427717

ISW

i s w

Article

Interdisciplinarity in social work education and training in Hungary

International Social Work 55(2) 185­–204 © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0020872811427717 isw.sagepub.com

Péter Török

Semmelweis University, Hungary

Yossi Korazim-Ko˝rösy

The College of Management, Rishon LeZion and The Ministry for Social Affairs, Jerusalem, Israel

Abstract The study analyzes the educational manifestations of the interdisciplinary and interprofessional training of social work in Hungary through a questionnaire used earlier in the USA, Canada and Israel and which is employed simultaneously in Hong Kong and Japan. After a short description of interdisciplinarity and the history of Hungarian social work training, the methodology of the Hungarian research is presented. The analysis of the Hungarian results is followed by their comparison with the available international data. While in most Hungarian educational institutions there is no dual degree program for social workers, about two-thirds of their international counterparts provide such training. The possibilities for interdisciplinary collaborations in field placements were similarly evaluated by the respondents of all nationalities. Research was considered to be the most applicable category for interdisciplinarity by Hungarians as well as for North Americans and Israelis. While respondents in USA, Canada and Israel found community-based research and evaluation most suitable for the improvement of interdisciplinarity in the future, in Hungary this possibility was ranked only fourth after the improvement of course content, field education and informal lectures (‘brown-bags’). As a closure, the authors

Corresponding author: Yossi Korazim-Ko˝rösy, The College of Management, Rishon LeZion and The Ministry for Social Affairs, Jerusalem, Israel. Email: [email protected]

186

International Social Work 55(2)

enlist some interdisciplinary considerations to be taken into account in planning the future of social work education in Hungary. Keywords collaboration, Hungary, interdisciplinarity, social work education and training Interdisciplinary and interprofessional social work has been generally acknowledged and promoted since the profession began to develop internationally in the 20th century (Bronstein et al., 2010; Moxley, 2008). The need for interdisciplinary cooperation has become evident and commonplace among experts of health care, community development, education and other helping professions in the USA and other countries (Canadian Association of Social Workers 2001; Korazim-Kőrösy et al., 2007). The Global Qualifying Standards for Social Work Education and Training require sufficient knowledge of related occupations and professions to facilitate inter-professional collaboration and teamwork.1 In Hungary, the Ethical Codex of social workers repeatedly refers to interdisciplinary and interprofessional cooperation. It emphasizes, for example, that apart from cooperating with colleagues, clients and employers, social workers must work together with the representatives of other professions.2 Other documents and analyses focusing on Hungarian social work training also mention the importance, possibilities for and difficulties of interdisciplinarity and interprofessionality (Budai, 2008; Budai et al., 2006; Korazim-Kőrösy et al., 2007). Despite the increasing acceptance in the field, the types and scope of interdisciplinarity in the education of social workers have not been researched in Hungary, and only slightly in other countries. More than ten years ago Berg-Weger and Schneider (1998) asked the deans and directors of accredited social work programs in the US about interdisciplinarity education in their institutions. Based on this study, Bronstein et al. (2010) conducted a cross-country research study in the USA, Canada and Israel. As an extension of this comparative work, an adopted version of their questionnaire was also distributed to social work programs in Hungary, the subject of this article. After a brief discussion of interdisciplinarity, this article will present a concise history of Hungarian social work training. It is followed by the research methodology conducted in Hungary, and the detailed discussion of its results. Based on the comparison between the Hungarian and the

Török and Korazim-Ko˝rösy

187

available international data, we formulate some conclusions for future education and research.

I. Interdisciplinarity and social work training According to Berg-Weger and Schneider’s study, ‘interdisciplinary collaboration is an interpersonal process through which members of different disciplines contribute to a common product or goal’ (1998: 98). Following Bronstein (2003) and Bronstein et al. (2010), the definition of interdisciplinarity used in this research goes further insofar as it requires such an effective interpersonal process facilitating the achievement of goals, which could not be reached if individual professionals acted on their own. There is also an agreement that cooperation among diverse groups of professionals and other stakeholders results in more creative, comprehensive and lasting outcomes – also known as synergy (Lasker and Weiss, 2003; Rosenthal and Mizrahi, 2004). As future-oriented ‘risk-societies’3 search for solutions for ever-more complex crises and social problems, both governmental and private funders in many countries are promoting and even mandating interdisciplinary, inter-group and inter-organizational partnerships (El Ansari and Phillips, 2001; Lawson et al., 2004). At the same time, collaboration among civic organizations, universites and faculties with communities and government agencies is on the rise (Amey and Brown, 2004; Farquhar-Dobson, 2004; Kaufman, 2004; Motes and Hess, 2007; Soska and Johnson-Butterfield, 2004). The literature abounds with identification of the processes and results of interdisciplinary collaboration in many countries (Bronstein, 2002, 2003; El Ansari et al., 2001; Elazar, 1992; Jones et al., 2007; Korazim and Klausner, 1989; KorazimKőrösy, 2000; Mizrahi and Rosenthal, 2001; Oliver et al., 2005; Reilly, 2001; Sherer and Peleg-Oren, 2005). Given these activities, there is an increasing need to focus on education for this more complex type of professional socialization of collaborative efforts. Yet there is very little systematic, empirical research on the interdisciplinary curricula of professional schools and academic departments. The exceptions have focused on the educational models of interdisciplinarity that can be learned in classrooms and in the field (Amey and Brown, 2004; Grossman and McCormick, 2003; Maidenberg and Golick, 2001), and examined the other professions involved in dual programs with social work, for example, journalism (Stone et al., 2008), law (Forgey and Colarossi, 2003), medicine (Abramson and Mizrahi, 2003) education (Bronstein and Abramson, 2003) and criminal justice (Bronstein and Wright, 2006). This

