The challenge with defining social work in Fiji

Abstract

For Pacific Islands like Fiji, the dominance of Western social work approaches highlights stark resource disparities between the West and so called 'developing' nations. Western-centric codes and standards often undervalue local traditions and stages of development, risking accusations of imperialism and perpetuating colonialism. These approaches often conflict with collectivist values rooted in kinship, community networks, and extended family systems that characterize many non-Western cultures. The adoption of international standards may restrict the development of indigenous theories and practices. However, despite growing awareness of cultural relativity and indigenisation, uncritical adoption of Western methods in the Pacific Islands remains prevalent. This paper utlises talanoa, a Pacific qualitative methodology to explore the lived practice experiences and understandings of 61 social workers across the Fiji Islands. It highlights sites of contention as Fijian social workers grapple with informal, relationally driven and community imbued models in start contrast to individualised and case management approaches. Such narratives reveal a dichotomy between a drive for “Fiji style” and culturally informed practice and a push to enforce neoliberal ideals. These sites of contention within Fiji depict a microcosm of global debates within international social work and offer unique insights into the way social work continues to both unify and polarise its global community.

Introduction

While social work as a professional vocation and academic tradition had strong roots in the Anglo sphere, the past decade has witnessed a notable global expansion of professionalised social work practice (Ife and Tascon, 2019). This expansion is particularly evident in regions like the South Pacific, South East Asia, and parts of Africa, driven by the need for formal social services to address issues such as poverty, social inequality, urbanisation, changing family structures, and emerging social problems (Dansie et al., 2024). Globalisation has played a pivotal role in shaping contemporary social work practice, leading to the internationalisation of social problems and necessitating the development of culturally relevant approaches to service delivery (Levy et al., 2024). Some argue that globalisation has led to the dominance of Western ideologies and practices, marginalising local traditions, with others further advocating for the preservation of indigenous knowledge and practices in social work (Mafile’o et al., 2019; Parry and George, 2024). These divergent views reflect the contested space within social work, shaped by competing ideologies and worldviews of various stakeholders. Such divergence raises questions as to whether it is possible, or even desirable for social work to have a unifying definition, values and practice base by which to establish global or local social work identities. These questions as to the role, purpose and construction of social work speak to the very essence of how social workers may be called to respond to the challenges facing our world, particularly as we face a shared global climate crisis.

This article stems from the author’s original PhD research and actively acknowledges the researchers’ position as a white, Western educated, and formally trained ‘social worker’. The researcher deliberately utilised Talanoa research methodology as in acknowledgement of the colonial legacy of the Fijis Islands and efforts to minimise acts of neocolonialism clever hidden under the guise of ‘professionalisation’ or capacity ‘development’. The ongoing tensions of researcher positionality and issues of neocolonialism and decoloniality as they link to this project have been written about elsewhere (see for example Saxton, 2018, 2019; Saxton and Barry, 2025). Rather, this article focuses on global tensions within social work and how these are reflected in the daily experiences of social workers in Fiji. Global debates about the definition of social work tend to reflect broader concerns within social work circles about the roles of social workers and how these align to the profession’s basic values (Jones, 2024; Schrooten, 2024). Disputes centre on whether the profession should be primarily committed to remedial, activist, or developmental forms of practice (Brydon, 2012), as well as tensions regarding the universality of human rights principles across diverse cultural settings (Ife and Tascon, 2016). There are also competing discourses as to whether social work needs to be seen as a professional project or whether the professionalising of social care further serves neo-liberal Western agendas, rather than promoting indigenous models of well-being (McDonald, 2006).

