SOCIAL WORK PURPOSE,

MOTIVATION AND IDENTITY:

FILIPINO SOCIAL WORKERS AT
HOME AND ABROAD

Jeremy Price

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements of the University of Brighton for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy

June 2014

The University of Brighton

Abstract
This thesis is concerned with social work purpose and identity in international contexts. It
explores the perspectives of social workers, social work academics and policy makers in the
Philippines and of Filipino social workers who moved to England to undertake the ‘same’ job.

The study took a critical realist approach, starting from participants’ own accounts but alert
equally to professional ideologies, institutional structures and social divisions. Primary data
were gathered in a 5-week study visit to the Philippines (during which ‘indigenous’ literature
was gathered, study visits made and semi-structured interviews undertaken with 24
participants in the Philippines: 11 social workers; 1 social worker in training; 7 social work
academics; 5 policy makers) and also via semi-structured interviews with 9 Filipino social
workers in England. The analysis was thematic, employing a combination of inductive and
deductive coding, the development of comparative categories and second-level coding.

The primary focus of the research is upon what it is to be a social worker and to do social
work in the Philippines and to be a Filipino social worker in England. Insights gained from
Filipinos practising in the Philippines inform a discussion of the cross-cultural transferability
of practice to England. The thesis uses a Bourdieusian conceptual framework to consider
the roles of structure and agency in the construction of social work identities. In reflecting
upon what they do and why, social workers and social work academics shed light on their
personal-professional identity and motivation and upon the field of social work ‘locally’ and
internationally.

The originality of the thesis is derived from several aspects of the study. Firstly, there is
almost no published work in which the perspectives of those directly involved in Philippine
social work are described and analysed. Indeed, the country rarely features in the
international social work literature. The focus on professional transition also constitutes an
original contribution, with no literature currently considering the specific case of transition
from the Philippines to England. Finally, the application of Bourdieusian theory to social
work has been explored in few articles and not in relation to the Philippines or to economic
migration and identity within social work. The key arguments centre upon the helpfulness of
the concepts of field and habitus in informing a reflective practice that takes account of both
agency and structure and the importance of considering the layered nature of professional
fields and impact upon professional identity and purpose. The findings will be of particular
interest to those involved in the study of work and professions, in ‘professional migration’ (as
employer, migrant or researcher) and in the growing academic field of international social
work.

2
Contents
Chapter 1: Introducing the Scope and Purpose of this Thesis ................................. 13

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 13

1.2 Background and Motivation ............................................................................ 15

1.3 Terminology .................................................................................................... 16

1.4 Why the Philippines & England? ..................................................................... 22

1.5 The Philippines: A Demographic Outline ........................................................ 24

1.6 Original Contributions, Potential Audiences and Concluding Comments ........ 26

Chapter 2: Towards a Conceptual Framework ......................................................... 28

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 28

2.2 Approaching the Research ............................................................................. 29

2.3 The Professional Journey ............................................................................... 31

2.4 Core Themes of the Thesis ............................................................................ 36

2.5 Field and Habitus: A Typology of Practice ...................................................... 38

2.6 Social Work and Social Development ............................................................. 44

2.7 Some Messages from the Sociology of Work ................................................. 47

2.7.1 Professions .............................................................................................. 47

2.7.2 Sociology and Work ................................................................................. 48

2.8 Bourdieu and this thesis ................................................................................. 51

2.9 Social Work: Motivation & Identity .................................................................. 66

2.10 Social Work Motivation and Identity: The Place of Spirituality and Religion . 72

2.11 Conceptual Framework: Concluding Comments........................................... 78

Chapter 3: Philippine Social Work in Historical and International Context ................ 80

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 80

3.2 The Growth of Social Work: Competing Orientations ..................................... 80

3.3 International Development of Social Work ...................................................... 87

3.3.1 Social Work & Globalisation ..................................................................... 87

3
 3.3.2 Defining International Social Work ........................................................... 90

3.3.3 This Thesis as International ..................................................................... 96

3.4 Indigenisation and Reconceptualisation ....................................................... 101

3.5 Characteristics of the Profession in the Philippines ...................................... 105

3.6 Development of Social Welfare & Social Work in the Philippines ................. 109

3.7 Practice: Some defining features of Social Work in the Philippines Today ... 119

3.8 Philippine Social Work in Historical and International Context: Concluding

Comments .......................................................................................................... 123

Chapter 4: Research Methodology & Process ....................................................... 125

4.1 Introductory Comment .................................................................................. 125

4.2 Research Questions and Objectives ............................................................. 125

4.3 Reflexivity ..................................................................................................... 127

4.4 International Research Methodology ............................................................ 131

4.5 Methodology ................................................................................................. 133

4.6 Reviewing the Literature ............................................................................... 138

4.7 Primary Research Process ........................................................................... 139

4.8 Research in the Philippines .......................................................................... 140

4.8.1 Purpose & Methodological Approach (Philippines) ................................ 140

4.8.2 Interviews in the Philippines ................................................................... 141

4.8.3 Eligibility for Participants (Philippines) .................................................... 143

4.8.4 Further Considerations: Research in the Philippines ............................. 144

4.8.5 Developing a Research Approach in the Philippines .............................. 145

4.8.6 Hong Kong Conference .......................................................................... 146

4.9 Research in England .................................................................................... 148

4.9.1 Participants & Recruitment (England) .................................................... 148

4.9.2 Other Comments on Process: England & the Philippines ...................... 149

4.10 Language and Meaning .............................................................................. 150

4
 4.11 Ethical Dimensions & Considerations ......................................................... 152

4.11.1 Vulnerability & Harm ............................................................................ 152

4.11.2 Risk to Researcher ............................................................................... 154

4.11.3 Transparency & Consent...................................................................... 154

4.11.4 Confidentiality, Anonymity & Privacy .................................................... 155

4.11.5 Limits to Confidentiality ........................................................................ 156

4.11.6 Additional Ethical Considerations ......................................................... 157

4.12 Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 158

4.13 Research Methodology & Process: Concluding Comments ....................... 161

Chapter 5: Fieldwork Findings in the Philippines: The Field of Social Work in

Historical, Cultural and International Context ......................................................... 164

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 164

5.2 Historical Development of Social Work in the Philippines ............................. 165

5.2.1 The US and Spanish Legacies ............................................................... 165

5.2.2 International Influence and Faith ............................................................ 167

5.2.3 Did Charity Begin at Home? ................................................................... 170

5.2.4 Historical Processes and Language ....................................................... 172

5.3 International Aid and the Role of NGOs ........................................................ 173

5.4 Indigenisation or Reconceptualisation .......................................................... 175

5.5 The Social Work Profession in the Philippines.............................................. 181

5.6 Faith and Professional Identity...................................................................... 184

5.7 Characterising the Filipino People ................................................................ 186

5.7.1 Perceived Traits & Heterogeneity........................................................... 186

5.7.2 Being Caring .......................................................................................... 187

5.7.3 Anti-Oppressive Practice? ...................................................................... 189

5.7.4 How Filipinos Communicate ................................................................... 191

5.7.5 Family .................................................................................................... 192

5
 5.7.6 Optimism, Resilience & Religion ............................................................ 194

5.7.7 Utang na loob ......................................................................................... 195

5.7.8 Faith & Fatalism ..................................................................................... 196

5.7.9 Saving Face ........................................................................................... 197

5.8 An Outsider’s Perspective ............................................................................ 198

5.9 Community & Collectivity .............................................................................. 199

5.10 The Field of Social Work in the Philippines: Concluding Comments........... 200

Chapter 6: Fieldwork Findings in the Philippines: Social Work Motivation, Purpose

and Identity............................................................................................................. 203

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 203

6.2 Professional Identity, Status and Public Perception ...................................... 203

6.2.1 Public Perception ................................................................................... 204

6.2.2 On Belonging to a Profession................................................................. 210

6.3 Purpose and Orientation of Practice ............................................................. 211

Angel (FSW UK 40-49 F) ................................................................................ 212

6.3.1 To Dole-Out or Not to Dole-Out?............................................................ 212

6.3.2 Orientation and Approach to Practice .................................................... 215

6.3.2.1 Power & Politics .................................................................................. 215

6.3.2.2 Empowerment as Individualised or Collective? ................................... 217

6.3.2.3 Empowerment as Maintenance or Social Functioning ........................ 219

6.3.2.4 Promoting Dignity ................................................................................ 220

6.3.2.5 On Being Critical ................................................................................. 220

6.3.3 Dilemmas in Practice ............................................................................. 221

6.4 Individual Motivation for Social Work ............................................................ 225

6.4.1 Entering the Profession ‘by Accident’ ..................................................... 225

6.4.2 Economy ................................................................................................ 226

6.4.3 Family & Community .............................................................................. 227

6
 6.4.4 Religion and Faith .................................................................................. 230

6.5 Social Work Motivation, Purpose and Identity in the Philippines: Concluding
Comments .......................................................................................................... 233

Chapter 7: Fieldwork Findings: Filipino Social Workers’ Perceptions of Society &

Social Work in England .......................................................................................... 235