188

International Social Work 55(2)

article adds to this growing body of literature by focusing on the experiences in Hungary.

II. Social work training in Hungary4 The initial steps of social work education were taken in the first decades of the 20th century. Hungarian historians of social work consider the lectures held by the Society of Public Educators (Népművelő Társaság) during the winter of 1911–12 for officials of public administrations and educators to increase their social awareness, as the first formal course of social work. In 1912 the Welfare Institute was established and led by Rezső Hilscher at the University of Economics in Budapest. Similar work was conducted in Pécs, a city in the southern region of the country, by Lajos Esztergár. The purpose of the courses launched in 1934 at the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences of the Erzsébet University in Pécs was to educate students on the importance of preventive social work. Even during the Second World War professionalism continued. A legal order enacted in 1942 enabled several universities5 to organize courses on welfare. However, following the war and the Communist takeover of government, both the welfare services and the related education collapsed. Claiming that government led by the proletariat would take care of everybody, the Communist leadership denied the necessity of such a profession, interrupting the development of social work training (Krémer, 2009). However, the demand for such an education survived. Despite the protests of the political leadership, social work training surfaced in the institutions of higher education by the 1970s. The first such program was the universitylevel training of psycho-pedagogues6 launched in 1973 at the Bárczi Gusztáv Teachers’ College specializing in the education of disabled children, followed by an interest in providing professional welfare services to disabled adults. As a consequence, the training of ‘social organizers’7 started in 1975 in the form of evening/‘correspondence’ school. The Educational Act of I/1985 enabled the Ministry of Culture and Education to establish a body of experts to develop sectoral training. During this same period, the Managing Committee (Gesztori Bizottság) was established to supervise organizational and educational questions such as the curriculum of the planned social work training. The launch of social work training happened in the second half of the 1980s. The first step was taken in September 1986 when the Social Policy Research Group in the first issue of the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Szociálpolitikai Értesítő) introduced social work as a profession, its European educational profile, and outlined

Török and Korazim-Ko˝rösy

189

the Hungarian situation. This study provided a comprehensive proposal for launching Hungarian social work training in higher education. Perhaps as a premonitory sign of the upcoming political, social and economic changes, the Ministry of Health Care and Social Welfare was established in 1987.8 Simultaneously, as the legal successor of the Managing Committee, a body of experts advising the minister was established – the Social Work Training Committee (Szociális Képzési Bizottság) – whose task was to organize and launch social work education. This was also the time of launching social work training at the high school level. The Technical School for Health Care in the city of Eger began its middle-level social work training in 1988. Students with a high school diploma and two years’ practice could join this educational program. In the meantime, the self-organization of the profession commenced as well. In 1987 in the Family-Support Center of the Terézváros district of Budapest, a Social Work Club was established which a year later became the foundation of the Association of Hungarian Social Workers. The academic year of 1989–90 was a turning point in the history of the Hungarian social work training program: an experimental academic social work training began in the city of Szekszárd in the southern part of the country. The educational framework of the fledgling social work training – along with other new professional training – remained unclarified, leading to serious conflicts regarding especially the competencies of social workers. As a consequence, a conference was organized in 1990 in the city of Sopron, which became another turning point in the history of Hungarian social work education. The significance of this conference was that it resulted in definitive guidelines of a four-year general social work curriculum – including training at college level – and the differentiation of the emerging new profession from the already existing similar professions. These guidelines allowed a certain degree of pre-specialization; in the last two semesters students had a chance to study extended hours of child protection, mental health, rehabilitation and social gerontology. General social work training was established in 1989. By 1990, in addition to the educational programs in the city of Szekszárd and the Eötvös Loránt University (ELTE) in Budapest, formal training started in the Bárczi College, and at the city universities of Szeged, Nyíregyháza and Szombathely. In the meantime, the Association of Social Work Education in Hungary was established to secure the quality, development and establishment of social work education. Two years later – in 1992 – university-level training was established to open the way for the first PhD training at ELTE. From the mid-1990s, social work training programs were launched by higher educational institutions in increasing numbers, and the number of

190

International Social Work 55(2)

students grew as well. Practice was varying, at different levels and in different forms, especially in the training of field placements. Social work training now takes place in the university faculties of arts and sciences, medical faculties and teachers’ colleges. As a consequence, both the historical antecedents and the organizational structure9 of Hungarian social work training would allow interdisciplinarity. Among others, the Hungarian research examined to what extent Hungarians utilize this possibility.