Utilising a qualitative Pacific research methodology known as talanoa, this article draws from Pacific epistemological ideas to inform both the research design and to facilitate a process whereby participant and researchers become co-creators of new knowledge and meaning making. Talanoa is particularly appropriate for use in Pacific contexts where the researcher may have extensive knowledge of the context but may not be considered an ‘insider’ or from the local area (Mafile’o et al., 2019). This is due to the way in which talanoa enables co-construction and co-generation of ideas and creates nuanced spaces for diverse voices to speak alongside and with one another, rather than in binary or oppositional terms (Ravulo et al., 2019). This article also acknowledges the role of the researcher’s own positionality as a kai valangi [white person] and that despite efforts to privilege Fijian voices in the construction of localised social work methods of practice, these findings highlight the insidious nature of neoliberal rhetoric across a globalised social work setting. As such, international conversations about the nature and purpose of social work need to be overt in efforts to support localised and indigenous constructions of the profession.

Background

The nation of Fiji is a geographically isolated archipelago comprised of over 300 islands spreading across 1.3 million square kilometres of the Pacific Ocean. It is also home to about 900,000 people with the majority living in the capital city, Suva (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [DFAT], 2024). Like many Island Nations, Fiji has gained increasing global attention due to the catastrophic impacts of climate change and environmental injustice disproportionately impacting lower income economies (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2022). Fiji also faces challenges of a disproportionately young population, with low life expectancy attributed largely to non-communicable diseases and compounded by poor healthcare services, rapid urbanisation and widespread poverty (Alam and Ali, 2022). This provides a backdrop for social workers to take a key role in responding to contemporary social challenges, particularly as they link to climate change, green social work, and issues of global inequality and ecological justice. Indeed, Fiji has become a well-respected leader and advocate for climate change action across the global stage (Foerster et al., 2024).

Once ruled by the British crown, Fiji regained independence from Britian in 1970. However, the ongoing impacts of colonial rule continue to influence daily life, including education, judicial and parliamentary systems designed to replicate British structures (Lal, 1992). In Fiji, like in many post-colonial contexts where indigenous knowledges co-exist, these knowledges are often forced to compete with British imperialist ideas which value economic productivity, growth and scientific rationalism (Greer and Neu, 2009). Fiji’s colonial past, reliance on foreign aid, and globalisation risk overshadowing indigenous social work models with Western frameworks. This is particularly problematic given the collectivist ideals of Pacific Island cultures, which contrast with individualistic Western practices (Va’ai and Nabobo-Baba, 2017). While i’Taukei (indigenous) Fijians have long engaged informally in community development and kinship-based support, social work as a professional field is relatively new. Currently, no national definitions or formal recognition of social work training exist in nations such as Fiji, Samoa, French Polynesia, and other smaller island countries (Beecher et al., 2012). The definition and code of ethics adopted by the Fiji Association of Social and Community Workers (FASCW) directly reflect those of the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), underscoring the significant influence of international frameworks on shaping social work in Fiji (Saxton, 2021). For small Pacific Islands like Fiji, the adoption of Western-based social work models highlights stark resource disparities between wealthier Western and comparatively low-income nations. Social work codes and standards, often developed in resource-rich countries, can undervalue traditions and stages of development unique to other contexts (Faleolo, 2013).

For nearly two decades, Finn and Jacobson (2008) have called for a new social work paradigm to address the challenges of a globalised practice environment. Although the push may be to apply Western social work theories and methods, the question of whether these theories and methods are suited to the local socio-cultural context remains highly contentious (Jones, 2024). This paper aims to document Fijian constructions of social work in order to highlight the complexities, opportunities, and challenges when enacting and interpreting social work in non-Western communities. The goal of this research is to better understand the nature of localised practice and contribute to a growing emergence of Pacific-centric social work literature. The production of social work literature from within the Pacific Islands may contribute to international interpretations of social work and assist re-theorising efforts for praxis within Pacific Island-based social work practice and curriculum development.

