A response to the debates between Hutchings and Taylor and Jia on the Global Standards in China

Abstract

This article is in response to Hutchings and Taylor's, and Jia's, debate on the Global Standards for social work education and training and the development of social work in China. It is argued in the article that: (i) we should examine the Global Standards and their applicability to China from a dialectical and historical perspective, and not deny the relevance of the application of the Global Standards to China solely from the point of view of ‘Western social work standards’, nor to accept uncritically the applicability of the Global Standards to China; and (ii) with this perspective, neither Western scholars nor Chinese scholars are more suitable than the other for judging whether or not the Global Standards are applicable to China. The most important factor in making this judgement is the presence of an adequate and unprejudiced discussion and communication between and among Chinese and Western scholars.

‘Indigenization’ and knowledge development: Extending the debate

“…While this method has its limitations, it heightens the possibility for the development of indigenized Chinese models of research and practice. The search for a Chinese social work identity is made ever-more difficult by internationalizing forces within social work, which have given rise to an intense debate on the 'indigenization' of social work in China (Cheng, 2008;Gray, 2008b;Hutchings & Taylor, 2007;Jia, 2008;Taylor & Hutchings, 2008;Yunong & Xiong, 2008). It may be that one way to accelerate indigenized social work is to restrict academic positions to nationals or locals, limit funding to research that addresses national and local problems and encourage the writing of national/local textbooks and teaching materials and the development of national/local scholarly journals which publish culturally relevant research.…”

“…Establishing a new field of knowledge development of Indigenous social work in these developing contexts, however, also requires political decisions that encourage the development of Indigenous research and scholarship. Such measures are observable in China, for example, where attempts are being made to devise an indigenized Chinese social work education and practice (Cheng, 2008;Gray, 2005Gray, , 2008aGray, , 2008bJia, 2008;Yuen-Tsang and Wang, 2002). This has involved the retraining of academics from non-viable disciplines in Chinese universities to teach social work (Yan and Tsang, 2008;Yuen-Tsang and Ku, 2008).…”

A critical review of Chinese and international social work: Walking a tightrope between local and global standards

“…In reply, Taylor and Hutchings (2008) acknowledged that the quest for global standards based on 'fixed notions and criteria developed in the west' (p. 103) might not be universally applicable. Cheng (2008) advocated a more generalised definition of, and culturally appropriate standards for, Chinese social work. In their survey of social work, students and practitioners in China, Zhao et al (2018) found that most were committed to social work values as defined by the United States Association of Social Workers, including respect for basic individual rights and commitment to social advocacy, albeit to a lower degree than their Western counterparts.…”

Indigenization in a globalizing world: A response to Yunong and Xiong (2008)

“…A review of the literature on indigenization reveals that most authors use the term to refer to the irrelevance of western social work to non-western contexts. Gray (2005) noted that China presented an interesting case study on western social work's transportability and drew attention to debates on the development of social work education in China, where, as yet, no formal practice exists, noting that it had reignited the indigenization question (Cheng, 2008;Gray, 2005Gray, , 2008Hutchings and Taylor, 2007;Jia, 2008;Taylor and Hutchings, 2008;Tsang et al, 2000;Yan and Tsang, 2008;Yuen-Tsang and Wang, 2002). It is heartening to see our Chinese colleagues entering into discussions on the nature of social work and its development in or transfer to China.…”

“…They regard non-democratic systems as unjust and out of step with international human rights conventions. So how do its standards relate to China (Cheng, 2008;Hutchings and Taylor, 2007;Jia, 2008;Yip, 2004)? How do its standards and values cohere with the more enduring, less flexible aspects of Chinese cultures, which people do not easily relinquish?…”