III. Research methology In the exposition of their research in the USA, Berg-Weger and Schneider (1998) formulated numerous recommendations for the types, proportions, processes and potential achievements of interdisciplinary collaboration. These were taken into account and incorporated in the surveys conducted recently in Canada, Israel and the US (Bronstein et al., 2010), then in Hungary, and in 2011 are being undertaken in Japan. The problems arising from the translation of the questionnaire were solved partly by consultations with the international research team, and partly by the experiences gained from the pretests. Thus, for example, in the list of classes best suited to teaching interdisciplinary cooperation, instead of ‘Human Behavior and Social Environment (HBSE)’ the Hungarian questionnaire separately placed ‘psychology’ and ‘sociology’. Similarly, we divided ‘Arts and Sciences’ into ‘humanities’ (bölcsésztudományok) and ‘natural sciences’ (természettudományok). Short explanations, more precisely addendums, were placed after such English terms whose meanings were too broad or ambiguous for Hungarians.10 With regard to the Institute of Mental Health, conducting this research in Hungary, an explanation was also needed for the English term of mental health setting.11 Finally, due to the peculiarities of Hungarian social work training, among the programs offered by the universities and colleges we included the ‘social pedagogue program’, ‘social-politician program’ and the ‘social worker in health care institution program’.12 A crucial point in the questionnaire was the collaboration between the educational institution providing the social work program and the local community defined by public administration and geographic position. The English questionnaire used simply the term ‘community’, but the simple presentation of its Hungarian counterpart (közösség) would not have been unambiguous. However, our pretests indicated that instead of defining community in the question,13 it was more expedient to inform the respondents about the meaning of the term by providing detailed options for them – such

Török and Korazim-Ko˝rösy

191

as explaining what micro-, meso- and macro-practices meant, as explained below. Similarly, the appropriate translation of the English term ‘community type’ (geographic location) caused some problems. As a solution, we combined the options of the English questionnaire with the standard Hungarian options – such as, ‘főváros’ (capital), ‘megyei jogú város’ (county town), ‘egyéb város’ (other town), etc. – with the target-type locations originating from the peculiarities of Hungarian social work – for instance ‘külváros’ (suburb), ‘kistérség’ (sub-region),14 ‘falu’ (village), ‘tanyavilág’ (scattered farms).15 Finally, for the question on ‘which classes are best suited for interdisciplinary collaboration’, among the listed options, the terms of micro-, mezzoand macro-practices in themselves would have been meaningless for the Hungarian respondents. We had to briefly explain that these terms cover clinical practice and case studies, organizational work, community work and planning, respectively. The questionnaire was sent via email to the deans of the 22 institutions with accredited social work training programs through the Association of Social Work Education in Hungary. In line with the recommendations of the Total Design Method (Rossi et al., 1983), in April and May 2009 three ­follow-ups were sent, resulting in a 95 percent return rate (21/22 schools). For all practical purposes, this means full-polling.

IV. Research results Based on the questions, the results will be reported in five themes. The first group of questions probed the efforts of the educational institutions providing social work training to encourage and motivate interdisciplinarity; this is followed by the second cluster of questions on university–community collaborations. The third theme examined the institutions’ current and prospective possibilities for interdisciplinarity. A fourth, separate group of questions reviewed the general features of the educational institutions. Finally, those peculiarities will be reported that were considered noteworthy by the respondents.

IV. 1. The interdisciplinary features of the Hungarian educational institutions with accredited social work training programs The educational programs of Hungarian social work training collaborate with numerous other disciplines. The highest numbers indicate collaboration with psychology (14 institutions, 67%), pedagogy (13 institutions, 62%) and

192

International Social Work 55(2)

law (11 institutions, 52%). It is understandable that collaboration with engineering and natural sciences was mentioned only by a few institutions – each by one.16 From the responses we can conclude that social work students work together with students of several other disciplines during their field placements. With the exception of profit-oriented social work settings, 17 half or three-quarters of the educational institutions indicated such opportunities in all types of field placements.18,19 Without exception, all the institutions providing social work training encourage interdisciplinary cooperation, although this encouragement means in most of the cases simply appreciation, but in one-fifth of the institutions it also includes financial rewards and/or worktime cuts. The positive image of encouraging institutions is supported by the remarks made in the ‘other’ category, such as ‘collaboration is taken for granted’, ‘it is part and parcel of the training program’, ‘as a voluntary work, it is highly appreciated’. However, the most telling comment was probably that ‘it is a requirement for accreditations’.20 Not only the departments providing social work training, but also the host universities and colleges – almost without exception – try to promote collaboration both within the educational institutions and between the institutions and the local community.21 In spite of the general encouragement, social work training programs are rarely formalized through dual degree programs. Social work training is offered in seven schools as dual degree programs: with theology, social sciences, nursing, health care organization, deaconship and cultural organization. It also means that in 15 (of the 21) institutions, social work training is offered for students as a single program. In addition to the few dual programs, the educational institutions officially22 cooperate with the representatives of other disciplines: the 21 institutions reported 69 types of such cooperation. The highest numbers were mentioned with pedagogy (11) and social sciences (10), followed by psychology and law (with six each), and nursing and economics (with five each).