Research design

Talanoa methodology

Talanoa, a Fijian method rooted in Pacific oral traditions, involves storytelling and discussion to foster consensus and shared understanding (Halapua, 2003). While it may be used informally among friends, talanoa also follows formal cultural protocols, making it a valuable tool for collective decision-making (Vaka et al., 2016). Increasingly, it is employed as a culturally nuanced research method, emphasising the political, cultural, and socio-ecological dimensions of Pacific contexts (Farrelly and Nabobo-Baba, 2014). Talanoa also highlights relationality and connection to land, society, and identity, integral to Pacific worldviews (Fonua, 2005). It emphasises reciprocity and collective consciousness, with researchers actively participating in cultural and community life to build trust and mutual respect. This approach was essential for this research; where the researcher was also a community member, living and working within the Fijian community, attending events, learning local languages, and sharing resources (Halapua, 2005). These interactions were not transactional but born from genuine curiosity and commitment to relational ethics. The allowability of time to build and nurture relationships is a consideration for those wanting to utilise talanoa as an approach to research. The time taken to establish trust was often at odds with Western University pressures to meet predetermined deadlines well suited to the needs of the institution (rather than Fijian communities). In response, the researcher elected to conduct this study while enrolled part-time as a PhD candidate, in order to enable adequate time to establish meaningful community relationships.

Talanoa was further employed because, in the Fijian context, important issues are often discussed collectively (Vaka et al., 2016). The talanoa group method enables in-depth discussions, allowing participants to compare experiences and develop shared understandings (Tamasese et al., 2005). In addition to group discussions, individual talanoa sessions were conducted with social workers, centring participants in the research and valuing their unique insights. Individual interviews use language as a tool for both interviewer and interviewee to construct representations of their world and gain deeper self-awareness. This approach transforms participants into active contributors to knowledge, fostering collaboration rather than positioning them as passive research subjects (Va’ai and Nabobo-Baba, 2017). In social work research, reliance on Western frameworks risks intellectual colonisation, marginalising indigenous knowledge and reinforcing neo-colonial dynamics (Ravulo, 2017). Talanoa offers a decolonising approach, centring indigenous epistemologies to interpret data through local perspectives (Tuhiwai Smith, 2012).

Within Pacific research settings, Ramacake (2010) also notes the importance of cultural protocols, such as presenting yaqona (kava) before work begins. While none of the talanoa sessions required kava ceremonies due to their non-village settings, food sharing, such as tea, bread, and cakes, was customary. This mirrored a similar approach utilised by the researcher during the Health in Prisons (HIP) project (Kinner et al., 2015) where bread, tea and biscuits were offered as loloma (gifts of reciprocity) to research participants. Positive and reciprocal relationships were crucial to research viability. As both a researcher and former community member, the author remains accountable to the Pacific peoples and participants who shared their stories, consistent with Pacific Health Research Council guidelines (2003). In addition to ethics approval from the researcher’s own University, formal approval to conduct research in Fiji was also granted by the Fijian Ministry of Education, the Department of Immigration, and with endorsement by the University of the South Pacific.

Participants

Snowball sampling was used to recruit participants for this research. Initially the researcher approached the Fijian Association of Social Workers to recruit participants via email but found the “coconut wireless” [word of mouth] to garner the highest responses. Participants who joined in this study all self-identified as social workers and their engagement with this research was not determined by a prescriptive definition of social work imposed by the researcher. Formal recognition of qualifications of social work is not a requirement for joining the Fijian Association of Social Work, in part due to the costs associated with acquiring formal training as well as the value placed on local knowledge. Another component of the rationale behind supporting research participants to self-identify was an acknowledgement of both international debates regarding the professionalisation of social work, and an awareness of similar tensions occurring at a local level within Fiji.

Talanoa sessions were conducted in six major Fijian townships: Suva, Nausori, Lautoka, Nadi, Labasa, and Savusavu. A total of 42 practitioners (26 females and 15 males) participated in individual discussions. In addition, group talanoa involving 19 participants were also held on the main islands of Viti Levua and Vanua Levu. None of the group participants had taken part in individual interviews, enhancing the diversity of the study. Talanoa is both a process and a methodology, in that it provided structure for the ways the interviews and group talanoa were held, but also by way of epistemological reasoning and the way in which the process was fluid and evolving, with no two groups or scenarios being identical. For both individual and group interviews there was the same set of semi-structured questions, brought in large part due to University requirements that required draft questions before ethics clearance would be given. In total, 61 participants from the Central, Northern, and Western Divisions of Fiji contributed to this research. The interviewees were recorded and then later transcribed using NVIVO to assist in thematic coding and analysis. Pseudonyms have been used when presenting participant narratives in recognition of the challenges to maintain privacy and confidentiality within small community and Pacific Islander contexts (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Map of Fiji Islands.

