See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229937081

The professionalisation of social work: A cross-national exploration

Article  in  International Journal of Social Welfare · April 2008

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2008.00574.x

CITATIONS READS

98 5,673

2 authors:

Idit Weiss-Gal Penelope Welbourne

Tel Aviv University University of Plymouth
78 PUBLICATIONS   1,097 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   302 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International comparative child protection View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Idit Weiss-Gal on 06 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 I N T E R NAT I O NA L
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2008.00574.x J O U R NA L O F
Int J Soc Welfare 2008: 17: 281– 290 SOCIAL WELFARE
ISSN 1369-6866

The professionalisation of social

Original
Blackwell
Oxford,
International
IJSW
©
1468-2397
1369-6866
XXX2008
Weiss-Gal
The Articles
The
UKPublishing
&Author(s),
Journal of
Ltd
professionalisation
Welbourne Journal
Social Welfare
compilation
of social work © Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare

work: a cross-national exploration

Weiss-Gal I, Welbourne P. The professionalisation of social Idit Weiss-Gal1, Penelope Welbourne2
work: a cross-national exploration 1 Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Int J Soc Welfare 2008: 17: 281–290 © 2008 The Author(s), 2 Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the Plymouth, UK
International Journal of Social Welfare.

This article compares the professional features of social work

in ten countries. It is based on detailed descriptions of the
professional features of social work in Chile, Germany,
Hungary, India, Mexico, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the UK
and the USA. Social work in these countries is discussed in
terms of eight features, chosen as marks of a profession on Key words: profession, cross-national study, international social
the basis of the ‘attributes’ and ‘power’ approaches to work
professionalisation: public recognition, monopoly over types Idit Weiss, Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel Aviv University,
of work, professional autonomy, the knowledge base, the Ramat-Aviv, 69978, POB 39040, Israel
professional education, the professional organisations, the E-mail: iditweis@post.tau.ac.il
existence of codified ethical standards and, lastly, the prestige
and remuneration of social work. Accepted for publication November 30, 2007

Ife, 2001; Lyons, 1999, 2006; Midgley, 2001; Welbourne,

Introduction
Harrison & Ford, 2007). Nevertheless, it does not
Since its beginnings in the last third of the 19th century follow from this interest in global social work that it
(Midgley, 1981), social work has become a global is developing into a common professional project
profession practiced in over 144 countries (IASSW, (McDonald, Harris & Wintersteen, 2003). Social work
2002). Its spread and development have been retains distinctive features in different regions, and this
accompanied by a drive to attain professional status. diversity is also of interest. A second cause is the
Ever since Abraham Flexner declared in 1915 that growing concern that in some countries professionalism
social work is not a profession (Flexner, 1915/2001), it is under threat. Earlier assumptions that professional
has striven to adopt features that have been identified progress was part of the ‘natural order’ have been
as characteristic of fully fledged professions (Austin, challenged by policies that reflect, at best, an ambivalent
1983; Hopps & Collins, 1995). Despite the longstanding view of social work (Dominelli, 1996; Gray & Mazibuko,
and unresolved debate concerning the impact and value 2002). On the other hand, there are indications that
of this ‘professional project’ (Bamford, 1990; Illich, social work is rapidly emerging in several countries in
1977; Reisch & Andrews, 2001; Simpkin, 1979; Walker which it had either been suppressed altogether or
& Beaumont, 1981), the drive to professionalism coopted by repressive governments (Iarskaia-Smirnova
seems to be strong in many countries today (Healy & & Romanov, 2002; Yu, 2006; Yuen-Tsang & Wang,
Meagher, 2004; Weiss et al., 2004). 2002).
There has recently been a rise in interest in the While there is a growing body of cross-national
condition of social work as a profession. This has two comparisons of various specific aspects of social work,
main causes. One is increased interest in defining the systematic comparisons of the professional features of
role of social work in a global context. This reflects social work are scarce (e.g. Brauns & Kramer, 1991;
the fact that social work is now practised in many Healy, 2001; Hokenstad, Khinduka & Midgley, 1992;
diverse countries, at a time when people move between Mayadas, Watts & Elliott, 1997; Payne & Shardlow,
countries at an increasing rate, and where global 2002; Shardlow & Payne, 1998; Weiss, Gal & Dixon,
interdependence means that local conditions for 2003).
service users can only be understood with reference to The aim of this article is to ascertain whether social
international relationships and events (Dominelli & work has attained common professional features in the
Bernard, 2003; Healy, 2001; Healy & Meagher, 2004; different contexts and nations in which it is practiced.

© 2008 The Author(s)

Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 281
Weiss-Gal & Welbourne
More specifically, the study presented below compares
the professional features of social work in ten diverse
countries across the globe and discusses social work in
these countries in terms of eight features, chosen as
characteristics of a profession on the basis of two
theoretical approaches to professionalisation.
Two approaches to professionalisation
Over the years, numerous attempts have been made
to develop a theoretical framework to distinguish
professions from non-professional occupations and to
identify the factors that influence their development. Two
competing approaches have emerged in the literature:
the ‘attributes (or trait)’ approach and the ‘power (or
control)’ approach (Hall, 1994; Macdonald, 1995). These
approaches differ not only in their definition of a
‘profession’, but also in their methods of analysis
and their explanations as to why some occupations have
professionalised while others have not, and why some
have become more professionalised than others.
The attributes approach emphasises the function of
professions in a modern social structure. It explains
their development and specific characteristics with
reference to functionalist assumptions regarding their
contribution to society and the significance of their
unique characteristics in assuring their continued
existence and furthering their ability to attain their
goals (Macdonald, 1995; Wenocur & Reisch, 1983).
‘Profession’ is a descriptive term comprising a list of
identifying characteristics that distinguish ‘professions’
from ‘occupations’ (Hall, 1994; Hugman, 1996; Popple,
1985). Thus, this approach operationalises the term by
identifying critical attributes or core traits. Ernest
Greenwood (1957), the most prominent proponent of
this approach (Abbott, 1995; Hall, 1994), pointed out
five critical attributes: (i) a systematic body of knowledge;
(ii) professional authority recognised by its clientele;
(iii) community sanction; (iv) a regulatory code of
ethics; and (v) a professional culture sustained by formal
professional associations. Over the years scholars
have added traits, among them a distinguishing set of
esoteric specialist skills, a long period of training
and socialisation within higher education, control over
entrance into the training process, commitment to
service, autonomy of action, prestige and remuneration,
and fiduciary relations with clients (Abbott, 1995;
Hugman, 1996; Wenocur & Reisch, 1983).
Although there is no consensus on which are the
essential traits (Millerson, 1973; Popple, 1985), the
attributes approach has long served as a framework for
discussing the professional status of social work.
Applications of this approach have yielded different
conclusions. Greenwood (1957) classified social work
as a profession on the basis of the five attributes he
identified. Scholars writing at the end of the 1960s
282 Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
labelled it a semi-profession because it either lacked
certain traits considered essential to a fully-fledged
profession (e.g. professional autonomy) or these traits
had not yet fully developed (Etzioni, 1969; Toren, 1972).
Since the 1980s, as its knowledge base had developed,
social work has been described as an ‘emerging’ or
‘developing’ profession (Johnson & Yanca, 2001;
Skidmore, Thackeray & Farley, 1997).
Emerging from sociological discussion of the nature
of professions in the 1970s, the power approach (Cullen,
1978; Freidson, 1970a, 1970b, 1972; Johnson, 1972)
focuses on how occupations establish and maintain
dominance in areas of practice when confronted with
threats to their status from competing interests, whether
these are threats from other occupational groups,
government, the bureaucracies that employ them or
their clients (Macdonald, 1995; Popple, 1985). Its basic
assumption is that professions struggle for an exclusive
right to perform certain types of work and are in constant
conflict with other groups over issues of boundaries,
clients, resources and licensing (Abbott, 1995; Hall, 1994).
It explains the status of occupations in the professional
hierarchy with reference to the power and control that
they wield.
Freidson (1970b) defined professions as occupations
that have a dominant position of power in the division
of labour in their area of practice and thus have control
over the content of their work. Johnson (1972) identified
professions as occupations that have achieved control
over various aspects of their operations. These include:
the key components of their work; the choice and
development of the techniques employed; the selection,
training and licensing of members; and autonomy in
defining the nature of services and who is entitled to
receive them. In a similar vein, Wenocur and Reisch
(1983: 689) defined a profession as a ‘quasi-corporate
entity or enterprise whose members have obtained a
substantial degree of control over the production,
distribution and consumption of a needed commodity’.
The ‘power’ approach has been central to the study
of social work in recent decades (Abbott, 1995; Hopps
& Collins, 1995). In particular, it has been used to
explore the degree to which social work has achieved a
monopoly over the delivery of services (Giarchi &
Lankshear, 1998; Johnson & Yanca, 2001; Popple, 1995).
The present study employs a combination of the two
approaches, combining indicators drawn from both of
these influential perspectives. These indicators are: (i)
public recognition of professional status; (ii) professional
monopoly over specific types of work; (iii) professional
autonomy of action; (iv) possession of a distinctive
knowledge base; (v) professional education regulated
by members of the profession; (vi) an effective pro-
fessional organisation; (vii) codified ethical standards;
and (viii) prestige and remuneration reflecting professional
standing.
© 2008 The Author(s)