IV. 2. Cooperation with local communities Among the forms of cooperation with the local community, faculty members of the social work training programs reported most frequently the attendance and development of workshops and seminars, consulting and community organization.23 Only one respondent mentioned fiscal conduit as a form of cooperation, but leadership and clinical practice within direct

193

numbers

Török and Korazim-Ko˝rösy 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

ts

en

m ss

se

as forms of cooperation

Figure 1.  Forms of faculty engagement in interdisciplinary research within the community

service organizations were each reported by four respondents. Additionally, one-third of the institutions also participate in grant development. The forms of faculty and professional staff engagement in interdisciplinary collaborative research within the community is indicated in Figure 1. There is no faculty where such research collaboration was not identified as taking place. Resulting from the peculiarities and networking capabilities of social work, a special task of the faculties is the linking of researchers and organizations, furthermore, providing access to the study population within the organizations. It is not surprising either, that the other most frequently mentioned forms of engagement are grant writing, consultation, the assessment of community needs and co-authoring publications.

IV. 3. Current and future possibilities of interdisciplinarity All of the listed courses24 were found in great numbers as suitable for interdisciplinary collaboration, even the conceivably least suitable subject, organizational work, that is, meso-practice, was selected by more than a third of the respondents (N = 8). Research methodology was found to be the most frequent subject for interdisciplinarity: four-fifths of the respondents (N = 17) chose it. In itself this is not surprising, because research, in general, requests a multidisciplinary approach. However, in light of the very limited extent to which students at the basic – bachelor – level training can master research skills, it is very telling. Two more subjects were identified in the ‘other’ category: non-profit, social management and spiritual care provision are taught and considered to be especially suitable for interdisciplinarity.

194

International Social Work 55(2)

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 course content

field education

project with community

"brown bags"

dual degree community programs research

future plans

Figure 2.  Plans to be taken to further develop students’ expertise in interdisciplinarity

The plans to be taken by the educational institutions to further develop their students’ expertise in interdisciplinary collaboration are presented in Figure 2. The institutions found the improvement of course content (curriculum) and the requirements of field placements the most productive ways to enhance students’ interdisciplinary skills. Only one institution reported no such plan for the future.

IV. 4. On the institutions and training in general As a concluding part in the research results, some data indicate the general features of the educational institutions. In a third of them (N = 7), the number of students participating in social work training is between 200 and 400. The number of social work students extends to 600 in three institutions, while in one this number is below 50. The total number of students in the program-hosting universities and colleges remains below 2000 in six institutions, while in five cases it extends to 20,000. The number of full-time faculty and professional staff in half of the educational institutions (11) is between 21 and 30, whereas it is between six and 10 in one institution, and between 31 and 40 in three institutions. The number of educational institutions running different programs can be seen in Figure 3. The four ‘other’ programs include Social Pedagogy (MA), the specialization in Social Management and Social Gerontology, Jewish Social Work, and Social Gerontology and Complex Rehabilitation.

195

Török and Korazim-Ko˝rösy 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Soc. Work BA

Soc. Pedagogy BA

Soc. Work Soc. Politics Soc Work in Soc. Work MA MA Health Care PhD MA

Other

Educational Programs

Figure 3.  Number of institutions providing different educational programs

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

types of target populations

Figure 4. Target groups of social work training

Figure 4 indicates those settlement types, geographic/local authorities and community locations which are most characteristically the target group of social work training programs. From the figure it can be seen clearly that Hungarian social work training is typically urban-oriented. It is also noteworthy that about a third of the 21 educational institutions do not provide such specialization in the training. The focus on sub regional25 social services is the result of both social, economic and public administration changes and an alignment with the requirements of the European Union encouraging the local governments to provide social services in cooperation with other municipalities of their subregion.

196

International Social Work 55(2)

IV. 5. Noteworthy specialities and initiatives Not all of the mentioned specialities or initiatives reveal at once how and why they might increase the interdisciplinary and interprofessional skills of the students. However, with a benevolent perspective even on a list of entry-words, we can see the possibilities. Thus, for instance, vocational days, vocational lectureships and conferences organized for students should be welcomed. For example, contacts with German field institutions look promising even if only for improving proficiency in the German language. Unambiguously, interprofessional possibilities might surface from such activities as the assessment of a neighborhood within the framework of communal social work, the organization of social services or study of village life. Training with an attitude of promoting mental health is interdisciplinary by definition (Tomcsányi, 2002). And finally, some of the taught courses, such as social information, judicial social work and social administration are themselves carriers of interdisciplinary collaboration in the ways they combine two or more disciplines.