7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 235

7.2 Views from Outside ....................................................................................... 236

7.3 Reasons for Going Overseas ....................................................................... 237

7.3.1 Economic Migration ................................................................................ 237

7.3.2 Status and Professional Development ................................................... 240

7.4 Adjusting to England ..................................................................................... 241

7.4.1 Initial Impressions .................................................................................. 242

7.4.2 Poverty ................................................................................................... 242

7.4.3 Feeling Deskilled .................................................................................... 243

7.4.4 Language ............................................................................................... 244

7.4.5 Orientation.............................................................................................. 245

7.4.6 An Individualised Society ....................................................................... 247

7.4.7 Facing Discrimination ............................................................................. 248

7.5 The Importance of Support ........................................................................... 249

7.6 Community and Orientation to Practice ........................................................ 253

7.7 Public Perception of and Attitude to Social Work in England ........................ 256

7.7.1 Relationship with Service Users ............................................................. 256

7.7.2 Poverty and Practice .............................................................................. 258

7.7.3 Acculturation .......................................................................................... 259

7.8 Managerialism and Bureaucracy in England ................................................ 259

7.9 Professional Discretion: Doing Social Work in Less Flexible Ways .............. 261

7.10 Use of Self in New Contexts ....................................................................... 263

7.11 Doing Social Work in England: Stress ........................................................ 264

7
 7.12 Positive Aspects of Work in England .......................................................... 266

7.13 Filipino Social Workers’ Perceptions of Society & Social Work in England:
Concluding Comments ....................................................................................... 268

Chapter 8: Further Discussion & Conclusions ........................................................ 270

8.1 The Scope of the Thesis ............................................................................... 270

8.2 The Research Process, Core Contributions and Future Work ...................... 280

8.2.1 Core Contributions ................................................................................. 280

8.2.2 Reflections on the Research and Impact on and of Self ........................ 281

8.2.3 Thoughts on Future Developments ........................................................ 284

8.3 The International as Real .............................................................................. 285

References ............................................................................................................. 287

Appendix 1: Recruitment Flyer ............................................................................... 329

Appendix 2:Participant Information Sheet – Social Workers .................................. 330

Appendix 3: Information Sheet – Participants in the Philippines ............................ 333

Appendix 4: Informed Consent Form – Social Workers.......................................... 336

Appendix 6: Interview Schedules ........................................................................... 340

Appendix 7: Some Sources of Support .................................................................. 345

Appendix 8: Participant Details .............................................................................. 347

Appendix 9: First-Level Coding .............................................................................. 350

Appendix 10: Excerpt from Transcribed Interview ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

8
List of Figures

Page

1 Map of the Philippines 24

2 Development of Habitus 33

3 Core Themes of Thesis 37

4 Payne’s Typology of Social Work Orientations 39

5 Thompson’s PCS Model 42

6 Typology of Practice 43

9
List of Abbreviations
4Ps Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (conditional cash transfer
scheme administered by DSWD in the Philippines)
AOP Anti-Oppressive Practice
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development
BASW British Association of Social Workers
CHED Commission on Higher Education (Philippines)
CWDC Children's Workforce Development Council (UK)
DSWD Department for Social Welfare and Development (Philippines)
FREGC Faculty Research Ethics and Governance Committee (Faculty of
Health and Social Science, University of Brighton, UK)
FWO Filipino Worker Overseas
GO Government Organisation (Philippines)
GSCC General Social Care Council (UK)
HCPC Health and Care Professions Council (UK)
IASSW International Association of Schools of Social Work
ICSW International Council on Social Welfare
IFSW International Federation of Social Workers
INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation
KALAHI-CIDSS Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan – Comprehensive and Integrated
Delivery of Social Services programme (Philippines)
LGU Local Government Unit (Philippines)
MDGs Millennium Development Goals (UN)
NASW National Association of Social Workers (USA)
NASWEI National Association for Social Work Education Inc. (Philippines)
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
PASWI Philippine Association of Social Workers Inc.
PO People’s Organisation (Philippines)
SASS School of Applied Social Science, University of Brighton, UK
SCWRU Social Care Workforce Research Unit, UK
SWT Social Work Team
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund (formerly United Nations International
Children's Emergency Fund)
WHO World Health Organisation

10
Acknowledgments

Firstly, my respect and thanks go to everyone in the Philippines and the UK who
gave so generously of their time.

Next, I want to thank Sue Balloch, Paula Wilcox and Lindsay O’Dell for their support
and insights but most importantly for their positivity and encouragement throughout.
Thanks are also due to Jill Manthorpe for her timely and focused help and advice.

Brian, Darcy and Mark unknowingly played a part in this project, by providing the
kind of comradely distraction that only rock and roll can offer.

This thesis is also dedicated to my old mate Helen who would have been more proud
of me than I am.

But most of all, this is for us, Joe.

11
Author’s Declaration

I declare that the research contained in this thesis, unless otherwise

formally indicated within the text, is the original work of the author. The
thesis has not been previously submitted to this or any other university
for a degree, and does not incorporate any material already submitted
for a degree.

Signed

Dated

12
Chapter 1: Introducing the Scope and Purpose of this
Thesis

1.1 Introduction

“At any time and in any society, there is a social and political settlement of the role of
social work services in a welfare regime. This changes over time and therefore so
does the role of social work.”
(Payne, 2012)

This thesis contributes to debate about the meaning of social work internationally.
More specifically, it explores social work purpose and process in the Philippines and
considers what the perspectives of Filipino social workers might tell us about identity,
vocation and profession in that context. By offering a space to reflect upon what they
do and why, social workers shed light upon their own personal-professional habitus
and upon the field of social work ‘locally’ and internationally (Bourdieu, 1977a, 1984).
The thesis also incorporates findings from research into the perspectives of social
workers who trained and practised in the Philippines but then moved to England to
undertake the ‘same’ job. The intention was to explore the notion of core social work
purpose and values, by encouraging practitioners to reflect upon the differences
between and transition from social work in a ‘developing’ country and that in a
‘developed’ country. The search for a more critical, progressive form of social work,
which seeks to influence both agency and structure, underlay the project.

The Research Questions which the thesis addresses are as follows. Those chapters
most specifically related to each question are included in brackets:

1. How have historical and international processes shaped social work in the
Philippines? (3, 5, 8)

2. How do social work practitioners, academics and policy makers describe

social work purpose, motivation and identity in the Philippines? (2, 6, 8)

13
 3. What do Filipino social workers’ accounts of moving to and practising in
England contribute to an understanding of the purpose and transferability of
social work in an international context? (2, 7, 8)

The origins of social work, in the West at least, lay in a broad range of disparate and
sometimes competing responses to social need. The social work profession, if that
is what it has become, continues to both reflect and wrestle with its own sense of
purpose. Should it seek radical responses to poverty and marginalisation (Bailey &
Brake, 1980; Corrigan & Leonard, 1978; Ferguson & Woodward, 2009) or the
maintenance (Davies, 1994) of individuals and families in some socially acceptable
place? Should social work seek collective or individualised responses to the issues
it seeks to address? How should it engage with the complex nature of social
divisions (including poverty) in the societies in which it operates? To what extent
should social work aim to influence social policies shaping the lives of those it
supports? Does social work need clarity about its unique contributions and are these
dependent on time and place? Such questions reflect the critical realist (Bhaskar,
2008) orientation of this project, in recognising structural power and inequality whilst
seeking opportunities for social workers and service users to resist such realities and
in acknowledging struggles between those proposing different ‘solutions’ within the
fields of professional social work and social work academia.

This is, importantly, not a comparative study, though elements of comparison will
permeate the work. Rather, it uses an examination of the Philippines (and of Filipino
workers in England) to inform reflection upon the meaning and potential of social
work. To do this, a Bourdieusian conceptual framework (incorporating elements of
more traditional social work theory) is employed. To quote Payne & Askeland (2008,
p4), “Western social work should be influenced by non-Western social work, which
will inevitably have different values and practices. Nevertheless, Western cultural
and economic power means that we have to establish ways for it to achieve that
influence.” It is hoped that this thesis plays some small part in furthering that
influence.

14
1.2 Background and Motivation

This study was proposed at a time of heightened interest in the contributions of

overseas social workers in the UK, in a context of shortages of qualified workers and
concern about training and support needs (CWDC, 2009; Hussein, Manthorpe &
Stevens, 2008). The GSCC, which regulated social work at that time, had raised the
equivalency requirements for workers entering the UK (GSCC, 2008) and the
Migration Advisory Committee was reported to be recommending the fast-tracking of
certain applications from overseas to become social workers in the UK (Syal &
Doward, 2009). A Skills for Care-commissioned report had examined the continuing
professional development needs of internationally qualified workers (Brown, Bates &
Keen, 2007) and the Social Care Workforce Research Unit was undertaking a
government-funded research project exploring the use and experiences of
international workers in social care in England (Hussein, Stevens and Manthorpe,
2010). It should be acknowledged that the numbers of social workers from overseas
registering in the UK has been reducing more recently and that the range of
countries from which those workers are mostly coming is also narrowing:

“Tighter immigration controls, criticism of predatory employer practices, and

publication of stressful experiences by existing workers have influenced this
reduction. Of those qualifying overseas, 60 percent are from Australia, South Africa,
the USA and India (Mickel, 2009: 16).” (Dominelli, 2012)

A case could therefore have been made for the currency of researching international
social work and transition to England. These factors did not, however, prompt the
initial development of this study but rather an interest in ‘what social work is’ in
different parts of the world, how workers might ‘transfer’ their practice and ultimately
what an analysis of such comparisons and transitions might yield in terms of an
understanding of ‘better’ practice. It also reflected an interest in social work in the
‘developing’ world, the processes by which social work had achieved global-
presence (IFSW, 2006; Payne, 2005) and efforts made to ‘indigenise’ social work
(Gray et al, 2008; Hugman, 2010). Qualitative interviews were undertaken in both
the Philippines and England. However, as the data analysis developed it became

15
apparent that the core focus of this thesis should be based primarily upon data
gathered in the Philippines, offering a critical discussion of what it is to do social work
and to be a social worker in that context. This account considers the interplay of
global and local structure with the particular preoccupations and practices of social
workers in the Philippines. Thus, again, notions of field and habitus come into play.
The original interest in transferability remains and findings related to this are
introduced towards the end of the thesis. The work as a whole contributes to
attempts to, “…understand social work’s inherent diversity and to identify common
features across its different forms, which requires in turn a clear and careful historical
and conceptual analysis” (Lorenz, 2004, p146).