The present study
This study is based on detailed descriptions of the
professional features of social work in Chile, Germany,
Hungary, India, Mexico, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,
the UK and the USA (Weiss & Welbourne, 2007).
These countries reflect diverse geographic locations that
vary in their social policy, their economic, historical
and political contexts, and in the length of time that
social work has been established as a profession.
As in other cross-national studies, this study was
based on analyses prepared by country experts during
2005 and was grounded in empirical literature concerning
social work in each of the countries. The country
contributors are all established social work educators
and academics who were asked to contribute to the
study on the basis of their prior publications and their
knowledge of the characteristics of the social work
profession in their countries. They provided data on the
features of the profession of social work in their own
country on the basis of a set of questions relating to
observable indicators of professionalism. The information
from their replies was reviewed by the authors to draw
out common themes and highlight distinctive features
of the ‘professionalisation project’ in different parts of
the world.
There are three main caveats to this type of analysis.
First, due to practical limitations the countries included
here clearly comprise a very limited (though diverse)
sample of the countries in which social work is
practised and, as such, can offer only a very partial
reflection of global professional development. Second,
while the country descriptions are grounded in literature
and published studies, they were prepared by a
small number of country experts and necessarily have
significant subjective evaluative elements, such as the
evaluation of the level of prestige enjoyed by social
work in different countries. Third, the goal of this study
is to present comparative material that explores the
range and variety of issues in the ways in which social
work is evolving to adapt itself as a profession to very
different national conditions. While the distinctive
historical, political, social and economic contexts for
social work are clearly relevant to an analysis of the
development of the social work in those countries,
detailed country-specific analyses of the relationship
between social work, politics, culture and economic
circumstances are beyond the scope of an article of this
nature.
Results of the international comparative study: social
work as a profession
This section presents an overview of the results of our
study. It is organised under the eight key features of a
profession as presented above.
© 2008 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
The professionalisation of social work
(i) Public recognition
One indicator of public recognition that an occupation
is a profession is the existence of laws and licensing
procedures establishing entrance criteria, barring those
who do not meet those criteria from working in or
assuming the title of the profession (Hardcastle, 1990;
Greenwood, 1957; Specht, 1988).
The public recognition of social work as a profession
varies between the ten countries studied. In Sweden,
Hungary and India, there are no licensing procedures,
and the law does not restrict the use of the title ‘social
worker’. Mexico also lacks licensing procedures,
though the title of social worker is restricted to those
who have completed social work studies at a university.
In Germany, licensing procedures through state
recognition are in force in some regions but not
nationwide.
In contrast, Spain, South Africa, all but seven states
of the USA and the UK require licensing or registration
to work as and assume the title of social worker. This
formal recognition does not reflect social work’s public
status. ‘Public recognition’ is a combination of different
elements: recognition by the administration of the value
of identifying those competent to carry out professional
social work; and recognition by the public that social
work has a valued role in society. Thus, in the USA and
the UK, where social work has a long history, but a
recent history of negative publicity, the profession
lacks a coherent public image and the public is
largely unclear about what social workers do. The poor
image problem is being addressed in the USA by the
National Association of Social Workers (NASW), the
country’s professional association, and in the UK by
the government, which introduced the protected title
status in 2005.
Whatever the degree of public recognition, there is
an aspiration to attain or extend regulation of the
profession. In Sweden, social work organisations have
made repeated efforts over more than two decades to
obtain government-backed regulation. In the USA,
efforts are being made to extend title protection to all
states and to raise the status and public recognition of
the profession through publicity campaigns. Publicity
campaigns undertaken by the UK government address
a recruitment crisis putatively associated with social
work’s poor public image.
If measured according to the level of government-
backed regulation of the profession, public recognition
of social work would appear to be substantial in some
of the countries studied. On the other hand, if public
recognition of social work as a profession is measured
by the level of public support for social work as a
professional activity, the picture is much more mixed,
with ambivalence and ignorance about social work
endemic among the population of some countries.
283
Weiss-Gal & Welbourne
(ii) Monopoly over types of work
A monopoly over a type of work gives an occupation
the exclusive right to perform specified tasks and
functions (Greenwood, 1957). In none of the countries
studied, even those with formal licensing procedures,
does social work have a legal monopoly over any fields
of practice or functions. However, in some countries
there are areas of practice where the only professional
who can perform certain tasks is a qualified social worker.
For example, since the introduction of compulsory
registration of social workers and protection of title
in the UK in 2005 (General Social Care Council, see
www.gscc.org.uk), stipulations in law and in government
guidance determine that only social workers should
carry out certain tasks, thereby creating areas of
mandatory exclusivity in practice. These include
aspects of child protection work and mental health
social work, where only the nearest relative of a patient
or an ‘approved’ social worker can apply for compulsory
admission to hospital. Ironically, this is an area of law
in which professional exclusivity is under threat.
Legislation currently under discussion may change the
relevant term to ‘approved mental health professional’,
opening up the role to other professional groups
(MIND UK, see www.mind.org.uk). This illustrates
the boundary issues all professions have to manage,
following the ‘power’ analysis of the professions,
discussed further below. Although the absence of a
monopoly is common to all the countries in our study,
other research shows that this is not necessarily or
universally the case (Weiss et al., 2004).
Despite this lack of a monopoly, in all the countries
studied there are areas of practice in which social
workers play a dominant role or which are identified
as primarily social work functions. In India, these
include inter-country adoptions of Indian children, and
government policy specifies the appointment of social
workers in agencies such as all-women police stations
and family counselling centres, among others. In
Hungary, social workers are the preferred professionals
in the protection of children at risk, and a social work
degree is a prerequisite for senior social work managerial
roles. In the UK and Sweden, social workers are the
dominant profession in making assessments for local
government/municipality social services. In Mexico,
social workers are traditionally the main mediators
between service users and a range of institutions such
as government, hospitals and industry.
There is evidence, too, of increased competition in
several countries from other professionals over fields of
practice that traditionally were the preserve of social
workers. The competition comes from other ‘helping
professions’ as well as non-professionals (see also Gray
& Mazibuko, 2002; Healy & Meagher, 2004; McDonald
et al., 2003). This threat is particularly acute in those
284 Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
fields of social work practice where members of other
professions have relevant knowledge and skills and can
thus be integrated with relative ease. The absence of
areas of monopoly represents a threat to social workers’
professional status as well as to their security in the
roles they currently occupy.
In the USA, such competition exists in fields of
practice that formerly were functions over which social
workers had substantial control, such as hospital discharge
planning and case management. Social workers in
Germany share some functions, such as youth work
and family counselling, with educators and social
pedagogues, while low-paid administrative and other
non-professional staff and volunteers increasingly
perform what were once social work functions. Formerly
lower-paid and less qualified workers are increasingly
practising social work roles as ‘technical’ activities and
‘case managers’ with short-term training. They are
replacing social workers in many state agencies, while
qualified social workers are finding it hard to find
employment. This may be contrasted with the situation
in Spain, in which professionally trained social workers
have control over functions that are described as
becoming increasingly routinised ‘technical’ resource
management (see also Lymbery, 2001; McDonald et al.,
2003).
Monopoly over specific functions appears to be an
area in which social work in the countries studied has
made very limited progress towards professional status.
Occupational groups with less training are encroaching
on social work’s traditional role, while social work itself
is being ‘deskilled’ in some regions. This deficit in
‘professional boundary identification’ is arguably leading
to increasing difficulties in terms of protecting the
professional position of social work in a number of
countries.
(iii) Professional autonomy
A key aspect of professional autonomy is the right of
workers to make work-related decisions on the basis of
their professional knowledge and values, without being
subject to the directives of those outside the profession
or to constraints that are inconsistent with that knowledge
and those values. The literature shows that social
workers’ professional autonomy is circumscribed by the
profession’s conditions of employment. Most social
workers are employed by bureaucratic organisations:
municipal authorities, government agencies, non-
governmental organisations (NGOs), for-profit private
agencies. Social workers are thus subject to the
procedures, regulations, priorities and expectations of
the agency in which they work, where their managers
may not be social workers (Compton & Galaway, 1999;
Hugman, 1996; Howe, 1980; Jones, 2001; Reisch &
Wenocur, 1986). Our study provides a perspective on
© 2008 The Author(s)

