Prof. Collins & Colleagues Explore Social Work in the Context of Physical, Political, & Cultural Borders
In a recent paper, BU School of Social Work Prof. Mary Elizabeth Collins, Queens University Prof. Joe Duffy, and Salisbury University School of Social Work Prof. Sook Hyun Kim explain that borders’ tumultuous influences on individuals, communities, and society in a globalized world and call for better global social work education. “Social work practitioners have a role in framing the understanding of borders and resulting policies,” the authors explain. “Social work’s alignment with marginalized and oppressed populations requires a lens that emphasizes threats to the less empowered within the global community.”
Some effort has been made by international social work organizations to address this need for global education. The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) do not call out “borders” by name, but list “migration and refugee crises and the COVID-19 pandemic as core global challenges.” Borders offer a unique opportunity to uncover the need for a more globalized approach to social work education. “Multiple issues related to borders are a growing concern for social work,” says Prof. Collins. To illustrate this, the authors take a closer look at social work along three national borders:
- The United States & Mexico
- Ireland & Northern Ireland
- North Korea & South Korea
For each border, the authors identify some ways in which social work does engage with border issues and some ways in which social work could do better. In the case of the border between the U.S. and Mexico, “core themes regarding social work have most recently focused on the human rights crisis, as well as the more long-standing history of social work response to unaccompanied immigrant and refugee youth.” On the other hand, along the North Korea/South Korea border, social work exists in South Korea and does not exist in North Korea: “[South Korean social workers] have a unique role as cultural brokers and advocates within and between two systems. However, as a result of blurred boundaries, higher client expectations and dependency and inadequate support, they are frequently overwhelmed.” In each border’s case, the high-touch environment of social work on these borders suggests a need for better globally-focused education for social workers.
Due to high levels of trauma and identity crises–in addition to an increase in contested borders world-wide due to climate change, war, and other forces–the authors then offer suggestions for further research and advances towards a more globalized approach to social work education. They suggest “examining border issues comparatively, to draw lessons that can be shared to a wider range of situations.” For instance, “a global perspective recognizes that policy advocacy is not a possibility in some countries without democratic traditions and institutions.” By encouraging future research on these global social work topics, the authors hope that the social work field will find more ways to better prepare social workers for international situations.