Coding and analysis

An inductive approach within talanoa was attractive to the researcher as it allowed opportunity to examine the research scenario within the Fijian practice setting, and to get an idea and intuitive sense of the lived practice experiences of participants. Aware of her position as a kai valangi (white) outsider, the researcher was driven by a strong commitment to maintain the integrity of the research participants and to provide a platform for the experiences of Fijian social work practitioners to be shared with a wider audience through research dissemination. An inductive approach to data analysis is favoured for the ways in which it attempts to honour the voices of the participants as the primary drivers of content (Dunk-West and Saxton, 2024). However, in practice, purely inductive reasoning proved too challenging, because the themes and patterns were not always clear and ‘theories’ difficult to extrapolate. The process was not always linear and thus benefited from having cross-over with more deductive approaches to analysis. What ensued was a more plausible data analysis process, where conclusions were made from the data flowing between the inductive process of generating themes and codes from the data and the more deductive process of checking how these themes apply to broader and pre-existing constructs of social work. Such a process mirrors more established thematic analysis in which recurring ideas and concepts were identified and collated (Braun and Clarke, 2021).

Douglass (2013) contributes to this position by arguing that interpretations about data are made, rather than found. Although every effort was taken to promote the voices within Fijian social work paradigms, Douglass (2013: 73) posits that data analysis is not something that is easily separated from data collection. Both involved many choices made by the researcher, regarding the epistemological positioning, research methodology, participant sample, lines of questioning, what to pursue, and what to leave out. These choices were all are product of, and integral to, developing an interpretation through qualitative analysis. One strategy used in the analytical phase was to identify key themes emerging from the participant narratives alongside key concepts similarly discussed by Pacific academic writers, poets and scholars. Added to this, the researcher made interpretive and analytical process explicit throughout the research process by engaging in a process of deliberate self-reflection and ensuring a Fijian academic was part of the PhD supervisory team. This involved regular supervisory meetings and cultural mentoring to check interpretations and develop meanings gathered through transcribing, reading and coding of data. Such an iterative and reflexive process also allowed for multiple opportunities to check meaning and to create shared understandings of phenomena under study. This is perfectly suited to a talanoa approach to research where the researcher and participants are not viewed as expert or passive recipients, but rather cocreators of knowledge and ideas (Tamasese et al., 2005).

This symbiotic relationship between what would be conceptualised in Western academic contexts ‘researcher’ and ‘participants’, is replicated in the presentation of the ‘results’ (key themes) below. In fact, this paper largely rejects the notion of researcher and participants as separate entities, but rather sees both within talanoa processes as valuable contributors to social and cultural understandings of the world. For this reason, the ‘results’ are presented as key themes, with analysis and meaning-making seen as integral, rather than separate to, the lived experiences of those whose narratives are encapsulated within the research (Halapua, 2008). As an approach to theorising, talanoa methodology is significant in that knowledge is shared to facilitate a collective understanding of social phenomena between all those involved in dialogue and exchange of ideas (Vaka et al., 2016).