the variability of this aspect of professionalism in
social work.
The degree of professional autonomy enjoyed by
social workers varies both within and between the
countries studied. This is reflected by several different
factors. In the USA, Hungary and South Africa, the
directors of most social service agencies employing social
workers are themselves social workers, an arrangement
that, arguably, gives greater professional autonomy to
social work within those agencies. In other countries,
such as Spain, directors are less likely to be social
workers, increasing the likelihood that organisational
objectives will prevail over professional ones.
In most of the countries studied, the degree of
professional autonomy varies with the field of practice,
the worker’s position and skills, and the sector within
which they are employed. Thus, in India, most social
workers have little professional autonomy, but those in
medical and psychiatric settings may be able to
negotiate greater professional autonomy for themselves.
In the UK, social workers employed in the voluntary
sector often enjoy greater professional autonomy than
those employed in the government sector. In South
Africa, where there are government-created systems to
establish professional status in social work and related
professions, greater autonomy is enjoyed by social
workers in areas where they are viewed as experts, such
as in social welfare issues.
In most of the countries studied (Hungary, Spain,
South Africa, Sweden, the UK and the USA), many
social workers work in multi-professional teams.
Their degree of professional autonomy varies with the
status of social work in the country, the level of their
professional qualifications and personal experience, the
area of practice and the role they are able to negotiate
for themselves vis-à-vis the other members of the
team. Professional autonomy, like ‘public recognition’,
therefore breaks down into a complex concept where
the level of autonomy is partly the effect of structural
factors and employment context. This is, however,
modified by factors specific to the individual and his or
her circumstances, unlike many professions in which
there is a clear expectation that the professional will
take relevant decisions and have personal responsibility
for them regardless of work setting.
(iv) Knowledge base
In all ten countries surveyed, a unique social work
knowledge base has been and is being developed,
although to a different extent in different countries. This
knowledge base covers four main areas: (a) knowledge
about social problems, especially those related to poverty
and child abuse and neglect; (b) knowledge about
vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, members of
minority ethnic groups and persons with disabilities,
© 2008 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
The professionalisation of social work
especially those who suffer from oppression, discri-
mination and social exclusion; (c) expertise in
intervention strategies on the levels of the individual,
family, group, community and country; and (d) research
into the interaction between individual personal factors
and the social, economic, political and cultural factors
that underlie social problems.
In most countries in this study, the social work
knowledge base consists of a combination of ‘imported’
knowledge (much of it developed in the USA), and
‘indigenous’ knowledge that has been developed in
the country itself. Much of the imported knowledge is
of methods of intervention, especially psychosocial
casework. Indigenous knowledge largely relates to the
impact of country-specific conditions on vulnerable
groups in the country, and of intervention techniques,
particularly developmental interventions, that are designed
to address the (often severe) prevailing social and
economic conditions. These two types of knowledge
coexist with varying degrees of tension. The tension is
particularly great in those countries whose economies
and cultures differ most from the USA and UK (where
individual casework was mainly developed), such as
Chile, Mexico, India, South Africa and Hungary.
An urgent need to address this imbalance through
developing intervention strategies and methods con-
gruent with local conditions has been noted by the
commentators from each of these countries.
Although mechanisms for encouraging research
and developing theory have been created in most of
the countries surveyed, the degree of knowledge
development (as measured by national publication of
research and theory) varies substantially. In the USA
and UK, social workers and academics engage in
considerable research and theory development. In some
other countries, such as Spain and India, knowledge
development is progressing but the rate of publication
is lower, and practitioner research is still at an early
stage. For some commentators, this is related to the fact
that social workers are attempting to find practical ways
of supporting extremely impoverished and oppressed
people for whom the practical issues of survival are
paramount. However, there are also countries such as
Chile where there are pressing problems of severe
poverty, but social workers are also committed to
developing knowledge and theory and participating in
social activism and contributing to the policy process.
It appears that there is not a simple relationship between
the extent of the need faced by social workers and their
engagement in knowledge creation.
In most of the countries in the study, social work has
specialised channels for disseminating knowledge:
professional journals and newsletters, textbooks and
books specifically about social work matters; conferences
and, in Hungary and Mexico, formal discussion groups
for exchanging knowledge. All the countries studied
285
Weiss-Gal & Welbourne
have nationwide social work journals except for two –
Mexico and Chile, although both have journals based
on specific academic institutions. The issue of the extent
to which practitioners in different countries actually
read and utilise disseminated knowledge was raised by
some academics, but there is little hard information
about this. The authors from South Africa and Spain
report that social workers do not regularly access
available knowledge. Issues of time, ease of access to
knowledge, motivation and professional inclination are
all relevant here. While progress is clearly being made
in this aspect of professional development by social
workers in many countries, the present study highlights
a number of key issues related to extending the
knowledge base as an area for future professional
development.
(v) Professional education
Specialised, lengthy professional education in the higher
education system is an essential feature of professions,
based on the premise that performing professional tasks
requires distinctive knowledge, skills and expertise,
which can be obtained only through professional
education (Hugman, 1996). In all ten countries studied,
social work has created a distinctive educational
system. This was achieved early in the 20th century in
some countries (Germany, the UK, and the USA), in the
1920s and 1930s in others (South Africa, India, Spain,
Mexico, Chile, and Sweden), and towards the end of
the last century in one country (Hungary). Social work
education is currently located within the higher education
system in all countries in this study. In some countries,
namely Chile, Hungary and Spain, this achievement
follows upon earlier closure of schools and departments
of social work by dictatorial political regimes that
sought to suppress and deprofessionalise social work.
In all the countries, both an undergraduate degree
(Bachelor in Social Work, BSW) and a graduate degree
(Master in Social Work, MSW) can be obtained. In
seven of the countries studied (UK, Germany, Hungary,
Sweden, India, USA, South Africa), social workers can
pursue a PhD in social work. In no country in our study
was it possible to obtain a recognised social work
qualification without attending a recognised programme
of study, most courses involving 3 years or more of
study. In most of the countries, social work training is
restricted to universities, but in some, such as India,
there are also non-university based diploma courses in
social work.
The type of degree required for entry into the
profession varies from country to country. In most
(Germany, UK, USA, Hungary, Sweden, Spain, South
Africa, Chile, and Mexico), an undergraduate degree
is sufficient. In the USA, clinical social work and tasks
requiring professional insurance require a Master’s
286 Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
degree. In India an MSW degree has typically been the
degree required for entry into the profession, though
this is changing and social workers with BSW degrees
are now entering the field. The duration of the BSW
programmes varies from 3 years in most of the
countries studied to 4.5 years in Mexico.
The control that social workers exercise over their
professional education varies between countries. In the
USA, accreditation for social work training programmes
is granted by a professional body, the Council on Social
Work Education. In South Africa and the UK the
control is exercised by government bodies. In the UK,
for example, the Department of Health sets basic
requirements for social work education and is
responsible for the accreditation of social work training
programmes in universities, while the Higher Education
Quality Assurance Agency, a government regulator, sets
the ‘benchmark’ for Bachelor’s degree education. In
some countries in this study, individual schools of
social work have a wider degree of autonomy in setting
social work curricula. The positioning of social work
education within the higher education system opens it
up to external inspection and regulation as part of the
system of public education. The extent to which social
work professional bodies retain control and influence
over what is taught and how it is assessed is perhaps
the most variable element of this dimension of the
‘professionalisation project’. It appears that where there
is government commitment to social work provision,
social workers have achieved considerable progress in
establishing graduate-level education within the university
and college system: sometimes, as in Chile and
Hungary, re-establishing it after a period of exclusion,
for political reasons, from the field of higher
academic study. This represents a major step towards
professionalism at a global level, and a dimension in
which social work has developed beyond recognition
since the days of Flexner’s early negative assessment.
(vi) Social work organisations
Across all ten countries, social work has established a
range of national and local professional organisations.
With the exception of Mexico and South Africa, the key
social work organisation in all these countries is a
national association, open to all social workers. National
associations were established in the USA, India and
Sweden in the 1950s; in the UK in the 1970s; in
Hungary and Spain in the 1980s; and in Germany in
the 1990s. Associations in the USA and UK were formed
through the amalgamation of separate organisations
established in the first half of the century. In South
Africa, professional associations evolved that reflected
members’ different racial and ethnic groups and private
practice versus public employment. Despite repeated
efforts, they have yet to affiliate into a single body,
© 2008 The Author(s)