1.3 Terminology
This section offers some provisional definitions and application of terms used in the
thesis. We begin with Bourdieu’s key concepts, before defining some other
terminology employed.

Habitus

Stenner helpfully explains habitus (and its conceptual roots) as follows: “habitual,
routinised and ‘instinctive’ repetition (what Bourdieu, following Elias and William
James, called ‘habitus’).” (Stenner, 2013, p119). Throughout this thesis, the term
‘habitus’ is used, in this Bourdieusian sense, to refer to the cognitive structures
through which people engage with the social world. These are acquired initially by
the young child in the home as a result of the conscious and unconscious practices
of her/his family but evolve as the person encounters fields beyond that of family.
For Bourdieu,

“The habitus… is the active presence of the whole past of which it is the product. As
such, it is what gives practices their relative autonomy with respect to external
determinations of the immediate present.” (Bourdieu, 1977b, p56).

Bourdieu is, however, careful to avoid determination here: habitus is an internalised

structure that constrains thought and choice of action, but does not determine them.

16
The habitus suggests what one should think and choose to do but people engage in
a conscious deliberation of options:

“The habitus, an objective relationship between two objectivities, enables an

intelligible and necessary relation to be established between practices and a
situation, the meaning of which is produced by the habitus through categories of
perception and appreciation that are themselves observable social conditions…
Because it can only account for practices by bringing to light successively the series
of effects which underlie them, analysis initially conceals the structure of the life-style
characteristic of the agent or class of agents, that is, the unity hidden under the
diversity and multiplicity of the set of practices performed in fields governed by
different logics and therefore inducing different forms of realization, in accordance
with the formula [(habitus) (capital)] + field = practice.” (Bourdieu, 1984, p101).

Everyone has a habitus, and it is a reflection of one’s long-term occupation of

positions in the social world. For this thesis, the impact upon habitus of joining the
field of professional social work (and, for some, of moving within the international
field or, perhaps, between the fields of social work in the Philippines and England) is
of key interest. The thesis focuses upon habitus in terms of professional identity and
‘sense of self’ but seeks to understand and situate that identity within contexts of
individual history and the field of social work. It considers the socio-cultural contexts
within which the habitus of individual Filipino social workers were generated and the
collective practices expected of social workers. The concept of habitus informed the
analysis of data relating to motivation, identity and professional purpose and of the
process of adapting to practice in different contexts. This thesis constitutes a
reflection upon individual and collective habitus, placing this within an analysis of the
field(s) of social work and in the context of struggles over the meaning and purpose
of social work (locally and internationally). The concept of field is now discussed.

Field

The concept of field is used throughout this thesis in Bourdieusian terms, to refer to a
structured space which both constrains and is constantly shaped by relations
between individual agents and institutions struggling for influence:

17
“What exists in the social world are relations – not interactions between agents and
intersubjective ties between individuals but objective relations which exist
‘independent of individual consciousness and will’ as Marx says.” (Bourdieu and
Wacquant, 1992, p97)

Whilst the social work profession is a key part of the field of social work, so too are
researchers, policy makers and so on. In this thesis, therefore, characteristics of the
field of social work in the Philippines are identified, as described by those social
workers, social work academics and policy makers who are part of that field. It
considers also the influence which those actors (individually or collectively) have
upon the field of social work. For Bourdieu, and in this thesis, ‘field’ refers not only to
the structures, processes, regulations and roles typical of many taxonomies of
professions (Weiss & Welbourne, 2007) but also to relationships of relative power. A
field is therefore an arena for contestation and competition, as explained by Monnier
(2007, p347):

“A field is a structured space of positions, a hierarchy (dominant/dominated)… The

amounts and types of capital with which agents are endowed determine their relative
positions in the field… fields are characterized by struggles to improve one's position
and to define what counts as legitimate production… Fields also compete with one
another for dominance… According to Bourdieu, any sociological analysis should
start by examining the field under study to determine the different positions, what
kind of capital is most valued, how legitimacy is defined and by whom, and the
struggles and strategies actors engage in.”

The field of social work – in the Philippines, in England and internationally - is

constrained by but also shapes the perceptions and practices of those within the
field. Furthermore, the concept of ‘field’ (applied to social work internationally and in
particular countries) acknowledges struggles between those with differing visions of
what social work should be. This research identified ‘layers within layers’ of social
work field(s) and considered the historical development of the Philippine field of
social work in a context of the relative dominance of social work originating in the
Global North. The concept of field allowed us to situate social work within wider

18
social debates and fields of relative power, including politics and religion. The thesis
considers the process of ‘induction’ into the field of social work and impact upon
habitus, or personal and professional sense of self. For Crossley (2005), “Whenever
we enter a new field we discover that it has a pre-established and taken-for-granted
structure of both meaning and power” (p81) and the habitus of individual actors
within a field (in this case, the field of social work) must develop into a “feel for the
game” (p84). As will be seen, Filipino social workers who moved to England had to
adapt to what was, in very many ways, a less comfortable, recognisable or ‘taken-for
granted’ field, in which different ‘rules of the game’ were in play. It is with this
transition in mind that we now consider briefly the meaning of the term ‘hysteresis’,
before turning to offer some introductory thoughts on capital, as defined by Bourdieu
and used in this thesis.

Hysteresis
As we have seen, Bourdieu saw habitus as a set of internalised external structures,
acquired as a result of occupying a position in the social world (in this case, for
example, as a social worker) and through which the world is understood. However, if
a person’s position changes (for example, by moving from the Philippines to practise
in England), their habitus will be rendered less suitable or, at least, challenged.
Bourdieu (1998, 1999) used the term hysteresis to explain such situations.
Hysteresis refers to a dislocation of habitus resulting from change to a field or from a
move from a familiar field to an unfamiliar one (Bourdieu, 1998). Indeed, the
hysteresis effect may be seen to be a natural consequence of the two-way formative
relationship between field and habitus, in which struggles occur over the nature of
the field (between people with different stakes and access to capital) and actors
have to make sense of changed environments (Kerr, 2009). In this thesis, therefore,
hysteresis is defined in the sense of a personal and professional culture shock
expressed (and very much felt) by Filipino workers who had moved to England.

Capital
In entering the field of social work, individuals bring and accumulate capital in
various forms. Indeed, access to different types and ‘amounts’ of capital brings with
it different forms of power and influence within the field of social work. Bourdieu

19
(1999) identified four forms of capital, of which the following have most relevance to
this thesis. For Bourdieu, one accumulates social capital through connections, which
here includes professional networks, academic association and wider membership of
groups within society. However, Bourdieu also wrote about cultural capital, which –
in this context – relates to formal training and registration but also to the less formal
processes by which individuals adopt approaches and attitudes which share some
commonality with other members of a field. Finally, Bourdieu identifies the symbolic
capital which lends social legitimacy to the professional power of, for example, social
workers. This thesis reflects upon some of the processes through which individual
social workers develop and use capital in engaging with service users and in
‘struggles’ within the field of social work. On moving to England, social workers
described having less social and cultural capital both generally and in practice
contexts. Meanwhile, they were seen to be negotiating different forms of symbolic
power (for example, identifying more legally-based power but a less grateful or
compliant client base). Nonetheless, the data suggested that Filipino social workers
in England went on to gain capital through processes including training, observation
and supervision, by seeking to understand local culture and behaviours and by
adopting some of the approaches and practices of their new teams and colleagues.

Global North & Global South

Throughout this thesis, the terms ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ are used when
distinguishing between richer and poorer nations of the world. This terminology has
been in increasing use since the publication of the Brandt Report in 1980 (Brandt
1980). For Mosoetsa and Williams (2012, p4), the “idea of the global South is meant
to identify countries in similar economic and geopolitical positions in the global
capitalist system and to highlight their shared strategic objectives and interests”. On
the other hand, the terms ‘developed’ and ‘developing’, when applied to nations or
regions, suggest some ‘ideal’ to which countries should aspire and thus undervalue
other dimensions of culture, promoting a particular (capitalist) model of development
(Rigg, 2007). These terms are, therefore, avoided and the position taken by Payne
and Askeland (2008) is adopted: “We refer to North and South as collective terms
denoting the difference between rich and economically developed nations and
poorer nations with less developed economies”.

