some considerations on the debate on social work in china: who speaks for whom?

INTERNATIONAL

J O U R NA L O F

SOCIAL WELFARE

ISSN 1369-6866

© 2008 The Author(s)Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare.

400

Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2008.00603.x

Int J Soc Welfare 2008:

17

: 400–406

Gray M. Some considerations on the debate on social work inChina: who speaks for whom?Int J Soc Welfare 2008: 17: 400–406 © 2008 The Author(s),Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and theInternational Journal of Social Welfare.

In this article I persist with my argument that indigenous,local, culturally relevant practice ought to trump the externalimposition of social work definitions, standards and professionalmodels. The challenge, however, is not to fall prey to falsedichotomies. Importantly, social work in China is not static butemergent, and no-one is sure of the exact shape it will take. Andthe essential question is to what extent will Western knowledgeand standards be uncritically appropriated into China? Mostcontributors to the debate thus far have taken the internationaldefinition of social work as their starting point, but far moresignificant are the political dimensions involved in this processof indigenisation. This article proposes that empirical evidencefrom within China regarding culturally appropriate, effectivelocal responses – and some clear bench-marks for internationalengagement – should form the basis for dialogue betweenChina and the broader social work community.

Mel Gray

Institute of Advanced Study for Humanity, University of Newcastle, Australia

Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKIJSWInternational Journal of Social Welfare1369-68661468-2397© 2008 The Author(s), Journal compilation © Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social WelfareXXXOriginal Articles

Considerations on the debate on social work in ChinaGray

Debate

Some considerations on the debate on social work in China: who speaks for whom?

Key words: social work education in China, professionalisation ofsocial work in China, benchmarks for international engagement,politics of indigenisation

Mel Gray, Institute of Advanced Study for Humanity (IASH),University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan 2308, NewSouth Wales, AustraliaE-mail: [email protected]

Accepted for publication May 12, 2008

I have been following the debate in the

InternationalJournal of Social Welfare

on social work in China withgreat interest having been intrigued, for some time, bythe dominant ‘West is best’ and ‘West to the rest’cultural politics that tends to predominate in socialwork. For a profession that seeks to understand thecomplexity and diversity of people’s experience, beliefsand practices across countries, and cultures andcontexts, the idea of equivalence expressed in notionslike universal values, global standards, internationaldefinitions and a common knowledge and skill basewith transglobal application is a logical contradiction.Tie to this constant reminders of the importance oflanguage in social work and one is cognisant that muchis lost in translation as we communicate across widelydivergent cultures and contexts. In an earlier piece onthis subject, I wrote that:

International social work is on the horns of a three-pronged dilemma . . . [which] arises from the para-doxical . . . processes surrounding indigenisation,universalism and imperialism in social work. Cross-cultural dialogue and exchange is moulding andshaping new forms of social work (indigenisation)while social work is, at the same time, trying to hold

onto some form of common identity (universalism).This is taking place at the same time as efforts towardinternationalising social work raise the spectre ofwesternisation and imperialism. Put another way,indigenisation raises challenges for universalisationand the challenges are compounded by internationalefforts which can quickly become imperialisticdepending on what is proposed as ‘universal’ insocial work (Gray, 2005: 231).

I suggested that culture could play an important rolein enabling indigenisation and retaining universals whileavoiding a type of postcolonial imperialism. However,culture does not figure significantly for Jia (2008) whoprovides a reading of complex political systems thatsteer the social work agenda in uneven and, at times,contradictory ways. It is the interaction betweendifferent political levels – local and central – that is farmore important in determining the way in which socialwork is being indigenised. As part of this politicalprocess, culture can obfuscate matters, especially ifused for strategic purposes. This results in a lack ofconsistency in how culture is understood and inter-preted (Sin, 2008; Tsang et al., 2008). What might bemore appropriate is an analysis of ‘cultural politics’ that

Considerations on the debate on social work in China

© 2008 The Author(s)Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare

401

draws attention to the way dynamic political systemsactually work. In any case, despite universal claimsabout social work, local considerations about culture doseem to militate against imperialistic applications ofWestern social work (see e.g. Tsang, Yan & Shera,2000; Tsang et al., 2008; Yuen-Tsang & Wang, 2002)and they are constantly undermined by politicalmachinations. The temptation is to think about thesedebates through the lens of postcolonial theory, whichfeatures prominently in the ‘indigenisation’ literaturewhere claims to the universality of social work are seenas imperialistic (Gray, 2005; Gray & Fook, 2004; Grayet al., 2008).