although there have been calls to do so in the interest
of enabling the participation of the profession in
national and international forums (see also: Gray &
Mazibuko, 2002; Mazibuko & Gray, 2004). Social
workers in Mexico have established several state-level
professional organisations, which fluctuate between high
and low levels of activity depending on their leadership
and do not work together in a coordinated way. Spain
is unusual in that the creation of both national and
regional social work organisations is mandatory, as is
membership of a professional organisation.
In all countries studied, professional organisations
(especially national ones) take on a range of roles,
including developing the profession through dissemination
of knowledge via journals and conferences, development
of ethical codes and promotion of social work education.
Some also seek to improve the remuneration and
working conditions of social workers: in Germany and
Sweden, the national associations function as trade
unions as well as professional associations and participate
in the policy process. Our study shows the extent of
the range of functions performed by professional
organisations. The roles and functions include, firstly,
roles that promote the interests of members of the
profession (such as trade union functions relating to
salaries and other conditions of employment), but also,
secondly, promotion of the interests of ‘consumers’ of
social work services: a policy activist role.
Our study reflects low levels of membership for
professional organisations in many countries, calling
into question their representativity when acting as the
voice of the profession at national level. Only a quarter
of licensed social workers in the USA are members of
a national association; in the UK membership fluctuates
between a fifth and a quarter; in Germany it is only
6 per cent. Sweden, in which the association also serves
as a trade union, is a notable exception with membership
reaching 80 per cent. High levels of membership may
be associated with professional organisations that are
also trade unions, where promoting their members’
interests is clearly part of the agenda.
Professional organisations are also sometimes part of
the structure for regulating social workers. In Spain,
membership is mandatory, but some social workers do
not want to belong to the organisations because they do
not approve of their regulatory function. Membership
levels are high here because of government regulation,
but members might not see the organisations as
promoting their interests, but rather those of government.
Such organisations may play a positive role in developing
education and training, and their membership is
large, but their role representing the profession may be
less clear.
In some countries, professional organisations have
collaborated to develop and strengthen the profession,
respond to public debate and influence social policy. In
© 2008 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
The professionalisation of social work
Hungary, the four main professional organisations
created the ‘Alliance of Social Professionals’ to further
these goals. In Germany, the Bundeskongress Soziale
Arbeit (National Congress of Social Work) coordinates
professionals and representatives of social organisations
and represents social work’s national voice.
Most of the countries studied have a variety of
specialised associations such as national organisations
of social work schools (Mexico, India, Hungary, South
Africa, USA). In the USA there are over 40 organisations
representing specific fields of practice, practice methods
and practice sector, as well as ethnic and religious
affiliation. In South Africa, in addition to separate
national associations divided primarily along lines of
race and language, there is a large Association of Social
Workers in Private Practice (SAASWIPP) (see Mazibuko
& Gray, 2004).
What our study illustrates is the variety of roles
fulfilled by professional organisations and the complexity
of their relationship with the state, reflecting the
assertion of McDonald and colleagues (2003) that
governance regimes may lead to very different outcomes
for similar dimensions of the professional project in
different national contexts. Analysis of professional
organisations’ differing roles and aims shows that this
may be seen as an ‘umbrella’ term for different types
of organisations that have core similarities but may be
quite different in other respects. Some are more oriented
to professional development, some to professional
regulation, and some to the promotion of the interests
of their service users. Each strikes its own balance
between these three.
(vii) Ethical standards
Social workers in all countries studied except India
have developed or adopted a single, formal, nationwide
code of ethics. In the USA, UK, and Hungary, for
example, independent ethical codes have been developed
to reflect the values and priorities of social work in each
country and have been subject to ongoing revision.
The ethical codes in Germany, Sweden, and Spain are
based on the International Federation of Social Workers
(IFSW) Ethics of Social Work – Principles and
Standards (IFSW, 2004). Social workers in Mexico
also follow IFSW guidelines. In India, various social
workers’ associations, among them the Bombay
Association of Trained Social Workers, have sought to
develop a nationwide ethical code, but as yet it has not
proved possible to unite all these groups with one
shared code of ethics.
Most ethical codes were developed decades after
social work began to be practised in a country, closely
associated with the formation of a national professional
association. A national Code of Ethics for Social Work