20
It is acknowledged that, although the regions of the world lying below the equator are
generally less affluent than those situated above the equator, there are some
significant exceptions (for example, Australia and New Zealand). Indeed, the
Philippines is located above the equator and therefore within the northern
hemisphere. However, the terms ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ refer not only to
geography but also to socio-economic differences which, as Rigg (2007) suggests,
are not necessarily a function of, geography. It is acknowledged that any
categorisations remain unsatisfactory but suggested that these terms are in common
usage and increasingly widely understood (Williams, Bradley, Devadason &
Erickson, 2013). Where the language of ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ is
employed in this thesis it should, therefore, be understood in the manner explained
here.

Service User
Throughout this thesis, the term ‘service user’ is employed when describing people
who receive input from a social worker. The word ‘client’ is avoided where possible,
as it implicitly places the social worker in the position of expert. Though one could
argue that this more accurately reflects power imbalances in professional
relationships, the term ‘service user’ goes some way towards addressing notions of
dependence and empowerment. Both terms imply an individualistic or casework
model but, importantly, this thesis also encompasses social work with groups and
communities.

Social Worker
One further issue requires initial discussion, here. Lyons, Manion & Carlsen (2006),
among others, draw attention to the problem of defining ‘who counts’ as a social
worker. Posts and agencies called ‘social work’ in some countries are not seen as
such in others. Qualification and registration requirements vary around the world, as
does the content of qualifying programmes (Hussein, Stevens & Manthorpe, 2010;
Weiss & Welbourne, 2007). A ‘solution’ for Lyons, Manion & Carlsen (2006) is to
adopt the phrase ‘social professionals’, as a more fluid definition of roles which social
work may undertake in differing contexts. There is much merit in such a definition.
Indeed, as this research project proceeded, the stark differences in public and
professional understandings of what social work ‘is’ became ever more apparent.

21
However, it was also important to place parameters around who might be selected
as research participants. It was therefore decided that, where interviews were held
with social workers, these would be professionally qualified and working in (or having
worked in) positions for which a qualified social worker was required by the
employing agency. This issue is revisited in the thesis.

Having considered some initial definitional issues, this chapter now turns to a
question asked by most of the research participants: ‘Why did you choose to look at
the Philippines?’

1.4 Why the Philippines & England?

There were conceptual, pragmatic and personal reasons for considering the
experience of workers in/from the Philippines. Given the researcher’s connections
through living and working in Asia, countries including Thailand, Taiwan and
Cambodia were considered. Although a significant number of social workers in
England qualified overseas, fewer are from the Global South. The only Southeast
Asian ‘developing’ country with a significant presence in England was the
Philippines. In May 2009, the General Social Care Council (GSCC) confirmed there
were 109 Filipino social workers registered with them [email dated 13.5.09 held by
researcher]. As the study progressed, it became apparent that fewer were currently
employed as social workers in England, with some having moved on to other
countries or never taken up employment in social work. This raises two issues:
firstly, though the participants provided rich data and a meaning and validity to the
findings, no claims of statistical significance are made, in terms of Filipino workers in
the Philippines or England or social workers practising ‘internationally’ in general.
This study concerns itself with the experiences and perspectives of 33 participants:
social workers, social work academics and policy makers in the Philippines and a
number of Filipino workers practising in England. The thesis considers what this
data might mean for an understanding of social work identity and purpose in the
Philippines for those undergoing ‘professional transition’ and for the core meaning of
social work. Above all, there is significant validity in presenting voices seldom heard
in international social work literature.

22
The Philippines was also chosen because there is a reasonably developed
indigenous social work literature (Landa Jocano, 1980; Veneracion, 2003; Yu, 2006;
Lee-Mendoza, 2008) and a well-established literature considering migration from the
country, often associated with care work (Parrenas, 2001; Lan, 2003; Nititham,
2011). Furthermore, the Philippine Association of Social Workers (which facilitated
access to participants) was established over 60 years ago, which suggested that
social work was a relatively established profession in the Philippines. Importantly,
the Philippines offers an intriguing ‘case study’, having sought to adopt and adapt
western social work theories and approaches within a society which had very
different cultural norms and social structures but was also subjected to (broadly
Christian) colonial influence (Constantino & Constantino, 1978). Social work in the
country is, in part, a product of ‘professional imperialism’ (Midgley, 1981), having
seen the imposition of social policy and welfare practices from Spain and the US.
However, there is also evidence of efforts to indigenise and ‘authentise’ (Walton &
Nasr, 1988) social work knowledge and approaches in the Philippines.

There was, therefore, a considered rationale for selecting the Philippines as the
‘host’ country for this research. However, the question, ‘why England?’ should also
be addressed. Firstly, the researcher was troubled by the impact of neoliberalism
and processes of managerialism upon social work in England (Clarke & Newman,
1997; Evans & Harris, 2004; Harlow, Berg Luleå, Barry & Chandler, 2013) and
interested in alternative ways of organising and practising social work. More
importantly, England was the country and social work the researcher knew best,
having practised and taught social work there. Any research into processes of
transition, therefore, was always going to involve transition to the UK. However, to
talk of ‘British’ or UK social work hides a good number of differences (across
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) in terms of professional profile and
legal/policy frameworks. As most Filipino social workers in the UK were in England,
the focus was narrowed to the Philippines and England.

Having said something of the background to, and evolving motivation for, this
research project, the chapter now sketches-in some demographic features of the
Philippines.

23
1.5 The Philippines: A Demographic Outline

The following summary is based upon information from the Australian Government
website (AusAID, 2011), the UN Development Programme website (referenced
below) and the Philippine Government’s own Philippines Midterm Progress Report
on the Millennium Development Goals 2007 (National Economic and Development
Authority/United Nations Country Team, 2007). Australia, through its overseas aid
program is one of the largest international donors to the Philippines and its website
contained useful information. This section is intended to offer a broad overview only,
rather than definitive information.

The Philippines comprises 7,107 islands, though the 3 main groups of islands are
Mindanao (the southernmost islands), the Visayas (central) and Luzon (in the north
of the archipelago), on which Manila is situated.

Map from CIA World Factbook, 2007.

Figure 1 Map of the Philippines

The Philippines has one of the highest rates of population growth in Asia. Its
estimated population in 2007 was 88.7 million and the projected figure for 2015 is

24
approximately 102 million. Around 80% of the population are Catholic and 5%
Muslim (of whom, the majority live in Mindanao). Although there are more than 80
languages and dialects, most people speak Filipino (closely related to Tagalog) and
many, particularly in urban areas, speak English.

External commentators and the Philippine Government acknowledge poverty as a

prevailing issue, especially (but not exclusively) in rural parts of the country and in
the south (where armed conflict remains a feature). According to AusAID (2011),
44% of the population were living on less than US$2 a day in 2006 and, “the actual
number of people living in poverty has increased over the last two decades”. The
UN Development Programme website stated that 26.5 percent of the total population
lives below the poverty line, including 10 million women (accessed 10.4.14 at:
www.ph.undp.org/content/philippines/en/home/countryinfo). Around 10% of the
population work overseas, and Remittances from Filipino Workers Overseas (FWOs)
account for around 10% of GDP.

Contributing factors to this situation include global economic crises, natural

disasters, high unemployment, a failing agricultural sector, high population growth
and inadequate infrastructure and basic services. The impact of natural disasters
and armed conflict must not be understated: millions have been displaced by such
occurrences. Again, AusAID (2011) state that, “the poorest 20 per cent of the
population [account] for only 5 per cent of total income or consumption.” However,
according to the UN Development Programme, “Despite having widespread poverty,
the Philippines has fared relatively well in Human Development Index (HDI),
particularly in comparison to other Southeast Asian nations. In 2012, Philippines’
economy outpaced the growth of its neighboring countries with 6.6 percent growth
rate.” The country also has a 95.4% adult literacy rate (accessed 10.4.14 at:
http://www.ph.undp.org/content/philippines/en/home/countryinfo/)

Though much more will be said of the Philippines as this thesis proceeds, it is hoped
that this summary offers an indication of the context within which social work is
defined and the potential constraints it faces in seeking professional influence. In
circumstances such as these, and given that many Filipinos speak and write English,
it is unsurprising that large numbers (though not typically from the very poorest parts

25
of society) seek work overseas as a way out of poverty. As will become apparent,
many participants spoke of struggling, as qualified social workers in the Philippines,
to earn sufficient to cover their outgoings and support their families.

1.6 Original Contributions, Potential Audiences and Concluding

Comments

The originality of this thesis is derived from several aspects of the research project.
Firstly, there is almost no published work in which the perspectives of those directly
involved in Philippine social work are presented. No apology is made for devoting
two chapters to those voices, which say much about practice in a country that rarely
features in any detail in the international social work literature. A third ‘data chapter’
similarly provides space for the perspectives of Filipino workers in England. Indeed,
this partial focus on transition and ‘views from a new place’ are under-represented in
the social work literature, with none considering the specific case of the Philippines
and England. Finally, the application of Bourdieusian theory to social work has been
explored in few articles and, again, never in relation to the Philippines or to economic
migration and identity within social work.