In the international social work literature, ‘indi-genisation’ generally refers to a process of knowledgetransfer from the West to the rest, that is, the processof adapting, adjusting and modifying imported know-ledge from the Western developed nations to fit diverselocal or national contexts in the developing world. Thisis a complex political process involving multiple agentswith the powerful State determining which parts ofWestern social work are relevant to China’s politicalagenda and the respective interests of all involved(Tsang et al., 2008). It is not a rational process ofapplying universal benchmarks or standards. China isnot adopting Western social work

en masse

, and wemust be wary of over-inflated claims as to the success-ful transfer of social work to China. In fact, Westerninfluences – as reflected in this debate – sometimesobstruct rather than facilitate social work’s progress inmainland China.

A further significant political consideration is thatChina is major currency for those involved in inter-national social work and social work education. Itpresents an ideal opportunity for social work’s terri-torialising machine. In this respect, there are echoes ofthe early- to mid-20th century spread of social workinto Africa and Asia. It is from this vantage point – andmy position as an observer of this debate – that my criticalinterest arises (see Coates, Gray & Hetherington, 2006;Gray, 2002, 2003, 2005; Gray & Allegritti, 2002, 2003,2005; Gray, Coates & Hetherington, 2007; Gray &Fook, 2004; Gray et al., 2008). Here the Nietzscheanobservation rings true:

There is

only

a perspective seeing,

only

a perspective‘knowing’; and the

more

affects we allow to speakabout one thing, the

more

eyes, different eyes, wecan use to observe one thing, the more complete willour ‘concept’ of this thing, our ‘objectivity’, be(Nietzshe, 1969: 119 emphasis in the original).

In the spirit of this nuanced formulation about ‘waysof seeing’, a further perspective is valuable. Furthermore,while this debate concerns China, many of the issuesraised are applicable to other countries and constantlyrefer us back to the complex effects of power in the

discourses of indigenisation and international socialwork. This raises questions about how they see theproblem in the first place and from here who speaks forwhom? Who are the experts? Who is influencing whom,and what vested interests are at stake?

There is a separate set of questions relating to whatis good for China. What model of social work doesChina need, if indeed it needs one at all? What modelof social work education and practice is China devel-oping and to what extent will Western knowledge andstandards be uncritically appropriated into China? Caughtwithin the flux of a political economy of shiftingpositions, to which stage of social work’s developmentin China is the literature responding? For how longdoes the literature remain relevant? The questions aremany.

The debate from here

The recent controversy in this journal over the develop-ment of social work in China is highly typical of someof the problems highlighted above and in my priorwork. It was sparked by two British scholars who usedChina as a case study to argue for international stand-ards (Hutchings & Taylor, 2007). While their intentionswere good, Hutchings and Taylor (2007) were misguidedin assuming that the international definition of socialwork has utility whether or not it fits the context towhich it is being applied. Their focus is on thedefinition of social work rather than the socioeconomicand political needs of the evolving ‘new’ China, whichis the primary concern of Chinese policymakers. It isnot surprising, therefore, that their article was fiercelyrebutted by Cunfu Jia (2008) – Head of the Social WorkDepartment at the China College of Civil Affairs inBeijing, the training arm of the Ministry of CivilAffairs, the main government body responsible forsocial welfare. Jia accused Hutchings and Taylor ofmisrepresenting the case and making unfair andimbalanced assertions about a ‘non-democratic’ China(Hutchings & Taylor, 2007: 383). Jia (2008) questionedtheir sources, their understanding of the historical factsand their cavalier use of the international definition ofsocial work in relation to China.