V. Comparison with international data and future tasks Without exception, all social work programs encourage collaboration with other disciplines. Similarly to the social work programs, the hosting universities and colleges also intend to enhance both the cooperation between the educational institution and the local community and interdisciplinarity within the university or college. While the faculties and professional staffs of social work programs cooperate during the training with numerous other disciplines, collaboration with urban studies, public health, film and media studies could be developed further. The leaders of training consider field placements as basically good potential for interdisciplinarity. One consequence of our findings may be that some social work programs may be run as dual programs in the future. At the same time, however, it must be taken into account that the educational institutions providing social work training already have a good deal of official cooperation with the professionals of other disciplines. The faculties’ cooperation with local communities consists mainly of organizing and attending workshops and seminars, furthermore, participating in and/or conducting community development and counseling offered by the faculty to the community. Due to the unique character of social work, the special roles of the professional staff and the members of the faculty in research are linking the researchers and the different organizations, and

Török and Korazim-Ko˝rösy

197

securing access to the target population within a given organization. The intentions of the educational institutions to increase the students’ interdisciplinary skills include mainly the development of course content and improving the requirements of field placements. Finally, a number of promising and noteworthy initiatives presuming or securing interdisciplinary cooperation were reported by the leaders of social work programs. Comparing the results of the Hungarian research with the available international – that is, American, Canadian and Israeli – data (Bronstein et al., 2010), it is not surprising that after 20 years of implementation, the number of master’s and doctoral programs is still relatively low in Hungary. While cooperation with public health was reported only by three Hungarian educational institutions (14%), such collaboration in the other three nations was reported by about a third of the institutions (35%). Only a quarter of the Hungarian social work programs have dual programs, whereas in the North American and Israeli programs the proportion is around 60 percent. Regarding the collaboration of the social work faculties and local communities, there was no significant difference in the results of the four nations. The data on interdisciplinary cooperation in field placements also revealed similarities with the USA, Canada and Israel. In accordance with the Hungarian results, research was considered to be the most applicable class for interdisciplinarity by the Israelis and North Americans. While respondents in the USA, Canada and Israel found community-based research and evaluation to be the most suitable for improvement of interdisciplinarity in the future, in Hungary this possibility was ranked only fourth after the improvement of course content, field education and informal lectures (‘brown-bags’). Despite the international character of the research, it should be considered as a pilot project, the results of which may be seen as starting points for further research and consideration. These starting points are, however, rather solid from which we can direct our attention to other directions, and on which other research can safely be grounded. This questionnaire-based project queried the leaders of the social work programs in all of the participating countries, whereas for a fuller picture of interdisciplinary collaboration, a deeper, more detailed questioning of field instructors and faculty and even students would present a fuller and richer picture.

VI. Conclusion and future directions We conclude that while interdisciplinary and interprofessional collaboration are viewed as desirable, there is still room for growth and development in Hungary as well as abroad.

198

International Social Work 55(2)

One more observation should be mentioned here: the importance of interpersonal, face-to-face contacts cannot be overrated in our interdisciplinary endeavors. As a Hungarian colleague noted during the research, the difficulties of interdisciplinarity arise partially from the exclusively electronic communication of our times. The research in Israel and the United States was conducted not only by an online questionnaire, but researchers had the opportunity to discuss the possibilities of interdisciplinarity in groups providing the participants with face-to-face interactions (Korazim-Kőrösy et al., 2007). Additionally, face-to-face consultations with social workers in group settings on the possibilities of interdisciplinary and interprofessional collaboration also took place in Hungary (Budai, 2009). This is especially good news in a country where social work has had to establish its identity only in the last 20 years. Planning the future tasks might start with Budai’s observation (2008) that social workers are aware of their limitations regarding interprofessional collaboration because they lack methods, means and a strong social work identity. Although we found many more identifications of interdisciplinary opportunities in our study, the challenges to social work education in Hungary remain, for there is no clear-cut standpoint on when a monodisciplinary solution is not enough, and when a multidisciplinary approach may be more effective. The field coordinators and field instructors, as well as students and alumni, may also have important roles in these clarifications. Further exploration and harmonization of potentially divergent expectations and experiences of the numerous stakeholders involved will be the task of research on these issues. For instance, research on the alumni of these different institutions as to: what kind of, and in what ways, should interdisciplinary information and practice be transmitted? What methods proved to be most effective in the preparation of field instructors? What barriers still remain? Why and how from their perspectives do other university departments and disciplines collaborate or not with social work? Should interprofessional collaboration be taught to social work students separately or in mixed groups with students of other disciplines? To what extent should the faculty teaching consist of the different disciplines’ specialized experts and teachers? What methods and means should be utilized in the field placements of social work students? What kind of collaboration is expected mostly from the educational institutions providing social work programs in local communities? At what stage of the educational program is teaching interprofessionality the most effective? How should it be incorporated in the consecutive bachelor, master’s and doctoral programs? What is the special position of social work programs and social work educators in the interdisciplinary and interprofessional collaboration?