Key themes

Social work is a contested space

Within this research participants describe the emergence of a social work professional identity within Fiji through mechanisms such as higher education and professional associations. As one participant shares:

You know, I can say that, going through university and all that, to me, social work is a new field. It’s a new field altogether, because I know people are saying it’s been here [in Fiji] for long, because of the Christian values, but I think the method of looking after clients is totally different and new (Joyce)

Others similarly allude to tension among the community as to who can reasonably consider themselves to be a social worker. Some social workers, particularly those with higher education or overseas training, put forward an argument that social work needs to be enshrined within formal mechanisms. As Mere shares:

When I first came back to Fiji from studying overseas – and I came back to Fiji to be a social worker – everybody said, ‘Oh, I’m a social worker too’. And I thought, ‘Yeah, but none of you had to go, like me, for four years to get a degree!’, and yet, you know, they are saying they are a social worker too. I think we need to just bring up the message more, to bring more awareness that it's an actual profession where qualifications are needed. (Mere)

Yet, on the other side of the debate, participants talk about social work being understood as something that you do, as a process of social care and support, rather than as a professional job. Several participants talk about social work being ‘natural’ to Fijians and a part of cultural practice that links to helping and serving those in your community. As Saini posits.

We can be social workers in our own ways. You don’t need to join a big organisation or a big social group. You can become your own social worker in your own social way, starting from individually, starting from how you look at your neighbour – you know, helping your neighbour, giving him food or whatever it is you have. That is social work – helping another person. (Saini)

This links to existing understandings of Fijian social work presented by Nickson and colleagues (2009) who focus on informal modes of social work practice and a strong convention regarding volunteering, church going and community participation as examples of social work practice. Similar constructs of social work have been articulated in Samoa, Tonga, Māori, and Hawaiian contexts (Faleolo, 2013; Mafile’o, 2008; Mulitalo-Lauta, 2000; Vakalahi and Godinet, 2014).

Social work as an informal helping process

The most common way social work in Fiji was described by participants was as a process of ‘helping people’. As Saini from Nadi says:

That is social work – helping another person. (Saini)

Morales et al. (2010) present an argument that viewing social work as the process of helping reflects an understanding of social work practice as natural rather than professional. This correlates with Mere’s position of social work and the process of helping others:

[T]hat’s something natural for us here, in Fiji. (Mere)

This may also position social work as an activity driven by values and not necessarily connected to a specific skill set or training (Mullaly, 2007). This paper seeks to alert readers that processes labelled as ‘informal’ are deeply reflective of ways of practice that are deeply rooted in Pacific epistemologies. Any global definition whereby ‘informal’ is delegitimised by a need to professionalise social work may diminish the significance of these practices as encapsulating Fijian ways of knowing, being, and doing. As shared by Joyce:

I know it’s never been written or recorded, you know and there’s not been much research of it, but I think a lot of people would call themselves social workers because of our [Fijian] values. (Joyce)

The commentary by Joyce regarding the lack of documentation may reinforce the notion that whilst traditional modes of social care have existed for some time, formal written documentation and research of what is considered social work is still largely non-existent in Fiji. Additionally, while some participants in this study allude to a shared informal understanding of what is considered social work, there are others who indicate a lack of community awareness of just what social work entails. Such dichotomies mirror similar tensions regarding definitions of social work within international social work contexts (Jones, 2024). This dichotomy also exists in terms of social work being a new and emerging concept versus a practice that has pre-existing cultural roots within Fiji. By officially documenting Fijian understandings of good practice, this paper encourages opportunities for Pacific social work theories to be further solidified and legitimised.

Case management

Despite a heavy emphasis on informal processes and strong engagement with traditional modes of social care (helping) in Fiji, there were examples in participant narratives that may reflect more Westernised understandings of social work as a professional construct. This manifests in workplace activities such as ‘needs assessment’ and ‘referral’, whereby the social worker had a function in the delivery of material assistance and case management. Unsurprisingly, this was most overt in those employed within the Department of Social Welfare (DSW). One DSW employee recounts how she is required to conduct a home visit to ascertain the ‘real’ situation of an applicant:

So, we go out to them and interview them, interview the neighbours, try to get out the real story. (Elanoa)

Another participant explains how he adopts the persona of ‘Agent Vinod’ in order to investigate client circumstances and get to the ‘truth’.