In responding to Hutchings and Taylor’s piece, andat the request of the Journal’s Editor, Sewpaul (2007)weighed into the debate raising further doubts aboutHutchings and Taylor’s (2007) bias in conceiving ofWestern social work as based entirely on liberaldemocratic forms, thereby implying that anything outsidethis spectrum was based on tradition and bureaucraticauthoritarianism. Whichever side one takes in thiscontroversy, it is patently clear that some very practicalbenchmarks are required as a bare minimum when non-Chinese scholars engage in this kind of research. Theseare important if Western social work academics are to

Gray

© 2008 The Author(s)

402

Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare

avoid charges of disingenuity, opportunism and a lackof integrity. As a bare minimum, they should have eitherlanguage translation facilities or a grasp of the originallanguage so they can access and understand firsthandsources, including policy documents and legislation;preferably they should have visited and spent time inthe country in question in a research fieldwork capacity;and, most importantly, they should have engaged andclosely consulted with indigenous stakeholders andresearchers.

While, as Sewpaul (2007) claims from her postmodernperspective, all discourses are contestable and must besubjected to discussion and debate – and one might addclose analysis, including political analysis of the way inwhich the discourse is constructed – issues of knowledgeand power often preclude people from being heard,especially where language constitutes a major barrier.This begs the question,

who speaks for whom?

Whatmakes Taylor and Hutchings qualified to speak on thesematters or Sewpaul, or me for that matter? It seems thatthe crux of the problem is that Chinese social work isalready being constituted by outsiders who have gainedentry into certain halls of power within academia fromwhich pressure is being exerted on government tointroduce a largely Western model of social work

–

forwhat other type of social work is there? As Tsang andYan (2001: 433) so eloquently noted:

From an international perspective, social work canbe seen primarily as a cultural product of the developedworld. Scholars and professionals in the West haverecognized the socially constructed nature of socialwork . . . Professional social work services, as definedby western standards, are only available to

a minorityof the world’s population

(emphasis added).

As in many other parts of the developing world, socialwork is not well known in China. In fact, as this articleshows, it is a policy-driven

discipline

that is growing atan alarming rate, but also a virtual

profession

in everyother sense of the word. And some, like myself, wouldquestion why China needs social work and not widescalesocial and community development and/or evidence-based primary care or family and community support,for example. Alas, social work would claim all theseprogrammes or interventions as its own, even thoughwhat Western academics are bent on introducing andgrowing is a brand of social work heavily influenced bywhat they know from their own, often very different,contexts. Thus, as Leung (2007) notes, regardless of theempirical reality – the facts – and ostensibly driven bymoral prescriptions, Western social work academics,mainly from Hong Kong, are making vigorous attemptsto influence the Chinese government to embrace andpromote social work. But, in reality, the process of itsadoption is highly political suggesting manoeuvring forterritorial gains and leverage.

Against this backdrop, social work academics inHong Kong – working with collaborators in China –have had some success in introducing social workeducation into China (Chan & Chan, 2005; Leung,2007; Yuen-Tsang & Ku, 2008). They have respondedto higher education reforms in China and vigorouslypromoted the new discipline of social work. Theirchosen path was the retraining of academics in Chineseuniversities from non-viable disciplines, such as anthro-pology, accountancy and history, to teach social work(see Yuen-Tsang & Ku, 2008). Their students, too, arerecruited to study social work, which is often not theirfirst choice, and they will likely never practice as socialworkers given that there are, as yet, no official jobsavailable for them. The Ministry of Civil Affairs(MoCA) already employs untrained human serviceworkers who do not want to lose their jobs to trainedsocial workers. Perhaps they might prefer retraining orinservice training so as to ‘professionalise [MoCA’sexisting] . . . social welfare services’ (Leung, 2007: 392).In short, a Western model of social work is beingimported despite existing practice realities in anti-cipation of a future reality involving the social workprofession as a major player. At the same time, thosewho live, work, teach and have to make social inter-ventions

work

within the existing infrastructure inmainland China are evolving their own models withoutsocial work involvement.