came into effect in the 1960s in the USA, in the UK in
287
Weiss-Gal & Welbourne
the 1970s, in South Africa in the 1980s, and in Germany,
Hungary and Spain at the end of the 1990s.
The enforceability of the ethical codes varies
substantially between countries. South Africa and some
US states have sanction-based codes, which enable
regulators to repeal or suspend the licenses of workers
who violate the code. In the other countries in this
study, the codes have largely declaratory and moral
value. In some countries, such as the UK, Spain, the
USA and Sweden, national associations of social
workers have established enforcement mechanisms
whereby workers who violate the code can be expelled
from the organisation. However, in most of these
countries expulsion does not prevent social workers
from continuing to work in the profession; in countries
with compulsory registration, this result is achieved by
deregistration.
A recent development in some countries is the
formation of organisations dedicated to promoting
ethical practice. In Hungary, an ‘ethical college’ was
established to promote the embedding of social work
ethics into practice and to debate ethical issues. In the
USA, the NASW established the Institute on Social
Work Ethics and Law with the mission of acting as
a ‘think tank’ for the creation, development and
distribution of materials about social work ethics and
supporting ethical practice.
How thoroughly the ethical strictures in the various
codes are embedded in day-to-day practice in the
countries of this study is an open question. Where they
are not well embedded, the contributors to this study
suggest several possible reasons. Social workers might
be unfamiliar with the code; they might lack systematic
training in applying it; they might not find it relevant
to their practice; or they might find it difficult to
adhere to the code in their particular organisational and
economic context.
(viii) Prestige and remuneration
Generally, the status and prestige of social work in the
ten countries studied is not high. In half the countries
(Germany, Hungary, India, Mexico, Spain), its status
is particularly low relative to that of other helping
professions. This is attributable to a number of factors:
the broad and non-specific definition of social work
(Germany and India); the fact that people without social
work training may call themselves social workers and
be employed as such (India); the public’s lack of
knowledge of the functions of social workers (the UK
and USA); and the low status in society of the users of
social work services (Hungary and the UK).
In the majority of the countries surveyed (Germany,
Hungary, India, Mexico, Spain, USA), social work
salaries are generally lower than salaries in other
helping professions. The authors suggest a variety of
288 Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
possible explanations. The most common is insufficient
awareness that social work requires professional training
and expertise (Germany, Mexico, Sweden, India). Other
factors are the high percentage of women in the
profession (Hungary, Spain); social workers’ poor self-
advocacy (Hungary); the fact that most social workers
are employed in the public sector (Spain); the lack of
state-level salary directives for social workers (India);
and the lack of state licensing (Sweden).
In contrast, in the UK social work salaries are not
significantly lower than salaries in other helping
professions (although still considerably lower than those
of many other professional groups) and have been
rising. In the UK, the tendency to higher salaries stems
from a shortage of social workers. Salaries and service
conditions of government-employed social workers
have recently been revised in South Africa, along with
those of social workers in the NGO sector, as part of a
recruitment strategy. Where salaries are higher, this may
come from ‘supply and demand’ factors rather than
higher value being placed on the profession.
Interestingly, the number of people seeking social
work education in the countries studied does not seem
to be directly related to the salary or status of the
profession. Applications to schools or departments of
social work are at a high level and even increasing in
many countries. This is the case in Germany, Hungary,
India, and Sweden, where the status and remuneration
of social workers are generally low. The USA is the
only country that has reported a recent decline in
applications for admission to social work programmes.
Discussion
This exploration of the state of the social work
profession as it is reflected in ten countries across the
globe indicates that certain professional features are
common to social work in all, or nearly all, of the
countries included in this study. These features include
the establishment of professional organisations, the
formulation or adoption of a professional code of
ethics, the development and dissemination of a specific
body of knowledge (although to varying extents), and
the placement of social work training in institutions of
higher education. By contrast, other professional
features were found to be lacking in most, if not all,
of the countries. In none of the countries studied here
were there formal monopolies over fields of practice.
Enforceable licensing regulations and procedures,
restrictions on the use of the title of social worker, state
sanctions for breaches of the code of ethics and control
over training and entrance into the profession were
found in only some of the countries of the study.
The power approach to professionalisation provides
a useful perspective for understanding the uneven
movement towards the professionalisation of social
© 2008 The Author(s)