When we go to conduct home visit, we have to be very, very sharp, and putting on that Agent Vinod [persona], getting information, and be more inquisitive as we can, and ask more question, just to see whether they are telling the truth…and then, after the home visit, we come back and do our home visit report, and then we attach it together with the interview, the case history form, and then you can be sent for vetting. (Salesh)

The process of ‘assessment’ and determining eligibility for service delivery through vetting has striking correlations to welfare practices in Western contexts (Morley et al., 2019). This could pertain to global influence of neo-liberalism in the delivery of social support services, although the imposition of a British welfare model during colonisation is another obvious contributor. Many have also argued that the shifting focus on detecting welfare cheats further reflects the swing from welfare-liberalism to neo-liberalism (Chunn and Gavigan, 2004; DeSante, 2013; Moffit, 2015; Wacquant, 2009). As such, talanoa explored how decisions were made about who was eligible for payment and who was ineligible. Responses included the ‘poorest of the poor’ or, similar to many Western social work contexts, deservingness included an ability to meet ‘criteria’ based on the worker’s assessment.

Neoliberal discourse

These narratives of practice provide some clues as to how social issues such as poverty are perceived in Fiji, and thus how social workers should be called to respond. On the one hand, the collectivist ideal and significance of family may be apparent in the way in which social workers’ assessments involve the whole community as articulated by Saini:

If you’re going to work with people on a particular issue, then you look at it from different angles. Like, say, for example, what is the view of the church on that issue? What is the view of the community on that issue? What is the view of the elders on that issue? And you work together to address that issue. (Siani)

In similar narratives, social workers describe themselves as using ‘strengths’ or ‘holistic’ approaches to practice, as they view the ability to draw on broader community resources as evidence of this. Yet, on the other hand, the dominance of the ‘deserving poor’ and the focus on provision of material assistance have contributed to a narrative around welfare dependency. Siani uses metaphor to describe how she views social welfare as enabling people to be ‘lazy’.

The thing is with Fijians sometimes – you know how they say don’t give the person a fish; you’ve to teach him how to fish, because with all this assistance that has been given, it’s making them lazy, making Fijians lazy.

Again, we see correlations with political discourse in Australia, Great Britain, and the US, as the concept of individual responsibility for personal wealth permeates the views of some Fijian participants. Such positions reflect a neo-liberal focus on individualism that sees poverty as a consequence of laziness or a sign that an individual has not been exerting enough effort on their own to obtain employment (DeSante, 2013). These viewpoints lend themselves to the rise of terms such as welfare ‘dependency’ to allude that the provision of unemployment benefits only serves to reinforce recipients’ laziness, and that the act of receiving government assistance itself has become a symbol of un-deservingness (Moffit, 2015). The response may reflect a rise in authoritarian welfare practices that scrutinise the poor and morally demonise welfare recipients. Such practices reinforce politically conservative attitudes that poverty is a problem of individuals in civil society and that the solution to poverty is an individualised one to be chiefly found in the labour market or marriage (Chunn and Gavigan, 2004). These attitudes within the Fijian social work context suggest an imposition of Western neoliberal ideology.

Individualism

By problematising the individual, some Fijian social workers constructed their role as occurring on the individual level. As the person is the problem, there was no discussion about the impact of macro socio-political forces such as governance, fiscal policy, unemployment rates, or globalisation, and thus the role of the social worker remained at the micro level. In fact, several participants identified this individualised notion of practice as the demarcation of social work between that of other helping roles, such as community work.

So social work is more of trying to help them to have access to what they need at that time. It’s similar to community development, but social work would be more one to one, and it would be more of an individualistic approach. (Kesa)

This focus on individualism within social work practice in Fiji is curious, given the strong cultural onus on collectivism and shared social responsibility. The lack of connection between poverty, social policy, and the role of government(s) may be more easily explained given that the Department of Social Welfare, the establishment of a formalised Government, and the introduction of charity are the result of colonial imposition and in juxtaposition to many existing Fijian social structures. Having said that, individualism could also be argued as Western impetus, and this element of social work practice is actively shaping the way that practice is contextualised and practised in the Islands.