Also, it seems that in other disciplines China favoursscience-driven approaches. Hence, it is possible thatsocial work might yet be sidelined by the evidence-basedprofessions like medicine, psychiatry and psychology.These professions are promoting themselves in Chinawith equal vigour. It is an open playing field and to dateit is sociologists and economists rather than socialworkers who are invited by government to give adviceon the formulation of social policy (Leung, 2007: 394).Though this is changing, it seems appropriate to bemodest about the claims made for the success of socialwork in China. Like Tsang et al. (2000, 2001); Yanand Tsang (2008), Leung (2007) highlights Chinesescholars’ lack of capacity to build social work practicein China from an evidence-base – or from the groundup – simply because they themselves have neverpractised social work. Consequently there is resistance,and reliance on Western input has created disagreementas to the best way to proceed, not only outside Chinabut also within mainland China.

Both Cunfu Jia (2008) and Taylor and Hutchings(2008) in different ways offer defensive responses.While Jia (2008) attempts to sketch the broaderpolitical scenario and is explicit in outlining thegovernment’s role in the development of social work,there is a larger issue at stake here and that is

who isspeaking for the Chinese social work community?

Intrying to convey the insider position, Jia (2008) raises



403

questions about the expert-dominated outsider discoursebut, at the same time, implicitly alludes to the politicalquestion of who within China is the leading exponentof social work? Who is controlling these complexarticulations? Who are the internal spokespeople and towhat extent do they reflect external agendas? It isunlikely that the broader social work community canfully grasp the dynamics at play without active directengagement in China. But there are barriers to openengagement. While Chinese social workers lack thebroader social science base, Westerners lack thesensitivity to the Chinese political reality and tend tobe overly critical. The problem with social work scholars,and practitioners to a lesser extent, is that they are oftentoo ideological and, in this case, they are too detachedfrom the local realities. Their professional motivesmight not suit the needs of this emergent context. Thus,Jia (2008) reminds us that, despite the contribution ofsocial work academics from Hong Kong, they remainlargely outsiders (see also Tsang et al., 2008, co-authored by Jia, for a more detailed explanation of theposition and role of Hong Kong academics). Theproblem is compounded when outsiders are seen to be– and willingly promote themselves as – experts onChina.

The currency and credibility of external sources

Mindful of Jia’s (2008) critical position, let us pause toexamine the relevance and currency of the sources onwhich contributors to this debate base their expertise.Starting with the special issue of

Social Work Education

on ‘Social Work Education in Greater China’, whichTaylor guest edited (with Yuen-Tsang from Hong Kong),only one article deals directly with, and effectively pro-vides, a summary of prior knowledge on the develop-ment of social work education in Mainland China(Xiong & Wang, 2007). One – in the ‘Student/NewPractitioner’ section – provides a perspective from asocial work educator and graduate of Hong Kong Poly-technic and Beijing Universities’ retraining programmefor academics recruited to teach social work in China(Tong, 2007). Secondly, Iris Chi, formerly from HongKong and now living in the USA, guest edited a specialissue of

International Social Work

(Chi, 2005a) inwhich there were only two articles dealing directly withmainland China. One was co-authored by two academicsfrom Hong Kong based on their experiences in intro-ducing the first social work Masters course developedin collaboration between the University of Hong Kongand Fudan University in Shanghai in 2001 (Chan &Chan, 2005). The other was by a US academic whofocused on family interventions for patients withschizophrenia in China (Kung, 2005).