work that emerges from the above findings. In particular,
it may be advantageous to differentiate between two
types of professional power – inner and outer/external
power. ‘Inner power’ refers to the ability of social
workers to work cooperatively as an organised group
or professional entity, and exert influence over the
behaviour of the body of social workers as a
professional group. ‘External power’ denotes the ability
of the profession to exert influence outside the profession
itself, be it vis-à-vis other professional groups (e.g.
those who may have competing professional interests)
or decision-makers within the political and bureaucratic
arenas, and to consolidate a public perception that
acknowledges social work’s role in furthering shared
social aims.
Most of the professional features achieved by social
work in the countries studied here appear to have been
achieved primarily through the profession’s ‘inner’
power. The ability of social workers in a specific
country setting to establish a national organisation, to
formulate a code of ethics, and to create a unique
knowledge base all seem to reflect this type of power.
By contrast, there is significant international variation
in the achievement of those aspects of professionalisation
that require cooperation between the social work
profession and the state or external agencies. These
include enforceable licensing procedures, restrictions
on the use of the social worker title, sanctions for
breaches of the code of ethics, control over training and
entrance into the profession and monopolies over types
of work. Attaining these features involves persuading
policy-makers that their introduction will benefit
service users, employers or other interest groups in
society. It requires an exercise of influence over external
agents and the successful defence of practice areas
against rival professions and occupational groups. The
extent to which social work has attained these features
in different countries may reflect its ‘external’ power
and influence and the impact this has on social work’s
professional development. Interestingly, despite the
cross-national variation in the achievement of professional
features that require the cooperation of an outside
agency, one such feature has been realised in all the
countries in this study – the location of social work
training within the higher education system.
The internal and external power of the social work
profession are likely to be related; it would seem that a
cohesive and well-established organisation is likely to
be an asset for the profession in attaining more of those
features that reflect external power (see also Weiss et al.,
2004). However, the internal power of social work is
not the sole factor in its ability to establish itself as an
externally validated profession. This is reflected in the
fact that in so many countries in this study, social work
has already attained those aspects of a profession that
can be achieved through internal cooperation and
© 2008 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
The professionalisation of social work
organisation, and yet has not, to date, achieved many of
those features that require external validation and
regulation.
Despite the uneven success of the professionalisation
project within social work, this study of ten different
countries indicates that across very diverse settings
the aspiration to professional status is strong and acts
as a powerful motivating force behind the development
of professional organisations, professional ethics, and
professional knowledge.
The path of professional development in social
work in any given context appears to be shaped by the
interaction between three complex, subtle and sometimes
very unstable variables:
(i) The level of internal professional power and the
cohesiveness of social work in working to achieve
certain defined professional aims (an accepted
code of ethics, strong professional associations).
(ii) The external influence that the profession is able
to bring to bear to achieve other aims (state licensing
and restriction of title, remuneration, state sanctions
for breaches of the code of ethics, control over
education and entrance to the profession).
(iii) The political, economic and social context within
which it is operating (professional prestige, scope
for asserting professional knowledge, and expertise
at a policy level).
These factors taken together influence social work’s
progress as a profession. Our findings reflect a wider
academic literature in which there is ample evidence of
a developing international consciousness in social work,
sometimes ‘uncomfortable’ consciousness (Flexner,
1915) of the ongoing need to continue the ‘professional
project’ and its ability to promote the interests of those
who constitute its ‘constituency’ of concern.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of
the country researchers: Teresa Matus, Malvina Ponce
de León, Silvia Staub-Bernasconi, Ágnes Darvas, Judit
Kozma, J. S. Gunavathy, José Guillermo Zúñiga Zárate,
Guillermina Garza Treviño, Tembeka Mpako-Ntusi,
Aurora Castillo Charfolet, Sven Hessle, Malcolm
Payne, Terry Mizrahi, and Elizabeth J. Clark.
References
Abbott A (1995). Boundaries of social work or social work of
boundaries? Social Service Review 69: 545 –562.
Abbott AA (1999). Measuring social work values: A cross-
cultural challenge for global practice. International Social
Work 42: 455 – 470.
Austin D (1983). The Flexner myth and the history of social
work. Social Service Review 57: 357–377.
Bamford T (1990). The future of social work. Basingstoke,
Macmillan.
289
 Weiss-Gal & Welbourne
Brauns H, Kramer, D (1991). Social work education and
professional development. In: Hill H, ed., Social work and
the European community. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Compton BR, Galaway B (1999). Social work processes, 6th
edn. California, Pacific Grove, Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Cullen J (1978). The structure of professionalism: A quantitative
examination. New York, Petrocelli.
Dominelli L (1996). Deprofessionalizing social work: Anti-
oppressive practice, competencies and postmodernism. British
Journal of Social Work 26: 153 –175.
Dominelli L, Bernard WT (2003). Broadening horizons:
International exchanges in social work. Aldershot, Ashgate.
Etzioni A (1969). The semi-professions and their organization.