Some participants offered a critique of this situation, suggesting that it creates a condition of dependency or reliance on the social worker to fix issues.

And the best way to go about it [social work] is to come up with policies and approaches that will not only take off the handout mentality but more like help them be self-sustainable, be self-reliant, self-sufficient. (Saini)

In many ways, this taps into criticisms of the dominant welfare and charity models of social care that are a by-product of Fiji’s colonial history. One participant shares her disapproval of charity models and social welfare benefits.

You just giving them money but… are they really becoming self-sufficient? (Arti)

Catch-phrases such as social work needing to offer ‘a hand up, not a hand-out’ were mentioned on several occasions and are associated with liberal ideology colouring similar debates in Australian politics. This problematising at the individual level may also be a driving force behind participant calls for clients to be more ‘self-sufficient’, as though it is a lack of self-sufficiency that is the cause of their poverty (DeSante, 2013). The idea of welfare dependency and correlating critiques of the welfare state have existed for some time in Western constructs, with much of the critique centring on liberal ideals of independence (Morley et al., 2019). Again, this seems at stark odds to Fijian values of interdependence and communalism. The elephant in the room in all of this is the fact that these Fijian communities were self-sufficient prior to British colonisation.

At this point, it is important to flag the critical and de-colonialist paradigms through which the researcher/author is interpreting the discourse surrounding social work practice in Fiji. Such paradigms offer a critique of neo-liberal agendas that highlight the way in which the poor are punished and further marginalised (Moffit, 2015). This is not to assume that those who are operating within the neo-liberal models are deliberately or consciously wanting to further marginalise the poor (Wacquant, 2009). As a cultural outsider, the author does not wish to insinuate in any way that social workers in Fiji are deliberately promoting or endorsing capitalist neo-liberal agendas. Rather, this paper provides an outsider observation of the (unintended) consequence of neo-liberal approaches in social work via the perpetuation of the deservingness myth and a tendency to blame people who access social support for being deficient rather than acknowledging poverty as a consequence of unequal social structures (Chunn and Gavigan, 2004).

Social work Fiji style

It is important to flag that not all participants situated their practice within these welfare paradigms or are necessarily supportive of such constructions of social work. Some suggest social work has a role in supporting marginalised community and advocating for human rights. As Josephine shares:

Social workers should be at the forefront of attending to social issues that arise in the community, being the front-liners in supporting the marginalised and the vulnerable. (Josephine)

Or as Miranda adds:

We ensure clients and domestic violence victims are aware of the laws, what options are available, what they can do, human rights, their rights as a human being or a person in Fiji (Miranda)

These narratives present alternative paradigms of social work in Fiji as having a more community education or human rights agenda. There is also a strong focus on relationship building and reciprocity rather than top-down or welfarised understandings of practice. These Fijian constructions of practice highlight an alternative position to Western neo-liberal agendas that may be more congruent with Fijian cultural values, beliefs, and contextual considerations.

Sikeli, a male social worker from Suva, summates the differences between ‘Western’ social work and social work ‘Fiji style’:

You know, with assessment – conducting assessment, or techniques where there are a lot of questions involved – well, this is something that I found very hard with clients over here in Fiji. I mean, not hard, but just rude…So, I feel I really need to integrate my Fijian lifestyle; be laid back (Sekeli).

The process of getting to know one another and taking time to build relationship highlights the relational focus of social work in Fiji. Again, this is reflected in understandings of good practice in Fiji that focus on cultural knowledge, reciprocity, and a fluid construct of relationship. These were again seen as divergent to Western constructs of social work.