Interestingly, in the only article in the special issueof


from authors within mainland

China, Xiong and Wang (2007) claim that the firstMasters programme was introduced by Hong KongPolytechnic and Peking University in Beijing in 2000!They have graduated 100 social work educators over aperiod of 7 years. And Leung (2007) claims much moresuccess for his university’s initiatives in Shanghaiwhich, he says, ‘is considered to be at the forefront ofthe professionalisation of social work in China’ (p.393), having created some 1,300 jobs for social workersin government-sponsored non-governmental organisations(NGOs). But this is a drop in the ocean when, of the10,000 social work graduates annually, only 10 per centhave been able to obtain ‘social work’ positions. Themajority of these, it seems, graduate from Shanghai’s13 social work education programmes such that, by2006, ‘there were over 7,600 people with social workqualifications [only half of whom were registered] inShanghai’ (Leung, 2007: 394). Of the growing numberof charitable trusts and NGOs in Shanghai, most wereeducational businesses with only 18 per cent providingwelfare services. The employment pool for socialworkers is thus miniscule and the description of ‘virtualprofession’ most apt.

What is clear from this array of contributions on thedevelopment of social work in China is the commonpool of non-Chinese literature on which it draws, andhere I include that from Hong Kong academics. More-over, given (i) the rapid pace of development in Chinain the last 7 years, where the number of social workeducation programmes has tripled from 70 to 200, and(ii) the ever increasing body of Chinese social workscholarship – published within China in Chinese – onlythe most ardent and committed scholar on China couldkeep abreast of these developments.

With this in mind, let us see whether Jia’s (2008)claim that this recent scholarship draws on outdatedsources holds up. Starting with the special issue of


on the development of socialwork in China published in 2005, Chi (2005a), in herguest editorial, cited 14 references, of which only threerelated directly to social work in mainland China andwere published in the last 7 years (Chi, 2005b; Guan,2003; Xia & Guo, 2002). Kung’s (2005) article onschizophrenia in China cites 27 references, whichinclude only two published since 2000. Chan and Chan(2005) cite 14 references with none being published inthe last 7 years; only one, from the USA, was publishedin 2000. All other references in these three articlesreferred to work published in the 1990s or prior andnone referred to empirical articles.

Turning our attention to the so-called ‘China debate’in this journal, Taylor and Hutchings (2007) cite 52references, only six of which relate directly to thedevelopment of social work in China since 2000 andnone of which were written by scholars from withinmainland China (Chan & Chan, 2005; Cheung & Liu,

Gray


404


2004; Smith, 2003; Tsang et al., 2000; Tsang & Yan,2001; Yan & Tsang, 2005). In her response, Sewpaul(2007) cites 52 references, of which five related directlyto the development of social work in China and werepublished since 2000 – mainly from social work writersin Hong Kong (Chan & Chan, 2005; Chi, 2005a; Tam,2003; Yip, 2004; Yuen-Tsang & Wang, 2002). CunfuJia (2008) is thus on solid ground in criticising thesecontributors to the debate for drawing on outdated,secondhand – and mainly Western – literature.

So is Taylor and Hutchings’s (2008) uncritical appealto the so-called experts in their response to Jia (2008)justified? Who are the experts? What empirical evidencedo they have to claim such expertise? Effectively, as Jia(2008) points out, this tactic accuses all China’s expertsof being misguided. Who, then, is controlling theagenda? Jia (2008) clearly shows that there are insidersin China who are unhappy with this expert-dominatedoutsiders’ discourse. If social work’s claim to localresponsiveness is to have any credibility at all, thensurely it is the insiders like Jia (2008) who must beheeded. Not to acknowledge this is to imply that it isthey who have it wrong – and, therefore, that they arenot in touch with Chinese realities and are not doingtheir job properly. Given their resources – not tomention the limitations of language mentioned at theoutset – and China’s historical development, theseChinese colleagues are forced to silence and once againthe Western voices dominate. In social work parlance,this makes Western social work oppressive and does notallow Chinese-speaking colleagues to engage in thedialogue at all. It also renders social work’s claim tohonour local cultures and diversity hollow and smacksof standpointism. What social work is claiming, in fact,is that its partisan anti-oppressive stance is over-riding.As Pawson (2006: 6) notes in relation to evidence-basedpolicy:

. . . it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that workingfrom one standpoint involves making claims forentire peoples whilst speaking selectively. A morecomprehensive and dispassionate approach is neededin order to understand the always multiple, sometimescontradictory and occasionally perverse impacts ofpolicy reform.