Török and Korazim-Ko˝rösy

199

It is without doubt that social work as a synthesizing discipline26 is already actively engaged in the universities and in the many communities they serve, and it is included in multiple aspects of the educational experiences of students. Social workers can and should make a major contribution in a special and substantial way to the field of interdisciplinarity and interprofessionality for the betterment of society. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes   1. Global Qualifying Standards for Social Work Education and Training 4.3.1. Available at: http://www.ifsw.org/p38000255.html (accessed 16 January 2010). See also 4.3.2. on a ‘holistic biopsychosocial spiritual framework’.  2. See Etikai Kódex [Ethical Codex]. Available at: http://www.cssk.hu/downloads/ szakmai_anyagok/etikaikodex.pdf (accessed 22 November 2010): points 6 and 29. Indirectly, points 30 and 34–5 also refer to the interprofessional cooperation. Finally, the Etikai Kódex, if only indirectly, also points to the cooperation of different professions in the definition of social work insofar as for the solution of the clients’ problems it requires the complex mobilization of resources.   3. A ‘risk society’, according to Giddens, is ‘a society increasingly preoccupied with the future (and also with safety), which generates the notion of risk’ (1999: 3). In Ulrich Beck’s formulation (1986), it is the societal response to the hazards and insecurities produced by the industrial civilization itself.   4. The summary of the Hungarian social work training is based on Budai et al.’s study (2006).   5. The institutions involved were the Tisza István University in Debrecen, the Erzsébet University in Pécs, the József Nádor Technical and Economical University in Budapest and the Faculty of Economics at the Ferenc József University in Kolozsvár, today’s Cluj Napoca in Romania.   6. A psycho-pedagogue is a remedial teacher, specializing in the training of physically and/or mentally disabled children.   7. Literal translation of ‘szociális szervezők’ whose competence, for all practical purposes, was community organization.  8. Although the total collapse of the Communist bloc could not have been foreseen, the Communist leadership had to realize that the socialist welfare system did not function properly. For instance, the establishment of a new female religious order was allowed by the political leadership because the Communist elite – that is, the older party cadres at the highest level – were not satisfied with the work of hospital nurses, but they remembered how dedicated the nuns were before 1945 (Török, 2003).

200

International Social Work 55(2)

  9. The places of social work education, as listed above, enable the trainees to study and practice in settings where they meet other professionals such as teachers, nurses, physicians, etc. 10. Such as ‘közgazdasági, kereskedelmi, üzleti’ for business, ‘diplomás ápolóképzés’ for nursing, ‘szenvedélybetegek – beleértve az alkoholbegeket és drogfüggőket’ for substance abuse, ‘kriminológia és igazságszolgáltatás – rendészet, büntetésvégrehajtás’ for criminal justice, ‘munkanélkülieket, munkavállalókat, álláskeresőket segítő programok’ for employee assistance programs, etc. 11. In the views of the Institute of Mental Health at Semmelweis University, Hungary, an important task of mental health is primary prevention, that is, the sum of the efforts taken to prevent precisely those sicknesses and disorders whose sufferers and bearers are the clients of social workers. The English term ‘mental health’, or more precisely the lack of it, would generally refer to addictions, psychiatric illnesses and disorders. 12. For the sake of brevity and fluidity, however, hereinafter we will use only ‘social work program’ where the training is examined generally. 13. In the original – English – questionnaire, this question reads: ‘Does your university formally promote collaboration between the university and the community?’ 14. In line with the recommendations of the European Union, settlements of a subregion unite in providing social work services for the population in that area. There are 186 subregions in Hungary, coinciding with the electoral units of the country. 15. Due to the still significant portion of especially elderly people living in scattered farms, a special social work service – ‘tanyagondnoki szolgálat’ (farm wardenship) – was established for them. Similar service is provided in small villages for the needy. 16. The fact that one institution reported no cooperation among the different departments leads one to stop and reflect. Similarly, it is unfortunate that cooperation with urban studies and public health was reported only by one and three institutions, respectively. It is also worth considering that there is no cooperation with film and media studies. These data can serve as starting points for discussion about the interdisciplinary direction of Hungarian social work training in the future. 17. This setting was considered to be potentially interdisciplinary only by seven institutions. 18. It must be noted, however, that despite the generally good evaluation of field placements, according to one respondent, field placements provide no opportunities for interdisciplinary relations. 19. One cannot help asking why the profit-oriented social work setting was considered potentially less suitable for interdisciplinary collaboration. While it requires further examination, a feasible explanation is the relatively low number of such Hungarian services and, consequently, that they have not been taken into account as potential locations for field placements. 20. See the 15/2006. (IV. 3.) decree of the Educational Ministry.