With these points in mind, one can identify a number of potential audiences for this
work. Firstly, it is hoped that the research will be of interest to social work
practitioners, academics and policy makers in the Philippines and efforts will be
made to make the findings available in the country. The two current publications
(Price & Artaraz, 2013; Price, 2014) make a start in this direction. Social workers
considering moving to England (perhaps from a range of countries) should also be
able to identify relevant messages from the findings which could help them to
prepare for such a transition. It is suggested, also, that prospective employers of
social workers (and perhaps other professionals) from overseas generally and from
the Philippines in particular are a potential audience for aspects of the work. There
are probably two further audiences for the thesis or for publications based upon the
research. These are, firstly, academics interested in Bourdieu (in particular, the
application of Bourdieu’s ideas to work and the professions) and, secondly, those
situated within the academic area one might call ‘international social work’. The

26
thesis addresses issues of identity, motivation, purpose and definition that continue
to interest social work academia and the profession internationally.

This chapter has begun to explain the study, why it was undertaken and the
academic and practice areas to which it seeks to contribute. The thesis turns next to
findings from the Literature Review, with Chapter 2 focusing upon establishing a
theoretical framework and Chapter 3 identifying key themes from the international
and Philippine social work literature in order to situate the field of social work in the
Philippines within historical and international context.

27
Chapter 2: Towards a Conceptual Framework

2.1 Introduction

This chapter integrates messages from a range of broadly theoretical literature,

some of which shaped the project from the outset and some of which emerged as
pertinent as the research moved forward. The unifying concern across the chapter
and the fundamental reason for using the literature presented, is a sociological one:
that of mediating the place of social structure and human agency. To begin to
understand Philippine social work required, in part, knowledge of what social workers
do and why they think they are doing it. However, a critical realist approach to
research implies that the parameters of agency, of what is possible (or perceived
possible) are, in part, shaped by social structures. The recognition of the interplay
between agency and structure underpins much social work theory, including that of
Payne (2014), Thompson (2012) and Fook (2012), whose ideas are revisited here. It
is acknowledged that an entire thesis focusing even upon one dimension of social
structure could only scratch the surface. However, for the purposes of this thesis,
social structure is taken to mean enduring relationships between social groups
maintained by social stratification and institutions and revealed in forms of social
capital, expectations and behaviours. The work of Bourdieu (1997), introduced in
this chapter, acknowledged the agency of citizens (for example, as social workers or
service users) but recognised the power relations within social groups (including
professions) and between dominant and less-powerful groups. The place of social
structures including economy, religion, family and cultural systems is discussed
throughout this thesis and all are seen to influence the worldview and practice of
individual social workers and the profession locally and internationally. Again, the
focus is on what it is to be a social worker and to do social work, emphasising that
this does not happen in a vacuum. All of this informs thoughts upon the extent to
which social work should be seen as mostly situated practice or as having some
international ‘essence’.

28
This chapter employs current literature to situate and frame the subsequent
discussion and analysis of social work in the Philippines. Whilst Chapter 3 will draw
upon literature specifically related to Philippine social work and places this in
historical and international context, here we identify, review and integrate key
themes from a wider range of social work and sociological literature in order to
develop a conceptual and analytical framework for the thesis. The chapter
rehearses some central dimensions of – and sites of disagreement about – social
work purpose and orientation: as seeking social change or maintenance; as
operating at a collective or individualised level; and so on. The chapter is broad-
based, deliberately selecting insights and perspectives from a range of literatures, for
reasons which are explained as the chapter progresses. The overall aims are to
discuss the construction of individual social work identity, drawing upon the
Bourdieusian concepts of habitus and capital; to place this within a discussion of
what ‘professional’ social work is (using Bourdieu’s notion of ‘field’); and to make
connections with relevant debates within the academic field(s) of social work theory
and ‘international social work’. In doing this, some core tenets of attempts to define
and theorise social work and to articulate what Payne (2005, p3) might describe as
the nature of its possibilities, in contexts of change and continuity, are explored.
Consideration is also given to literature on ‘professionalisation’, identity and
motivation (as a ‘professional’ social worker). The chapter draws also upon literature
considering vocation and the influence of religion and spirituality in relation to work
generally and social work in particular, an area of literature which emerged as
necessary to inform data analysis. By considering the international, professional and
personal, the chapter acknowledges macro/structural dimensions (making
connections to ‘field’) and micro or individual factors (habitus, perhaps) that influence
practice.

2.2 Approaching the Research

As has been said, this research was approached with a ‘sociological imagination’
(Wright-Mills, 1959) or from a position of giving due weight to the impact of social
structure and the potential for human agency. The expectations and experiences we
have reflect, in large part, our location in relation to processes of stratification,

29
division, identity-formation and oppression. An underlying theme of this thesis is that
recipients of social work input usually need - or receive - support because they are
unable to secure this for themselves and often in circumstances where the effect of
social divisions (for example, social class, disability, age) contribute significantly to
their situation. Social work can - and does - compound the oppression people face
in their lives (Smith, 2008) and, often, works within or alongside systems that serve
to blame individuals or communities rather than confront or even acknowledge
structural cause (Jones, 2011). The ways in which ‘problems’ and ‘needs’ are
conceptualised, by social work, government and society, shape the domains within
which social work seeks or is permitted to operate. At the time of undertaking this
research, there was some evidence of a re-developing challenge from radical social
work perspectives in England (Lavalette, 2011) and this thesis seeks to contribute to
those perspectives, by considering where individual and collective social work
identity and orientation sits in this debate.

The thesis reflects and engages with a critical realist worldview, one that rejects the
determinism of structural thinking and the ‘infinite possibility’ of some postmodern
ontological positions. It sits closer to the critical approach of Fook (2012) who,
building upon notions from postmodernism, critical social theory and anti-oppressive
social work theory, suggests that social work should be, “primarily concerned with
practising in ways which further a society without domination, exploitation and
oppression… on how structures dominate, but also on how people construct and are
constructed by changing social structures and relations...” (Fook, 2002, p18). Fook
(1993, 2012) questions typifications of social work that, for example, suggest
community-based or collective forms of practice have inherently more critical
potential than one-to-one casework approaches. Similarly, whilst acknowledging the
‘existence’ of structural forms of oppression, and discrimination related to social
divisions, Fook urges social work to avoid, “constructing a passive ‘victim’ identity
amongst the disadvantaged” (2002, p9) and to acknowledge the value (including
political potential) which ‘individualised’ forms of social work might contribute. Fook’s
writing returned to me whilst in the Philippines and as I began to analyse the data
gathered there and in the UK. Why did social work in the Philippines strike me as
‘more radical’ than that typically practised in England? When Filipino social workers
in the UK reminisced about community social work in the Philippines, what was it

30
that they were missing? What, indeed, might constitute a more emancipatory model
of social work and does it involve a shift towards something more collective?

Writing about social work in the UK, Ferguson & Woodward (2009, p16) make the
following comment:

“Any approach that locates the sources of people’s problems primarily in the
structures of the society in which we live, and which encourages social workers to
challenge these structures in their day-to-day practice, is likely to be viewed less
favourably by governments and funding bodies than those approaches that instead
highlight clients’ individual inadequacies, faulty thought patterns or stunted emotional
development... not only radical approaches but also collective approaches in
general, including community development, have fallen off the agenda of many
social work courses and agencies.”

Undertaking the research for this thesis led to a questioning of the suggestion,
implicit in the above quotation, that collective and/or community approaches are, in
themselves, more likely to be critical in nature and to foster social change. The
individual identity, motivation and orientation of each social worker were identified as
having a significant impact upon their recognition and use of professional agency,
even though this is practised in a context of social structures and divisions and of the
professional ‘field’.

2.3 The Professional Journey

When originally conceived, it was intended that this thesis would mostly address
professional migration from the Philippines to England. However, the ‘critical gaze’
of the researcher (which, for C. Wright-Mills (1959) implies research which is alert to
political, historical and structural context) settled increasingly upon data gathered in
the Philippines. It seemed necessary to interrogate that data fully before considering
the position of those who had taken a further step of moving to England. Of course,
such economic migration cannot be understood outside of broader debates about
globalisation, which informed the research. Writers such as Stephen Castles

31
(Castles, 2006; Castles & Miller, 2008) have commented extensively on shifting
approaches to immigration in the Global North, for example from assimilation to
multiculturalism and arguably back to assimilation as core policy drivers. Processes
of migration in part constructed the field of social work in the Philippines today and
how individual workers construct their professional identities. Also, whilst the focus
is not on the stories of workers who have travelled from Global South to North,
notions of transferability are relevant to the movement of social work to (and
imposition of non-indigenous religious teachings and professional practices upon)
the Philippines. In this regard, an article by Nimmagadda and Cowger (1999) was
formative in developing this study, particularly in terms of research focus and the
shape of the interview guide. The article examined how social workers in India
implemented and ‘indigenised’ an American treatment programme for alcohol
dependency. There are clear limitations to the applicability of the work to this thesis,
not least that the article was published 15 years ago and addresses neither England
nor the Philippines. However, in revisiting debates about the development of social
work in Asia, Nimmagadda and Cowger draw attention to a range of perspectives
(Ejaz, 1991; Kulkarni, 1993) on the extent to which ‘developing’ countries and social
work within those countries have been influenced by Western (and predominantly
American) knowledge, values and social structures. The impact of the USA (and
Spain) upon society and social work is critical.