Thus, a whole literature is developing without theinput of those who form its subject matter as the debatein this journal – and the ever-increasing number ofpapers in other English-language social work journalsfrom writers outside mainland China – shows. For themost part, the outside experts have been working inthe power centres located in Beijing and Shanghai,colleagues from Hong Kong Polytechnic University andthe University of Hong Kong, repectively, but howsuccessful have they been and have they over-statedtheir successes to gain political mileage. They have

been major players in developing Masters programmesfor social work educators, but a shortage of socialwork academics remains. Since many of the existingacademics have been retrained from other disciplinesand have no idea what social work practice is, there isa shortage of fieldwork educators and supervisors. Infact, social work students create placement opportunitiesand higher level students or past graduates supervisenew students. Add to this that social work is a virtualprofession in China: it has social work graduates but nojobs for them. So while higher educational reform isexpanding the new

discipline

of social work, there remainsa lack of suitably qualified social work academics andmany have no social work training and experience.There are concerns that the poorly developed curriculaand the absence of field placements and jobs forgraduates hamper the development of the social work

profession

in China (Yan & Cheung, 2006). Thus far,the development of social work has been confinedwithin higher education to its growth as an academicdiscipline (Tsang et al., 2008).

As Tsang et al. (2008) observe, the future develop-ment of the social work profession – in other words, itspractice within Chinese human services – lies in thehands of the government, specifically the Ministry ofCivil Affairs where Jia (2008) is the Director of theDepartment of Social Work of the College of CivilAffairs, the training arm of MoCA. He is thus an expertin this field. He is dealing with social work’s develop-ment at the coalface. The Chinese government hascommitted itself to training 10,000 registered socialworkers over the next 5 years (http://www.mca.gov.cn/sw/fugle_show6.asp). The Chinese government hasrecognised social work’s potential to contribute to socialsolidarity and stability and to economic prosperity(Xiong & Wang, 2007). As has happened with manyWestern governments in Western countries, as socialwork spread across the world from the UK, Europe andthe USA, and Hong Kong (Yuen & Ho, 2007), theChinese government is likely to be a key player in thedevelopment of human services and social welfare, withsocial work playing an important role.

The way forward

China is a vast country and the challenges are immense.Researchers attempting to build empirical evidencecollaboratively from the ground up see a very differentpicture emerging from that painted by outside scholars(see e.g. Szto, 2006, 2007; Tsang et al., 2000; Tsang &Yan, 2001; Tsang et al., 2008). Such empirical evidencefrom within China regarding culturally appropriate,local social work responses is helpful to those shapinghuman services policy and practice in China. Herecommunity development appears to be the model ofchoice, which is somewhat out of kilter with highly

http://www.mca.gov.cn/sw/fugle_show6.asp



405

individualistic Western models of social work practice.It is thus highly likely that social work will not benarrowly defined but will be inclusive of diverse stake-holders including those with social work qualificationsand those with other forms of human services training.

These researchers see the importance of engagingChinese stakeholders at all levels – from grassrootscommunities to government officials and ministers –through dialogue rather than through benchmarkinginternational definitions and standards or creatingartificial dichotomies that emphasises the differencesbetween East and West. They see a dialogical approachas a possible way forward (Leung, 2007; Tsang et al.,2000, 2001; Yan & Tsang, 2008). Such an approachprovides a safeguard against the imperialism of the‘West is best’ discourse, which clearly persists in muchof the external literature on social work in China citedpreviously. However, I do not wish to imply agreementon the monolithic construction of ‘Western social work’.It is diverse, though at root it draws on the Westernphilosophical tradition where forms of ‘rationality’ arehighly valued. There is no escaping that social work isa Western profession with a knowledge base steeped inrational explanations of reality, a scientific approachand individualistic perspectives. It seeks to have or topromote universal values, principles, education standardsand so on, and is bent on standardisation in everysphere, most recently the formalisation of guidelines forresearch and international exchange being developed bythe IASSW (International Association of Schools ofSocial Work).

