No abstract

No abstract

Language operates as a form of differentially valued cultural capital that is an influential factor in educational and employment outcomes. English in particular represents a valuable form of linguistic capital in both the broader world market and many regional and local contexts. This article, focusing on one group of professionals, draws on an exploratory study carried out with overseas-born bilingual social workers residing in Australia, who reflect on how their language identities intersect with their professional identities in the human services workplace. Although most informants identified tangible benefits associated with being bilingual, especially in terms of working with a diverse clientele, they were equally aware of how being categorized as a 'non-native' speaker of English could diminish their professional credibility and thwart their chances of upward mobility in the workplace. In this regard, this article highlights inconsistencies in how difference is valued in the human services workplace, implicating a more covert process of linguistic othering.

No abstract

SummaryLanguage is infused in multiple dimensions of human behaviour, and social work is essentially a language-centred activity. Yet, despite the pivotal position of language to many social work activities, its significance has rarely been explored in terms of difference. Moreover, the linguistic diversity that characterizes the local and global contexts in which many practitioners operate has been given minimal attention in the social work literature. In this paper, I contend that how language is conceptualized in social work both shapes and constrains the way that practitioners perceive issues relating to linguistic diversity. The paper maps out the limitations of some of the existing conceptual lens used for viewing language in relation to the multilingual milieu in which social work takes place. It also draws attention to the global pre-eminence of English, the significance of bilingualism and the limitations of a monolingual frame of reference for social work. A case is made for augmenting the existing knowledge base on language with a multidisciplinary approach to language that incorporates bilingual perspectives. Rather than providing a definitive model for understanding language, I suggest that such an approach expands the conceptual landscape for exploring language and difference in social work.