Nimmagadda and Cowger say much about adaptations made by social workers
using ‘imported’ techniques in an Asian context. More importantly, by drawing
attention to the layers and dimensions of indigenisation, the article informed a
‘working model’ devised for this study. The diagram on the following page sets out a
series of ‘stages’ or ‘forces’ that might be seen as shaping the habitus and
professional identity of a Filipino social worker, from before qualification to a point of
‘adjustment’ to social work in England. Although the linear presentation over-
simplifies the processes involved, it provides a model which helped identify areas of
enquiry within the study and informed the data analysis.

32
 1. LEGACY OF HISTORICAL PROCESSES – Philippine culture as a product of historical
processes. These include imperialism, religious conversion, processes of resistance and
global dependence, along with particular forms of professional development.

2. QUALIFYING EDUCATION & TRAINING – individual ‘initiation’ into the field of social
work, including particular influences of other countries upon welfare systems, social work
education and practice approaches, together with indigenous social work

3. ADAPTATION – attempts made by individual social workers and agencies to make sense
of received social work ideas or to adapt methods for local needs/culture

4. CREATION OF IDENTITY OR HABITUS – development (within international and national

professional field) of sense of purpose and value base in ‘home country’ (including
influence of ‘personal’ values, faith, etc.)

5. PLANNING TO MOVE – expectations of destination and of social work in that country;

negotiating application and registration

6. TRANSFER – initial experience and impact of practice in other country; any further
training received

7. PRACTICE ABROAD – process of, again, adapting knowledge and skills

8. FURTHER IDENTITY CREATION – what ‘is’ Social Work now? What is ‘the same’? What
was transferable? What is valued/missed?

Figure 2 Development of Habitus (after Nimmagadda & Cowger)

33
The above model, produced before carrying out primary research, was a visual
representation of a hypothesised process by which workers’ professional identity and
sense of self (habitus) might develop upon joining the field of professional social
work and moving within the international field or between the fields of social work in
the Philippines and England. The model sought also to represent the evolution of
the field of social work in the Philippines in historical context. In some ways, it
echoes elements of classical theories of learning (Kolb, 1984). Social workers in the
Philippines often work in institutions and apply methods that are heavily influenced
by the USA. Of course, as Nimmagadda and Cowger state, “Social work practice
models are laden with cultural values, norms, assumptions, attitudes and linguistic
habits and beliefs, implicit and explicit, rational and irrational, formalized and
intuitive” (1999 p263). It was hypothesised, therefore, that Filipino workers were
making sense of ‘western’ and indigenous approaches, in the context of Philippine
society, own beliefs and values and the expectations and needs of Philippine service
users. Through this process, individual social work identity would be forged.
Parallels are, again, drawn with habitus, which Bourdieu described as the
internalised dispositions and perceptions which social actors develop through,
among other things, ‘membership’ of particular ‘fields’ (such as professions) and the
associated development of cultural, economic and social capital (Bourdieu, 1980;
Wacquant, 2008). Where a worker seeks to practise overseas, in adapting to new
national and professional cultures they re-adapt their knowledge and skills in a
process Zubin (2006) calls ‘double-culture shock’. Wacquant (2008, p267) draws
our attention to the following particularly relevant dimension of Bourdieuian analysis:
“…persons experiencing transnational migration or undergoing great social mobility
often possess segmented or conflictive dispositional sets”. This process, which
Bourdieu named ‘hysteresis’, is especially pronounced across very different cultural
contexts, where it is possible that the, “…person’s habitus will be thrown into
complete disarray. Customs, social graces, deportment and basic meaning will all be
problematised. What is more, the fields in the new culture will have different stakes
and stakeholders” (Houston, 2002, p161). These processes, and their outcomes in
terms of individual perspectives on social work meaning, purpose and methods, are
discussed towards the end of the thesis and will be the focus of further work.

34
As in Nimmagadda and Cowger’s research, this study identified cultural and faith-
based influences on Philippine social work and the motivations and identity of social
workers. It also shed light on how the profession and social work academics tried to
make ‘western’ social work approaches ‘fit for purpose’ (whilst under pressure to
meet the demands of external aid providers). A desire to ‘do good works’ was a
clear motivating factor for many workers. This provides a sense of vocation and
ethic of care (Barnes, 2012) which underpins much social work effort in the country
but which can manifest itself in forms that do not promote empowerment or self-
actualisation. There is also evidence of social work being oriented towards social
justice, advocacy and political change in the Philippines. Thus, the country provides
fascinating insights into struggles within the field of social work, perhaps between
notions of ‘maintenance, stability or social harmony’ versus ‘empowerment,
challenge and change’. Nimmagadda and Cowger highlighted tension between
received ‘western’ notions of self-determination and the pragmatic and culturally-
expected impulse to be directive. Again, similar dilemmas were identified among
workers interviewed for this thesis.

All these tensions are influenced by social divisions and the expectations of workers
and clients in terms of social hierarchies, family, gender and so on. However,
Nimmagadda and Cowger also found that workers saw their own ‘personality’ as a
key influence on their practice. Hence, notions of ‘character’ and use of self might be
added to the web of factors impacting on practice. Finally, in the Philippines, much
was made of perceived ‘national’ traits, personality and behaviours (usually
conceptualised as aspects of Philippine culture, taught during qualifying training and
considered factors to inform culturally appropriate or indigenous practice). Again,
these dimensions of professional identity are explored in this thesis (see Chapter 5).

So, one article influenced significantly the design of this study and the analysis and
writing-up of its findings. The article stresses the importance of being alert to
processes by which individual workers’ “feelings, values, life history, practice
experience, formal knowledge and internalized mentors seem to operate with one
another for practice to emerge” (p273). It is suggested, in this thesis, that the
complex influence and interplay of social divisions and structures also exert
considerable influence on that practice.

35
2.4 Core Themes of the Thesis
The following diagram summarises some central preoccupations of the thesis, as it
relates to social work in the Philippines. It builds upon the earlier diagram but
incorporates some main areas to be identified in the data chapters. Whereas the
previous model was devised before undertaking primary research, this diagram
arose from data analysis.

36
 SPANISH & ONGOING ‘IMPORTED’ SW ROLE OF
US IMPACT OF AID PRACTICE/ INTERNATIONAL
INFLUENCE AGENCIES EDUCATION SW BODIES

FIELD OF SOCIAL WORK IN THE PHILIPPINES

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF PROFESSION IN PHILIPPINES
ROLE OF SOCIAL STRUCTURES (SUCH AS STATE, RELIGION & FAMILY)
IMPACT OF PHILIPPINE CULTURAL VALUES & NORMS
INDIGENISATION OF SOCIAL WORK CURRICULUM & PRACTICE
STRUGGLES/DEBATES OVER ORIENTATION OF SW IN PHILIPPINES

HABITUS
INITIAL & EVOLVING MOTIVATION/VOCATION FOR SOCIAL WORK
FORMATION & DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL WORK ‘SENSE OF SELF’
IDENTITY AS INTERNALISED PREDISPOSITIONS
(OCCUPATIONAL; PROFESSIONAL; PERSONAL; RELIGIOUS; NATIONAL; GENDER-RELATED)
CHARACTERISATION OF SERVICE USERS & SOCIAL GROUPS
IMPACT OF PERSPECTIVES ON FILIPINO ‘TRAITS’ & CULTURE
ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL & STATUS AS A SOCIAL WORKER

SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE IN THE PHILIPPINES

INDIVIDUAL ORIENTATIONS TO PRACTICE
STYLES AND MODELS OF SOCIAL WORK
FORMS OF ENGAGEMENT WITH ‘STAKEHOLDERS’ AT PRACTICE LEVEL

Figure 3 Core Themes of Thesis

37
The above diagram encompasses elements of structure and agency, of the
‘professional journey’ discussed earlier and of Bourdieusian concepts (field, habitus
and capital), which are discussed later in this chapter. Chapters 5 and 6 consider
the above factors in relation to Philippine social work, while Chapter 7 develops
some of the areas in relation to Filipino workers in England. Findings suggested that
Filipino social workers practising in England are, essentially, adapting their habitus,
practices and identity to a different social work field or, at least, a different iteration of
the international field.

Two models have been presented thus far. The first took the form of a flow chart
incorporating forces that shape the field of social work in the Philippines and the
layered processes by which a worker might be ‘co-opted’ into ways of being a social
worker and doing social work. If that worker goes on to practise in another country,
further adaptations of identity and practice are posited. The second model,
presented as the above diagram, identified some key dimensions of the field of
social work in the Philippines, some factors influencing social work practice there
and suggested aspects of motivation and identity which shape what it is to ‘be’ a
social worker in the Philippines. Both models are limited, as they reduce complex
processes and factors into workable diagrammatic form. However, they offered a
conceptual sounding board against which to consider the literature and the data.
This is true, also, of one final model that draws upon two equally stylised models
from established social work theorists and on the work of Pierre Bourdieu.

