The challenges of contextualization: Critical reflections on communicating local value within a global study

Abstract

International social work research and global collaborations offer opportunities to share knowledge, better understand social problems, engage in comparative analysis and work collectively to examine possible solutions. This Research Note reports on key lessons learnt from leading the Aotearoa New Zealand branch of a global study focused on working conditions and well-being of social workers. Addressing contextual differences including language and expression, local partnerships and ethical considerations, the critical reflections share strategies used in the pursuit of respecting diversity while communicating local value within a global study.

Introduction

The Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development stresses the importance of international collaboration, solidarity and global connectedness in achieving ‘sustainable futures that highlight responsibility between all peoples and environment’ and is described as central to facilitating ‘universal rights, opportunities, freedom and sustainable wellbeing for all people nationally, regionally and globally’ (International Association of Schools of Social Work; International Council on Social Welfare and International Federation of Social Workers, 2020: 5). Reinforced by Ife (2001), globalization has been argued as affecting all aspects of social work, whereby social problems are perceived to have a global dimension. International social work perspectives and practices, therefore, cannot be marginalized or sidelined if the profession seeks to pursue and uphold social justice and human rights. Collaboration in research across borders is essential for facilitating global understanding and to share knowledge, successes, challenges, and experiences to identify possible future solutions (Ornellas et al., 2019; Spolander et al., 2014). This is of increasing significance with the persistence of global challenges including poverty and inequality (Pelaez et al., 2024), forced migration (Palattiyil et al., 2022), global health crises/COVID-19 (Banks et al., 2020; Truell and Crompton, 2020) and natural disasters, to name a few.

Recognizing the unity that is possible in diversity, there are multiple opportunities offered by partnering in a global study, such as ensuring the experiences of smaller nations are not excluded from the larger voice, strengthening advocacy efforts, and potential for comparative analysis to track progress within global trends. Reflecting on the significance of international collaboration for achieving sustainable solutions to local and global challenges, this article discusses the lessons learned from leading the Aotearoa New Zealand branch of a global study investigating the workforce conditions and well-being of social workers.

Project background and aims

Social workers have among the most difficult working conditions of all equivalent professions (Ravalier et al., 2022), with reports highlighting risks of burnout (Depanfilis and Zlotnik, 2008; McFadden et al., 2015), high levels of work-related anxiety (Coyle et al., 2005), bureaucratic burdens (Pascoe et al., 2023) and experiences of online abuse and harassment including death threats and digital stalking (Burns et al., 2024). Workplace conditions have been shown to affect employee well-being and impact social work practice, with connections made to turnover and attrition in the workforce (Ravalier et al., 2024).

This research sought to explore the working conditions and well-being of social workers around the globe, using an online survey that draw upon two measures: (1) the Management Standards Indicator Tool and (2) the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. Demographic data were collected to consider cohort comparisons (Ravalier et al., 2022). The research was informed by three core questions:

• Research Question 1 (RQ1). What are the characteristics of working conditions for social workers across different global regions?

• Research Question 2 (RQ2). What are the differences in working conditions and well-being across different global regions?

• Research Question 3 (RQ3). Which working conditions are most impactful on well-being in different regions of the world? (See Ravalier et al., 2022: 1080 for full details.)

Findings from the first two iterations of the study are reported elsewhere (Ravalier et al., 2024). Aotearoa researchers joined for the third iteration of the study.

Lessons

While social work internationally has some overarching similarities in terms of adherence to the global agenda, the global definition of social work and shared values, it is important to recognize that contexts, language and practice approaches differ (Hawkins, 2023; Spolander et al., 2014, 2016). Such regional differences should be critical considerations when planning how to engage with local communities and what adaptions are necessary to ensure unique cultural positions are treated with dignity and are not lost within the wider research and data set. Of particular concern to the authors was ensuring a commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the founding document of Aotearoa, and recognition of Māori as tangata whenua, the indigenous peoples of the land, were upheld.