In any event, historically, China has always had ‘socialworkers’ or, at least, a social role formally designatedto help the poor and disenfranchised, including thekinship system, which has provided uneven informalcare for 6,000 years. Peter Szto, who has been researchingChina’s floating populations, sees China’s socialdevelopment as loosely paralleling the emergence ofprofessional social work in the USA in the late-19thcentury’s Progressive Era, which saw the decline of thestructure of the family, the replacement of religiousmotives for care provision with scientific reasoning andthe emergence of a ‘welfare state’. However, I seeparallels with the development of social work in thecolonising era in the mid-20th century when debatesabout professional imperialism and indigenisation firstarose. To avoid a repeat of this colonising agenda, thisarticle argues that some safeguards are needed forinternational engagement with China. To recap, at thevery least, language translation facilities or a grasp ofthe original language is needed if diverse Chinesecultures in the vast land which is China are to be fullyappreciated and embraced. Secondly, access to, and athorough knowledge of, firsthand sources, includingChinese policy and legislation, is important. Thirdly, tofully appreciate local realities, it is essential that

‘outside experts’ spend time in China in a researchfieldwork capacity. Fourthly, they need to consult withlocal and national stakeholders and indigenous Chineseresearchers. Fifthly, empirical evidence from withinChina regarding culturally appropriate, effective localsocial work responses should form the basis of authenticdialogue, thus creating the possibility of a two-waytransfer of knowledge between China and the broadersocial work community.

Acknowledgements

I am extremely grateful to colleagues who so willinglyassisted me with earlier drafts of this article.

References

Chan KL, Chan LW (2005). Chinese culture, social work educationand research.


48: 381–389.Cheung M, Liu M (2004). The self-concept of Chinese women

and the indigenisation of social work in China.

InternationalSocial Work

47: 109–127.Chi I (2005a). Social work in China: Guest editorial for the

special issue.


48: 371–379.Chi I (2005b). Social work practice with older adults in China.

In: Berkman B, D’Ambruso S, eds.,

The Oxford Handbookof Social Work in Aging

. New York, Oxford University Press.Coates J, Gray M, Hetherington T (2006). Ecology and spirituality:

Finally, a place for Indigenous social work.

British Journalof Social Work

36: 381–399.Gray M (2002). Editorial: Dancing to the beat of our own drum.

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk

38: xx–xxii.Gray M (2003). Editorial: Indigenous social work, culturally

sensitive social work or plain ‘good social work’: Are theyone and the same?


39: xix–xxii.

Gray M (2005). Dilemmas of international social work: Para-doxical processes in indigenisation, imperialism and univer-salism.

International Journal of Social Welfare

14: 230–237.

Gray M, Allegritti I (2002). Cross-cultural practice and the indi-genisation of African social work.

Social Work/MaatskaplikeWerk

38: 324–336.Gray M, Allegritti I (2003). Towards culturally sensitive social

work practice: Re-examining cross-cultural social work.

SocialWork/Maatskaplike Werk

39: 312–325.Gray M, Allegritti I (2005). Mamphele Ramphele and Xhosa

culture: Some insights on culture, self-determination andhuman rights for South African social work.


41: 131–142.Gray M, Coates J, Hetherington T (2007). Hearing indigenous

voices in mainstream social work.

Families in Society

88:53–64.

Gray M, Coates J, Yellow Bird M, eds. (2008).

Indigenous socialwork around the world: Towards culturally relevant educationand practice

. Aldershot, Hants, Ashgate.Gray M, Fook J (2004). The quest for a universal social work:

Some issues and implications.


23:625–644.

Guan XP (2003). Social welfare reform in China. In: Preston PW,Haacke J, eds.

Contemporary China: The dynamics of changeat the start of the New Millennium

. London, RoutledgeCurzon.Hutchings A, Taylor I (2007). Defining the profession?

Exploring an international definition of social work in theChina context.


16:382–390.

Gray


406


Jia C (2008). Correcting misconceptions about the developmentof social work in China: A response to Hutchings and Taylor.