New York, Free Press.
Flexner A (2001). Is social work a profession? Research on
Social Work Practice 11: 152–165.
Flexner A (1915). Is social work a profession? In: National
Conference of Charities and Corrections, Proceedings of the
National Conference of Charities and Corrections at the
42nd Annual Session, May, held in Baltimore, MD.
Freidson E (1970a). Profession of medicine: A study of the
sociology of applied knowledge. New York, Dodd Mead.
Freidson E (1970b). Professional dominance: The social
structure of medical care. New York, Atherton Press.
Freidson E (1972). The profession of medicine. New York, Dodd Mead.
Giarchi G, Lankshear G (1998). The eclipse of social work in
Europe. Social Work in Europe 5: 25 –36.
Gray M, Mazibuko F (2002). Social work in South Africa at the
dawn of the new millennium. International Journal of Social
Welfare 11: 191–200.
Greenwood E (1957). Attributes of a profession. Social Work 2:
5 – 45.
Hall R (1994). Sociology of work. California, Pine Forge Press.
Hardcastle D (1990). Legal regulation of social work. In:
Encyclopaedia of Social Work (18th edn.) (1990 supplement).
Maryland, Silver Spring, NASW.
Healy L (2001). International social work: Professional action in
an interdependent world. New York, Oxford University Press.
Healy K, Meagher G (2004). The reprofessionalisation of social
work: Collaborative approaches for achieving professional
recognition. British Journal of Social Work 34: 243 –260.
Hokenstad M, Khinduka S, Midgley J, eds. (1992). Profiles in
international social work. Washington, DC, NASW.
Hopps J, Collins P (1995). Social work profession overview. In:
Edwards R, ed., Encyclopaedia of social work (19th edn).
Washington, DC, NASW.
Howe E (1980). Public professions and the private model of
professionalism. Social Work 25: 179 –191.
Hugman R (1996). Professionalization in social work: the challenge
of diversity. International Social Work 39: 131–147.
Iarskaia-Smirnova E, Romanov P (2002). ‘A Salary is not
important here’: The professionalisation of social work in
contemporary Russia. Social Policy and Administration 36:
123 –141.
IASSW (2002). Directory. Southampton, UK: IASSW.
Ife J (2001). Human rights and social work: Towards rights’
based practice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
IFSW (2004). Ethics in social work, statement of principles .
Available at: http://www.ifsw.org/en/p38000324.html [date
last accessed 13 March 2008].
Illich I (1977). Disabling professions. London, New Hampshire,
Salem.
Jones C (2001). Voices from the front line: State social workers
and New Labour. British Journal of Social Work 31: 547–
562.
Johnson T (1972). Professions and power. London, Macmillan.
Johnson L, Yanca S (2001). Social work practice: A generalist
approach (7th edn.). Boston, Allyn and Bacon.
Lymbery M (2001). Social work at the crossroads. British
Journal of Social Work 31: 369 –384.
290 Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
View publication stats
Lyons K (1999). International social work: Themes and
perspective. Aldershot, Ashgate.
Lyons K (2006). Globalisation and social work: international and
local implications. British Journal of Social Work 36: 365 –
380.
Macdonald K (1995). The sociology of the professions. London,
Sage.
Mayadas N, Watts T, Elliott D, eds. (1997). International
handbook on social work theory and practice. Westport,
Connecticut, Greenwood.
Mazibuko F, Gray M (2004). Social Work professional
associations in South Africa. International Social Work 47:
129 –142.
McDonald C, Harris J, Wintersteen R (2003). Contingent on
context? Social work in Australia, Britain and the USA.
British Journal of Social Work 33: 191–208.
Midgley J (2001). Issues in international social work: Resolving
critical debates in the profession. Journal of Social Work 1:
21–35.
Midgley J (1981). Professional imperialism: Social work in the
third world. London, Heinemann.
Millerson G (1973). The qualifying associations: A study in
professionalization. New York, Humanistic Press.
Payne M, Shardlow S, eds. (2002). Social work in the British
Isles. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Popple K (1995). Analysing community work: its theory and
practice. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Popple P (1985). The social work profession: A reconceptualization.
Social Service Review 59: 560 –577.
Reisch M, Andrews J (2001). The road not taken: A history of
radical social work in the United States . Philadelphia, PA,
Brunner-Routledge.
Reisch M, Wenocur S (1986). The future of community
organization in social work: Social activism and the politics
of professional building. Social Service Review 60: 70 –93.
Shardlow S, Payne M (1998). Contemporary issues in social
work: Western Europe. Aldershot, Arena.
Simpkin M (1979). Trapped within welfare: Surviving social
work. London, Macmillan.
Skidmore R, Thackeray M, Farley O (1997). Introduction to
social work (7th edn.). Boston, Allyn and Bacon.
Specht H (1988). New directions for social work practice. New
York, Prentice Hall.
Toren N (1972). Social work: The case of a semi-profession.
Beverly Hills, Sage.
Walker H, Beaumont B (1981). Probation work: Critical theory
and socialist practice. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Weiss I, Gal J, Dixon J, eds. (2003). Professional ideologies and
preferences in social work: A global study. Westport, CT,
Prager.
Weiss I, Spiro S, Sherer M, Korin-Langer N (2004). Social work
in Israel: Professional characteristics in an international
comparative perspective. International Journal of Social
Welfare 13: 287–296.
Weiss I, Welbourne P, eds. (2007). Social work as a profession
– A comparative cross-national perspective. Birmingham,
Venture Press.
Welbourne, P, Harrison G, Ford D (2007). Social work in the
UK and the global labor market: Recruitment, practice and
ethical considerations. International Social Work 50: 27– 40.
Wenocur S, Reisch M (1983). The social work profession and
the ideology of professionalization. Journal of Sociology and
Social Welfare 10: 683 –732.
Yu N (2006). Interrogating social work: Philippine social work
and human rights under martial law. International Journal of
Social Welfare 15: 257–263.
Yuen-Tsang A, Wang S (2002). Tensions confronting the
development of social work education in China: Challenges
and opportunities. International Social Work 45: 375–
388.
© 2008 The Author(s)