2.5 Field and Habitus: A Typology of Practice

As will become apparent, the Philippines essentially imported forms of welfare and
social work which, over time, changed to reflect local culture and international
development priorities. However, different providers of social work operate in very
different ways and, indeed, individual workers adopt very different identities and
orientations to practice. In this context, a typology of approaches to practice (which
can be applied to the macro or micro, to field or habitus) was required. For the
purposes of this thesis, two established models were combined to provide this. The
model was intended not just to inform an analysis of what countries, agencies and

38
individual workers actually think and do but also to identify differing perspectives on
social work ‘mission’, scope and potential. Radical social work accuses the
profession of colluding with processes of oppression rather than exposing and
challenging structural inequality (Davies & Leonard, 2004). However, as has been
argued, there is sometimes a tendency to conflate notions of radicalism, collectivity
and community, suggesting that community-based or collective approaches to
practice are, inherently, more aligned to social justice and social change. This
echoes the researcher’s own initial response to social work in the Philippines. In
seeking to question such assumptions, whilst retaining a focus on structure and
agency, connections were made between the work of two social work theorists.

Payne suggests (2014, p21) that social work may be conceptualised as a discourse
between three broad objectives or orientations, as shown here:

EMPOWERMENT
Social Democratic

PROBLEM-SOLVING SOCIAL CHANGE

Liberal/neo-liberal Socialist

Figure 4 Payne’s Typology of Social Work Orientations (Payne, 2014)

Payne’s three ‘types’ of social work might be described as follows. Empowerment

approaches to social work see wellbeing and self-fulfillment as the basis for
individual and, in some forms, social change. People are empowered through
reflection upon feelings and life choices, where the worker empowers service users,
groups or communities to recognise and change or challenge their circumstances:

“This view expresses in social work the social democratic political philosophy, that is,
that economic and social development should go hand in hand to achieve individual
and social improvement.” (Payne, 2014, p21)

39
Although this ‘type’ of social work might be most readily identified in one-to-one
(sometimes therapeutic) and groupwork contexts, Payne maintains that it may seek
wellbeing and growth at the community level. Social work as ‘Problem-solving’
echoes what Davies (1994) described as maintenance, with practice directed
towards social stability, using legal intervention where necessary. Finally, Payne’s
‘Social Change’ objective refers to transformational practice that promotes social
justice and where workers raise consciousness of poverty and oppression,
empowering people to challenge social relations and structures. Payne sees
collective practice as the most likely approach here, with power gained through
mutual support, exchange and action.

Having used this typology to inform data analysis, it became apparent (as Payne
acknowledges) that definitions of social work are complex and thus, for example, that
practice in the Philippines can be seen as simultaneously collectivist and neo-liberal
or reformist. For Payne, these are not ‘either/or’ options. It is probably unhelpful and
unrealistic to situate individual roles or agencies (or national welfare orientations)
solely within one ‘dimension’. Payne argues (2005b, p9) that social work constitutes
a complex discourse, “formed by the actions, understandings, thoughts and
arguments of the people involved in it…”. Debate is ongoing within the profession,
among academics and between ‘social work’ (whatever that may be), governments
and wider society. In other words, there are struggles within the field(s) of social
work and between social work and other fields. Individual workers (if, indeed, they
question their purpose or reflect on their habitus) may situate themselves at
particular points on the model. Their ‘ideal’ location or preferred form of practice
may, however, be different from that which their current role imposes upon them.
They might see themselves as struggling within a context to pursue a different form
of practice. Thus, for example, one participant spoke of unease with practice in a
‘social action’ oriented agency. Furthermore, a social worker may identify aspects of
their work that could be considered therapeutic but others that sit closer to a social
order paradigm. Again, the territory is that of personal and professional identity
within the wider context of the (contested) field of social work.

40
Social work has a long history of seeking to define and position itself, to articulate
what unique perspectives and contributions it has to offer. These dialogues happen
within the professional field, between professional fields and with government,
society and service user. Tensions and debates within Philippine social work are
highlighted in this thesis, making connections to historical and ongoing international
influence. Of course, government ambitions and priorities change, in terms of social
work roles and scope for action (more so where reliant on other countries/INGOs).
Furthermore, those who ‘use’ services have perspectives upon what social work is
and should be. In the Philippines, there is a broadly positive public disposition
towards social work, though this may reflect functions that include providing direct,
tangible assistance (as well as links with faith and to arguably the limited
expectations of recipients). Social work may, or may not, also reflect the aspirations
and preoccupations of the society in which it sits. To add further layers of difference,
social work responds to particular cultural and national contexts but continues also to
articulate its defining features and mission internationally (IFSW, 2000;
IASSW/ICSW/IFSW, 2011).

Payne’s model offers much to a discussion of purpose and identity in social work and
can begin to provide a framework for this study. Though Payne cautions against a
crude application of the model, sometimes such dualities can help one to ‘see the
wood for the trees’. His emphasis upon the socially-constructed nature of social
work, without suggesting that there are no continuities, commonalities or social
realities, accords with the critical realist ontology of this thesis: “Instead of defining
social work as one thing, one practice, one social system, I argue that social work
constantly redefines itself as it is influenced by others, by social need and social
change, and by its own internal discourse about its nature” (Payne, 2005b, p2).

A second model which contributes to discussion of social work context and purpose
is Neil Thompson’s ‘PCS’ Model, which identifies 3 inter-related ‘levels’ at which
discrimination and oppression operate and at which social work may challenge (or
collude) with those processes (Thompson, 2012). It identifies spheres in which
individual and social injustice occurs and suggests social work might focus its action
and have more or less influence in different spheres. It is a model for
conceptualising people’s ‘problems’ and considering their causes but also points

41
towards domains within which social work might take place. Thompson (2012)
presents his model as follows:

Personal

Cultural

Structural

Figure 5 Thompson’s PCS Model (Thompson, 2012)

The ‘Personal’ sphere is that of direct inter-personal practice, feelings and

interactions. Discrimination here may be direct prejudice or practices that
pathologise individuals and families. The ‘Cultural’ sphere might better be thought of
as mediating processes. Here Thompson refers to social rules, ‘shared’ norms,
dominant (and less powerful) beliefs and meanings and notions such as consensus
and conformity. Finally, the ‘Structural’ level refers to social divisions and to the
operation of power imbalances at societal level, including dominant social institutions
and structural inequalities. The model, therefore, acknowledges agency and
structure and speaks to the critical-realist ontology of the thesis.

Thompson (2012) suggests, therefore, that social work operating at the personal
level must engage also with cultural processes and structural constraints. He
acknowledges that the model understates the interplay and interconnections
between the 3 levels. However, its strength is that (as with Bourdieu) marginalised
or poor individuals and communities are seen to experience their lives within
dominant cultural norms and a society where inequalities are patterned by social
structure and social divisions. It is true that people contribute to continuance and
change in cultural terms; that they experience their lives individually, in part reflecting
their unique identities and locations in relation to social divisions; and that where
there is structural oppression, there is also the potential to resist through personal
agency. However, it is also true that poverty, sexism, racism and disablism, to offer
just some examples, are ‘felt’ as very real manifestations of social structure,
maintained in part through cultural and inter-personal process. For Bourdieu, social
structure is internalised by service users and social workers alike (the habitus) and

42
actors in society (and within social fields, like the social work profession) exercise
unequal and competing claims for the power that capital (economic, social, cultural
and symbolic) brings.

The following diagram, bringing together the Payne and Thompson models, was
produced, again, in the early stages of the project, as an attempt to produce a
Typology of Practice. For this thesis, the literature and primary data were
considered, inter alia, in relation to this model:

EMPOWERMENT
Social Democratic

PROBLEM-SOLVING SOCIAL CHANGE

Liberal/neo-liberal Socialist

Figure 6 Typology of Practice (after Payne, 2014; Thompson, 2012)

As with all diagrammatic representations the above model has limitations. It cannot
convey fluidity or tensions in terms of roles, identity or power relations. However, it
proved a useful framework for considering issues such as the relationships between
social work identity or ambition (for example, radical ‘or’ functional) and spheres of
engagement (one-to-one, group, community, social action). Importantly, Thompson

43
(2010, p66) suggests that habitus (in the Bourdieusian sense) links the individual to
the cultural. The above model was therefore an attempt to present the individual
social worker within the field of social work and in the context of cultural and
structural constraints and possibilities.

At the point of data analysis, the notion of intersectionality discussed by Huegler,

Lyons and Pawar (2012, p 14) was also found to be a useful one. Given the focus of
this research project on two nation states (and transition) and also on what Bourdieu
called field and habitus (see below), the impact of ‘location’ – actual and symbolic –
upon social work identity is a core theme. As will be seen, the literature and data
also highlighted, “… time-related perspectives, on the macro-level of historical
developments…” including tensions and power relations between Global North and
South and during the Marcos era (Huegler, Lyons and Pawar, 2012, p 17). Finally,
the theme of Diversity has also proved a major one for this thesis, for example at the
macro level of imperialist oppression and in relation to questions which emerged
about the nature of Anti Oppressive Practice in the Philippines.

We turn now to look briefly at social development perspectives in social work before
considering some messages from the sociology of work and of the professions.