Török and Korazim-Ko˝rösy

201

21. While all respondents mentioned the official promotion of collaboration between the educational institution and the local community, there were two institutions which reported the lack of interdepartmental interdisciplinarity. For a similar perception about the international situation of the cooperation between educational institutions and local communities, see Soska and Johnson-Butterfield (2004). 22. By cooperation we meant long-lasting and official interactions between the program providers and others, regardless of whether or not these ‘others’ belonged to the hosting educational institutions (universities or colleges). 23. These were indicated at least by half of the respondents, but in most cases by three-quarters of them. 24. This was the question where the English ‘Human Behavior and Social Environment (HBSE)’ was divided into psychology and sociology; and where the different – micro-, meso- and macro- – practices had to be explained (clinical practice and case studies, organizational work and community work and planning). Apart from these classes, the question included ‘Policy’, ‘Research’ and ‘Electives’. 25. Subregions are subdivisions of the counties of a country. In the case of Hungary, the 20 counties (including Budapest) are divided into 174 administrative subregions. Budapest is both a county and a subregion. 26. Synthesizing disciplines examine one object from the point of views of different disciplines. Analytical disciplines – for example, sociology – analyze many objects from one point of view, that of their own disciplines.

References Abramson, J.S. and T. Mizrahi (2003) ‘Understanding Collaboration between Social Workers and Physicians: Application of a Typology’, Social Work in Health Care 37(2): 71–100. Amey, M.J. and D.F. Brown (2004) Breaking Out of the Box. Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Faculty Work. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Beck, U. (1986) Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Berg-Weger, M. and F.D. Schneider (1998) ‘Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Social Work Education’, Journal of Social Work Education 34(1): 97–107. Bronstein, L.R. (2002) ‘Index of Interdisciplinary Collaboration’, Social Work Research 26(2): 113–23. Bronstein, L.R. (2003) ‘A Model for Interdisciplinary Collaboration’, Social Work 48(3): 297–306. Bronstein, L.R. and J.S. Abramson (2003) ‘Understanding Socialization of Teachers and Social Workers: Groundwork for Collaboration in the Schools’, Families in Society 84(3): 323–30. Bronstein, L.R. and K. Wright (2006) ‘The Impact of Prison Hospice: Collaboration among Social Workers and Other Professionals in a Criminal Justice Setting that Promotes Care for the Dying’, Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life and Palliative Care 2(4): 85–102.

202

International Social Work 55(2)

Bronstein, L.R., T. Mizrahi, Y. Korazim-Kőrösy and D. McPhee (2010) ‘Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Social Work Education in the U.S., Israel and Canada – Deans’ and Directors’ Perspectives’, International Social Work 53(4): 457–73. Budai, I. (2008) ‘Szociális szaktudás, kompetenciák, képzés és a sztenderek kidolgozása’ [Social Work Expertise, Competences, and the Development of Standards and Training], Kapocs 37: 38–47 (in Hungarian). Budai, I. (2009) ‘Az interprofesszionális együttműködés, mint a fejlesztés egyik lehetősége, és a szociális munka’ [Interprofessional Cooperation, as One of the Possibilites of Development, and Social Work], in I. Budai and M. Nárai (eds) A szociális szolgáltatások modernizációja, pp. 43–63. Győr: Széchenyi István Egyetem Szociális Munka Tanszék (in Hungarian). Budai, I., J. Csoba and R. Goldmann (2006) ‘A szociális képzések magyarországi fejlődésének főbb állomásai’ [The Main Phases of the Development of the Hungarian Social Work Training], Esély 2: 49–70 (in Hungarian). Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) (2001) ‘Toward Sector Collaboration’, a report on the Social Work Forum, 11–14 October, Montreal, Quebec. El Ansari, W. and C.J. Phillips (2001) ‘Interprofessional Collaboration: A Stakeholder Approach to Evaluation of Voluntary Participation in Community Partnerships’, Journal of Interprofessional Care 15(4): 351–68. El Ansari, W., C.J. Phillips and M. Hammick (2001) ‘Collaboration and Partnerships: Developing the Evidence Base’, Health and Social Care in the Community 9(4): 215–27. Elazar, D.J., ed. (1992) Urban Revitalization. Israel’s Project Renewal and Other Experiences. Lanham, MD and London: University Press of America and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Farquhar, S. & Dobson, N. (2004). Community and university participation in disasterrelief recovery: An example from Eastern North Carolina. University Community Partnerships: Universities in Civic Engagement. Journal of Community Practice, 12(3/4), 203–218. Forgey, M. and L. Colarossi (2003) ‘Interdisciplinary Social Work and Law: A Model Domestic Violence Curriculum’, Journal of Social Work Education 39(3): 459–76. Giddens, A. (1999) ‘Risk and Responsibility’, Modern Law Review 62: 1–10. Grossman, B. and K. McCormick (2003) ‘Preparing Social Work Students for Interdisciplinary Practice: Learnings from a Curriculum Development Project’, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 7(1/2): 97–113. Jones, J.M., W.P. Crook and J.R. Webb (2007) ‘Collaboration for the Provision of Services: A Review of the Literature’, Journal of Community Practice 15(4): 41–71. Kaufman, R. (2004) ‘University–Community Partnership to Change Public Policy: Pre-conditions and Processes’, Journal of Community Practice 12(3/4): 163–80.