Language and expression

As argued by Tripodi and Potocky-Tripodi, (2007: 10), ‘knowledge of idiomatic expressions in other languages is basic to transnational and cross-cultural competency’. The complexities of translation in cross-cultural research have been discussed elsewhere (see de Wet et al., 2020) highlighting how researchers often underestimate the time and resourcing required. Despite the authors having a strong understanding of the local context, having trained as bicultural practitioners in Aotearoa, and current local employment as educators and researchers in social work, the limitations of knowledge, including the nuance to language and concepts that underpin indigenous worldviews, were recognized in the initial considerations of the study. Subsequently, a collaborative research partnership with a Māori academic, colleague and researcher was prioritized to consider appropriate protocols and communication that reflect the commitment to tikanga (cultural processes and protocol), te reo (language) and indigenous knowledges in adapting the process and information from the global study to the Aotearoa context.

A further challenge was the use of measures which were developed in the United Kingdom, underpinning concepts of well-being and workplace conditions that were deemed relevant to that context. Terminology might not always be the same in different countries and communities, a recognized challenge and limitation to international research. Although a limiting factor, applying consistent measures does enable a level of comparability in findings (Ornellas et al., 2019). Limitations were mitigated, to some extent, by ensuring the Aotearoa survey incorporated a question that addressed the collective orientation of well-being to better acknowledge local holistic indigenous perspectives.

Collaboration

To contribute to the global study and ensure the validity of the tools, the measures could not be altered. The survey did, however, allow space for up to four additional questions in response to the local context of each partnered nation. Collaboration with the local professional association was deemed necessary to ensure relevant tailored questions were incorporated. This involved working with the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) to discuss pressing concerns and evolving policy developments affecting the sector. The study, therefore, adopted a secondary aim, to capture perspectives regarding local issues related to workplace conditions and well-being. The additional four questions focused on capturing participants’ perceived impact of a recent social work pay equity settlement, access to supervision to support well-being, sufficient time to connect with others (for example friends, family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and/or community), and an open-ended question for participants to comment on any other factors that impact their well-being. These context-specific questions communicated value to participants by highlighting a commitment to targeting local needs within the global study. The collaborative relationship with ANZASW also aided the process of recruitment by advertising on the association’s website, social media page and e-newsletters, further communicating relevance and validity of the research to the membership base. Dissemination plans include local conference presentations, publishing with the Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work journal, and communication with the professional association.

The process of meaningful collaboration takes time (Hawkins, 2023), and international research has been described as complicated, with potential to give rise to anxieties for both individual researchers and partnered institutions (Spolander et al., 2016). Building relationships, understanding complexities that underpin recommendations, engaging with indigenous perspectives through collaborative partnership, and examining the nuances of phrasing and subsequent meanings from different positionalities required multiple meetings and space for dialogue. Furthermore, self-reflection to adopt a learning mind-set and unpack any assumptions based on the authors’ own insights into the profession as academics and registered social workers was vital.

Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations included thinking about the time commitment for participation. As noted earlier, social workers work long hours, have complex roles and responsibilities. They are also subject to funding and role constraints, often within settings fraught with political implications (Ravalier et al., 2021). Attracting social workers to participate in a global survey in among existing obligations was a challenge. The inclusion of local questions targeting local issues, future opportunities and repeated advertising using different recruitment strategies were some ways to demonstrate value. However, local community engagement remains problematic.

In addition, considerations were given to different cultural nuances. Participating in the research took the authors on a journey to learn about data sovereignty; the implications for participation; and the responsibility for researchers in relation to indigenous data (Brown et al., 2023). Māori consider their data taonga (treasure), they should have authority over their data to determine what can and cannot be shared. Asking Māori social workers to participate in this global study and to share their data with others places obligations on researchers related to data disaggregation, and decision-making around its use to minimize future harms (Brown et al., 2023). Not only did this require transparency in communicating to participants how data would be used, it also required early agreement with the global team that the data would be returned to the Aotearoa researchers. This included the need for a detailed codebook to ensure the data could be understood in raw form before analysis was completed. Ongoing engagement and collaboration with indigenous peoples is essential in determining next steps for analysis and dissemination.

The process of collaboration and consideration of data sovereignty led to the establishment of an Aotearoa survey hyperlink to embed a context-specific information sheet and tailored closing message. These adjustments supported transparency by providing space for the researchers to introduce themselves through the opening text, reiterate collaboration with ANZASW, and explicit statements on how data would be used.

Conclusion

Ultimately, it is important to critically consider the limitations and potential barriers to participation that standardized surveys and information sheets can create. Collaborating with local partners aids in respecting diversity to uphold the norms of different contexts and communities, while holding space for indigenous perspectives.