and building self-esteem and applied skills (in computer literacy and oral presentations). However, the program was voluntary, non-fee carrying and non-mark bearing for both social work and speech pathology students. This lack of organizational backing may have contributed to the d ifficulties in maintaining this innovation. One example was given of resistance to the intervention module from the target population itself ± developing economic self-help groups for women living in poor, urban neighborhoods. "Initial resistance came from the women to form into groups and later to enter into economic activity. Mostly it was because of lack of self-confidence and poverty, which has limited their initiative and ability to t ake decisions." Another type of resistance was felt when the innovation meant addressing new populations that the program had not yet addressed. Two mentioned this type: "There was some concern that we restrict admission to the specializations to First Nations students. However, the concern was less than expected and we have had the support of the university to do so, given that that was what the First Nations community had asked us to do. "
25
"Little resistance, although not all faculty seem to have understand the need for resources for the program for staff of agencies meeting the needs of a large Hispanic clientele. " The same researcher who reported venturing into a new area of social work research gave a final type of wider societal resistance the changes that resulted. "Many people were afraid that the findings and new content will enhance the power of religion in society and will erode the balance of church and state. As such, most secular and left wing groups in the school, profession, and wider society felt threatened."
Other difficulties in implementing the innovations
Other difficulties were named by 17 of the 30 respondents, most of whom mentioned more than one difficulty. Two respondents didn't reply to the question; 11 stated there were no additional difficulties. The most frequently mentioned difficulty, stated by 13 respondents, was insufficiency of resources. Eight respondents referred to insufficient funding provision; three wrote of insufficient time to develop, implement and evaluate the program; and two mentioned not having enough appropriate faculty members to implement the program. These resource shortages run across programs of different types. Two other resource shortages that were mentioned, an insufficiency of public spaces and inadequate library facilities, which were more program specific. Difficulties pertaining to the faculty, students, and/or target population were mentioned by six respondents. Two named the additional workload for the staff; three wrote of objections, discomfort, or resistance by students; and two mentioned that the target population did not take full advantage of the program. One named competition with other projects as a difficulty.
Two named
difficulties specifically related to their programs: one, a lack of sensitivity on the part of third parties whose cooperation was crucial to the implementation of the program; the other, the lack of a user-unfriendly on-line environment.
26
Solutions for Easing Resistance to the Innovation
For the most part, the solutions suggested by the respondents included addressing the concerns of participants, whether they were students or staff and easing anxieties through this process. Seven persons suggested this type of approach, such as:
"« Normal concerns about potential negative consequences of the new stream were expressed and addressed prior to its introduction."
"Capacity building of staff was undertaken « over a twelve month period, compromises were made and sufficient consensus achieved."
"I involved them in the process from the very beginning, by setting objectives that could be achieved and by sharing the "benefits" of success." By contrast with this pro-active approach, others suggest that resistance eased
over time and suggested that "laissez-faire" was the best method to cope with it. Variations on this theme were mentioned by four respondents. For example "Once through the first year and into the second year of the programme, they realized the benefits of this kind of delivery and its contribution to enhancing their learning and their ability to work in multicultural environments. "Another recounted that " « Some students expressed anxiety about the on-line quizzes, but after some experience with the quizzes, they described them as an effective means to ensure and recognize advance reading in preparation for classes."
How does your institute encourage innovation?
This question was answered positively by 27 respondents, three of whom stated that the support was only partial ± by younger faculty but not older or for teaching projects but not others. One replied in the negative and three did not reply at all. This type of partial support was expressed as a conflict between younger and older academic staff. "I think my institute is very traditional in the willingness to apply change. There is a discrepancy between the young, senior staff who are much more open to change, and the older junior staff who are not interested in change". This suggests that both academic training (we assume that this means Ph.D. level) and young tenure on the faculty as two factors that encourage innovation in what is termed a fairly traditional academic setting.
27
Four respondents cited verbal support in the form of presidential mandate or the university mission statement, with one of these respondents noting that the verbal support was not backed up by funding or other tangible evidence of support. One respondent mentioned that the mission statement was a significant aid in pro moting innovation. This was stated, for example, thus: "Yes, our mission of the college is to educate professional social workers, develop knowledge, and provide leadership in the development and implementation of policies and services on behalf of the poor, the oppressed, racial and ethnic minorities, and other at-risk populations. With this as our mission statement we have many programs that are innovative." Twelve cited various forms of instrumental support: Of these, four mentioned the provision of funding; six mentioned administrative support in the form of the provision of staff training, technology, physical space, and other, unnamed provisions; and two mentioned that the innovators were rewarded with money, recognition and prestige. Most of the description about how innovation was encouraged had to do with organizational culture. Four mentioned generally that the introduction of structural and managerial changes that had encouraged innovation. Two cited the frequent revision of curriculum, mission statement, and governing committees. Eight respondents gave specifics of how their institution had encouraged innovation (and some mentioned more than one type of encouragement). Of these, three mentioned that their institution encouraged faculty collaboration, five that it encouraged proposals and ideas, and one that it encouraged student involvement and supported their activities. Another respondent wrote that the institution encouraged innovation by allowing freedom of decision to the local departments, and yet another that it was fostered by the department's adoption of the innovation that was produced.
28
Personal Involvement and Evaluation of the Innovation
The vast majority of the respondents was directly involved in the innovation and answered the questionnaire using their own insider information (27/31). One person who was not directly involved was in a major supporting role as a head of school. We also asked about whether the innovation was formally evaluated. Findings show that the majority of innovations was accompanied by some type of evaluation process (23/29 and two did not respond). However, what type of formal evaluation the respondents were referring to is hard to assess from the information given ( yes/no). Eight respondents gave details of the evaluation process which ranged from very informal and not very detailed (e.g. feedback from the students) to more systematic evaluations (mid-range and final reports). One respondent, who reported self-evaluation by staff quarterly and annually, presented plans for a more formal evaluation in the future. One respondent reported a formal process, by saying: "The Alternate Stream was evaluated internally and a first report produced six months after its introduction. Use of technology in the classroom is evaluated through the two evaluations of teaching completed by students ± one for the university as a whole and one designed specifically for the BSW program." One more respondent was able to give the end result of the evaluation: "Yes, evaluations are ongoing as part of our quality management system. It is difficult for students to compare as they are not enrolled in both programmes. However we have reduced attrition which is a positive measure of success." Another respondent, whose program had not yet been evaluated, was cognizant of the importance of the evaluation process and detailed the plans for the future: "Unfortunately I have to say µno¶ here. However a current MSW student is carrying out her research with former students to ascertain the efficacy of the model for preparing students for practice«so one type of evaluation is in the pipeline but certainly this has not been systematically addressed, except through the process of usual course evaluations. The pedagogy as a whole for the program has not undergone in-depth scrutiny."
29