We have our own way of doing social work, like our own collective way, our own cultural way of doing things. And those rigid [Western] processes, those formal procedures that get put in place – I don’t think it really becomes effective in Fiji. (Arti)

Despite the differences in Fijian and more ‘Western’ interpretations of social work, others in Fiji allude to an underlining continuity within social work through an espoused commitment to humanity and human rights. As Salesh summates:

Because social work relates to human beings, I guess you have humanity (Salesh).

Or further described by Alfrada:

A good social worker would be non-judgemental; Because a lot of them who we see are vulnerable, and a lot of them don’t have a good education level as well. And especially for clients with gender-based violence, just because society is such that men are treated superior to women ... So, I think good practice would include to respect them and their rights (Alfrada)

The attraction of human rights within social work has remained strong throughout debates regarding the potential universalising effects of globalised social work (Ife, 2014, 2016). By positioning themselves within a human rights framework, social workers can avoid the connotations of therapist, clinical or ‘case manager’, and pursue the potential for more transformative practice (Ife, 2016). However, the divergence in how human rights themselves are constructed, interpreted, and enacted within Fiji presents a future opportunity for further research and exploration.

Participants in this study were also situated in diverse practice contexts in terms of organisational location, with workers coming from NGO settings, statutory bodies, government, faith-based organisations, and welfare and international development agencies. This may go some way to explaining the divergent roles and descriptions of practice, particularly if we agree with the premise that social work is a socially constructed entity. It also helps us to understand how social work can be enacted in very different ways across Fiji, often with quite divergent objectives. However, this raises questions as to whether or not social work in Fiji has enough of a shared understanding to create a distinct space as a professional project. This further connects to existing international debates as to whether it is possible to have any unifying social work collective identity.

Final reflections

In considering how social work may best be conceptualised and understood in Fiji, this paper has considered the manner in which social work may be viewed as an informal and natural process; as something inherent in Fijian cultural norms that encourage collective social care. Alternatively, social work is becoming increasingly professionalised and may be interpreted as a formalised activity, often requiring specific training and skill development. These interpretations are often directly linked to the social worker’s positionality within an organisation, religious beliefs, age and gender, previous work experience, and exposure to education and training. In this way, we begin to see how understandings of social work directly relate to broader socio-political, cultural, and historical influences that shape and mould constructions of social work (McDonald, 2006). Dominelli (2010) highlights that the similarities and differences in how social work is practiced create a contested space filled with competing ideologies and perspectives from service users, policymakers, academics, and practitioners. As a result, “questions about social work’s roles and purpose are crucial in reconfiguring the boundaries of what constitutes professional social work” (Dominelli, 2010: 1). These debates present valuable opportunities for research in social work education and practice, particularly in locations where social work may be considered as new, or emerging.

As outlined in the beginning of this article globalisation and colonialism have been hugely influential in the privileging of Western ideologies and constructs of truth over local indigenous ways of knowing. In the Pacific Island context, this has also translated to a systemic devaluing of local knowledges, where Western outsiders are positioned as the ‘expert’ and Pacific Island nations are portrayed as dependent on aid and ‘capacity development’ activities that focus on community deficit. Fortunately, increasing numbers of Pacific writers are celebrating cultural knowledge and challenging the misrepresentation of Pacific Islands as backward and primitive and isolated island states. An emerging number of writers are showcasing Pacific epistemologies and highlighting the complex, inter-related, yet diverse nature of Pacific Islander ethnicities (see for example: Ravulo et al., 2019; Vakalahi and Godinet, 2014). Although due to both the oral tradition of Fiji and dominance of Western scientific thought in academia, the plethora of Euro-centric social work content continues to dominate Pacific social work arenas. This has also extended to the spread of Western social work practice internationally and is visible in Fiji through the establishment of the Fiji Association of Social and Community Workers, a strong foreign aid, and the influence of formalised [read Western] education and presence of Western trained academics such as the author of this paper. This poses risks of intellectual discrimination and oppression through inequalities in people’s access to knowledge that might be pertinent to their own cultural setting. As such, it is pertinent that local Fijian understandings and constructions of social work be supported in international debates regarding the nature and purpose of social work.