17: 98–101.Kung WW (2005). Western model, Eastern context: Cultural

adaptations of family interventions for patients with schizo-phrenia in China.


48: 409–418.Leung JCB (2007). An international definition of social work

for China.


16: 391–397.

Neitzsche F (1969).

On the genealogy of morals

. New York,Vintage Books.

Pawson R (2006).

Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective

.London, Sage.

Sewpaul V (2007). Challenging East–West value dichotomiesand essentialising discourse on culture and social work.


16: 398–407.Sin R (2008). Reconfiguring ‘Chineseness’ in the international

discourse on social work in China. In: Gray M, Coates J,Yellow Bird M, eds.

Indigenous social work around theworld: Towards culturally relevant education and practice

.Aldershot, Hants, Ashgate.

Smith A (2003). Social work and ethnic minorities: Socialdevelopment in the People’s Republic of China.

InternationalSocial Work

46: 403–419.Szto P (2006). A visual study of China’s Floating Population in

Guangzhou, China. Paper presented at

Council on SocialWork Education Annual Program Meeting

, 16–19 February.Szto P (2007). Cultural context and social technology transfer:

the case of Canton, China.

International Journal of SocialWelfare

16: 55–64.Tam TSK (2003). Humanitarian attitudes and support of govern-

ment responsibility for social welfare: A study of perceptionsof social work graduates in Hong Kong and the People’sRepublic of China.


46: 449–467.

Taylor I, Hutchings A (2008). Correcting misconceptionsabout the development of social work in China: A responseto Cunfu Jia.


17:102–104.

Tong M (2007). Reflection on social work field education inMainland China: A journey to become a professional socialwork educator.


26: 645–648.Tsang AKT, Sin R, Jia C, Yan MC (2008). Another snapshot on

social work in China: Capturing multiple positioning andintersecting discourses in rapid movement.

Australian SocialWork

61: 72–87.Tsang AKT, Yan M-C (2001). Chinese corpus, western applica-

tion: The Chinese strategy of engagement with western socialwork discourse.


44: 433–454.Tsang AKT, Yan MC, Shera W (2000). Negotiating multiple

agendas in international social work: The case of the China–Canada collaborative project.

Social Work and Globalisation:Canadian Social Work Special Issue

2: 147–161.Yan MC, Cheung KW (2006). The politics of indigenization:

Development of social work in China.

Journal of Sociologyand Social Welfare

33: 63–83.Yan MC, Tsang AKT (2005). A snapshot on the development of

social work education in China: A Delphi study.

Social WorkEducation

24: 883–901.Yan MC, Tsang AKT (2008). Re-envisioning indigenization:

When

bentuhuade

and

bentude

social work intersect inChina. In: Gray M, Coates J, Yellow Bird M, eds.

Indigenoussocial work around the world: Towards culturally relevanteducation and practice

. Aldershot, Hants, Ashgate.Yip K (2004). A Chinese cultural critique of the global

qualifying standards for social work education.

Social WorkEducation

23: 597–612.Yuen AWK, Ho DKL (2007). Social work education in Hong

Kong at the crossroads: Challenges and opportunities amidstmarketization and managerialism.


23:546–559.

Yuen-Tsang A, Ku B (2008). A journey of a thousand milesbegins with one step: The development of culturally relevantsocial work education and fieldwork practice in China. In:Gray M, Coates J, Yellow Bird M, eds.

Indigenous socialwork around the world: Towards culturally relevant educationand practice

. Aldershot, Hants, Ashgate.Yuen-Tsang AWK, Wang S (2002). Tensions confronting the

development of social work in China: Challenges and oppor-tunities.


45: 375–388.Xia X, Guo J (2002). Historical development and characteristics

of social work in today’s China.

International Journal ofSocial Welfare

11: 254–262.Xiong Y, Wang S (2007). Development of social work education

in China in the context of new policy initiatives: Issues andchallenges.


26: 560–572.

some considerations on the debate on social work in china: who speaks for whom?

Documents