Török and Korazim-Ko˝rösy

203

Korazim, Y. and D. Klausner (1989) ‘The Interdisciplinary Integration of Community Work and Local Economic Development’, Community Development Journal 24(2): 127–35. Korazim-Kőrösy, Y. (2000) ‘Toward a New Balance between Governmental and Nongovernmental Community Work: The Case of Israel’, Community Development Journal 35(3): 276–89. Korazim-Kőrösy, Y., T. Mizrahi, C. Katz, A. Karmon, M.L. Garcia and M.B. Smith (2007) ‘Towards Interdisciplinary Community Collaboration and Development: Knowledge and Experience from Israel and the USA’, Journal of Community Practice 15(1/2): 13–44. Krémer, B. (2009) Bevezetés a szociálpolitikába [Introduction to Social Policy]. Budapest: Napvilág Kiadó (in Hungarian). Lasker, R.D. and E.S. Weiss (2003) ‘Broadening Participation in Community Problem Solving: A Multidisciplinary Model to Support Collaborative Practice and Research’, Journal of Urban Health 80(1): 14–60. Lawson, H., L.R. Bronstein, P. McCallion and D. Ryan (2004) Building Coalitions and Collaborations: A Resource Guide for the 21st Century. Albany, NY: New York State Office for Aging. Maidenberg, M.P. and T. Golick (2001) ‘Developing or Enhancing Interdisciplinary Programs: A Model for Teaching Collaboration’, The International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education 4(2): 15–24. Mizrahi, T. and B. Rosenthal (2001) ‘Complexities of Coalition Building: Leaders’ Successes, Struggles, Strategies, and Solutions’, Social Work 46(1): 63–78. Motes, P.S. and P.M. Hess (2007) Collaborating with Community-based Organizations through Consultation and Technical Assistance. New York: Columbia University Press. Moxley, D.P. (2008) ‘Interdisciplinarity’, in T. Mizrahi and L.E. Davis (eds) Encyclopedia of Social Work, 20th edn, pp. 468–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oliver, D., L.R. Bronstein and L. Kurzejeski (2005) ‘Examining Variables Related to Successful Collaboration on the Hospice Team’, Health and Social Work 30(4): 279–86. Reilly, T. (2001) ‘Collaboration in Action: An Uncertain Process’, Administration in Social Work 25(1): 53–74. Rosenthal, B. and T. Mizrahi (2004) ‘Coalitions: Essential Tools for Organizing’, in L. Staples (ed.) Roots to Power: A Manual for Grassroots Organizing, 2nd edn, pp. 316–30. Westport, CT: Praeger. Rossi, P.H., J.D. Wright and A.B. Anderson, eds (1983) Handbook of Survey Research. San Diego, CA/New York/Boston, MA/London. Sydney/Tokyo/ Toronto: Academic Press Inc. Sherer, M. and N. Peleg-Oren (2005) ‘Differences of Teachers’, Field Instructors’, and Students’ Views on Job Analysis of Social Work Students’, Journal of Social Work Education 41(2): 315–28. Soska, T.M. and A.K. Johnson-Butterfield, eds (2004) ‘University–Community Partnerships: Universities in Civic Engagement’, Journal of Community Practice 12(3/4): 35–52.

204

International Social Work 55(2)

Stone, S., E. Ekman, D. English and S. Fujimori (2008) ‘Collaboration among Social Work and Journalism Students and Faculty: An Instructional Model’, Journal of Social Work Education 4(1): 163–72. Tomcsányi, T. (ed.) (2002) Mentálhigiénés képzés a Semmelweis Egyetemen. Egy sokoldalú, tudományközi program elmélete, gyakorlata és eredményessége [Mental Health Training at the Semmelweis University. The Theory, Practice and Effectivness of a Multi-faceted, Interdisciplinary Program]. Budapest: Animula (in Hungarian). Török, P. (2003) Hungarian Church–State Relationships. Budapest: Collected Studies of the Hungarian Institute for Sociology of Religion.

Author biographies Péter Török received his PhD in sociology at the University of Toronto. Currently he is the director of the Institute of Mental Health, Semmelweis University (Budapest, Hungary). His interests include, interdisciplinarity, charisma and community development, new religious movements, church-state relationships, and all in relation with mental health. Yossi Korazim-Ko˝rösy, is a senior lecturer at the School of Behavioral Science, The College of Management in Israel, (The Graduate Programs for Family Studies and Organizational Counseling and Development), where he teaches Social & Family Policy, Community Organizing, Interorganizational and Interdisciplinary Counseling and Research Seminars. His full-time position is with the Ministry of Social Affairs, as Head of Policy-Planning Unit, within the Division of Research, Planning and Training.