2.6 Social Work and Social Development

As will be seen, social work in the Philippines is significantly but not exclusively seen
as ‘social development’. It is necessary, therefore, to consider what this means and
how social work in the country could be conceptualised in terms of the above
models. In a different text, Payne (2012, p127) offers the following definition:

“Social development: concentrates on the social change objective of social work: it

encourages people affected by economic development to come together in groups to
identify and take action on issues of shared concern and is aimed at enhancing
social solidarity and resilience in responding to change.”

44
However, the extent to which social development orientations seek “social change” is
debatable and reflects how one interprets such change. Payne maintains (2014,
p241) that social development models essentially, “… confirm and promote the
existing social order” but, it seems, do this with a wider focus than approaches at the
personal/interpersonal level. Indeed, some forms of social development may be
closer to the ‘empowerment’ mode suggested by Payne (and arguably contribute
also to ‘problem-solving’ or maintenance visions/goals). Huegler, Lyons and Pawar
(2012, p14) suggest that, “…a social development perspective… utilising various
levels of intervention, should be the ‘sense of direction’ for international social work”
but acknowledge that (whether or not part of social work) it may seek more or less
radical/critical outcomes, saying (ibid, p7) it:

“… is about systematically introducing a planned (sometimes radical) change

process, releasing human potential, transforming people’s determination,
reorganizing and reorienting structures and strengthening the capacity of people and
their institutions to meet human need. Additional goals include reducing inequalities
and problems, creating opportunities and empowering people, achieving human
welfare and well-being, improving relationships between people and their institutions,
and, finally, ensuring economic development.”

Clearly, social development in social work will be oriented to goals that are broader
than the individual and a combination of cultural and organisational factors will
determine whether workers are specialists in the field or draw upon such techniques
occasionally (Payne, 2014, p240). However, it will often be aligned to broader
national and international political and economic objectives. In the Philippines, social
work often involves, “… social workers in community-based programmes that foster
human capital development…” (Midgley, 1996, p21). This can take many forms,
often aligned closely to economic development (Midgley, 2008). Midgely provides
the following example of the Philippines (1996, p22):

“Social workers have also been active in the creation of micro-enterprises… These
self-employment ventures include both small-scale individual and family owned
businesses as well as larger cooperative enterprises. Social workers are extensively
used in micro-enterprise development in Asian countries such as the Philippines

45
where the government abolished its traditional social assistance programme in the
mid-1970s and replaced it with a micro-enterprise programme…”

As will become apparent, social workers in the Philippines struggled with a public
image that associated them with ‘dole-out’. Although direct social assistance may
have been abolished, they remain closely linked with the provision of food at times of
crisis and charitable funds for those in poverty at times of particular need. With
notable exceptions, those interviewed for this thesis rarely offered a critical judgment
of social and economic structures and processes and tended to see individual or
community effort as the way out of absolute poverty. Most Filipino participants
working in England saw benefits dependency as problematic and indicative of the
culture and aspirational deficits of individuals and families.

This thesis is concerned with the historical, international and culturally-specific

processes shaping the field of social work and with the journeys made by individual
workers into and within that field. It begins also to consider the impact of journeys
taking workers overseas to ‘continue’ their practice. There is, therefore, a concern
with the layered processes which construct professional identity and how these
connect with a person’s motivation, orientation and identity as a social worker. A
typology has been proposed which takes Payne’s orientations to practice and
suggests (after Thompson) that these may operate at cultural and structural levels,
as well as at the level of personal agency. The model, therefore, can be applied to
an individual worker’s practice context and sense of purpose or to an analysis of the
broad orientation of social work in a particular agency or even country. In other
words, it can be used to think about a field of social work or the professional habitus
of a particular worker. Given the nature of much social work in the Philippines, we
have looked at the possible place of social development within this and begun to
consider how such approaches (as implemented in the Philippines) fit with radical or
critical practice (Fook, 2012; Mullaly, 2007). The chapter now looks at some key
sociological insights into work and people’s reasons for doing work, along with
perspectives on ‘the professions’, as these also shaped the data analysis process.

46
2.7 Some Messages from the Sociology of Work

This section explains how insights from the sociology of work were incorporated into
the theoretical framework for this research. It begins with some brief comments on
the sociology of professions, before considering what sociologists have said about
work more generally.

2.7.1 Professions

Some within the sociology of professions have developed taxonomies that identify
core characteristics of any profession (Carr-Saunders and Wilson, 1933; Etzioni,
1966). These approaches describe how occupations undergo a process of
‘functional’ development to semi-profession and finally to profession, emphasising
such factors as the development of national associations, regulation and specialised
qualifications. Others (Becker et al., 1961; Siegrist, 2002; Evetts, 2003) examine
processes of professional socialisation or initiation, focussing on the individual
development of professional identity. This involves embracing pre-determined
professional values, norms and behaviours. Bourdieu might have conceptualised this
in terms of developing a professional habitus, through a process of acculturation
within the field of, for example, social work. Whilst there is resistance within the field,
for Bourdieu the power exerted by professions would be difficult to resist or even
identify.

Beddoe (2013) draws on a study of New Zealand social workers’ experiences of

continuing professional education following the introduction of limited statutory
registration. The study, which involved group and individual interviews with 40
workers, raises issues pertinent to this thesis, though caution is taken in applying it
to the Philippine context. Citing Witz (1992), Beddoe writes of the
‘professionalization project’ whereby a group of skilled workers seek control over
entry to that area of work, codifying what it does and the knowledge it should draw
upon. Among her key findings were that workers had pride in the profession and
saw its breadth as a strength but did not feel its achievements were widely
recognised. They felt that continued education would strengthen their professional

47
identity, measuring this in terms of comparative status vis-à-vis other professionals
with whom they worked. This, she felt, echoed the findings of Roach-Anleu (1992)
that qualifications were more important to social workers in multidisciplinary settings
where their expertise was questioned. Beddoe also cites Zufferey (2012) who
suggested that social workers were perceived as ‘jacks of all trades’ who struggled
to construct professional identities beyond reference to their agency settings. She
acknowledges that social workers themselves sometimes saw their work as practical
rather than academic, drawing on Green (2006). The notion of profession is
returned to later in the thesis.

2.7.2 Sociology and Work

Before turning to a fuller application of Bourdieu to this project, some relevant

debates and developments within the sociology of work should be introduced.
Though the classic study by Goldthorpe et al (1968) of a British car factory in the
1960s could hardly be further from Philippine social work in the twenty-first century, it
was one of the first studies to look beyond work conditions, levels of autonomy and
so on and to pay attention to workers’ attitudes, hopes and expectations. It therefore
acknowledged the need to consider a person’s motivation for, and orientation to,
work. Over time, sociologists have come to see work as a source of identity and
social status and tried to understand the meaning of work. For Bourdieu (1986),
work is significantly a means to economic capital but also provides social and
cultural capital and, for some (perhaps including social workers) significant symbolic
capital.

Sociologists have also considered the place of vocation in relation to work. Weber
(1997 [1905]) identified the significance of Protestant ethics for the development of
capitalism, as a result of which people were urged to be industrious within secular
vocations and plough accumulated wealth back into business, rather than spending
on luxuries or, indeed, making donations to charity (which encouraged idleness).
Whereas the ‘Protestant Work Ethic’ emphasised hard work and frugality as
necessary for salvation, Catholicism emphasised attendance at church and ‘good
works’. As we shall see, the interplay of ‘traditions’ of Catholic charitable giving

48
when a Spanish colony and notions of targeted relief and limited state involvement in
welfare introduced by the US during their period of colonial rule undoubtedly helped
construct the Philippine approach to social work. Several participants suggested that
social work was, for them, a morally defensible activity and perhaps a route to
salvation. Faith (with professional values) helped them make sense of their roles.
Indeed, central to this thesis are identities (religious, national, professional and
personal) and motivations (such as faith, vocation and family influence), all of which
impact upon what it means to be a social worker in the Philippines. Meanwhile, the
fields of social welfare and social work there reflect social development imperatives
which often translate into poor people being encouraged to work their way out of
poverty or change their ways through conditional cash transfer schemes. Again, the
concepts of field, habitus and capital offer an analytical lens through which to view
these factors.

Bradley (2000) reminds us that people have many identities, of which work-related
identity is only one, but one that reflects and impacts upon all our other identities.
For a social worker, who may also be a parent and a political activist, her or his
identities are an amalgamation of personal feelings and the value placed upon them
by the public, ‘clients’, the state and perhaps even God. In Bourdieusian terms,
factors affecting identity include the ‘mission’ endorsed by the profession and other
social fields, the role of habitus in making sense of the world and also struggles over
forms of capital within and beyond the profession. For Bourdieu, identities are not
cast in stone, though habitus reflects childhood and reinforces dominant social
structures and divisions (such as faith and national or ethnic identity). However,
subsequent events, such as social work training, alter our habitus and reflexivity can
bring habitus to the surface and allow one to question one’s assumptions.

Gender and perceived gender roles are fundamental to identity in work generally
(Bradley, 1989) and social work specifically. The notion of horizontal segregation
(Hakim, 1979) remains evident in social work, a profession dominated by women.
For some this reflects a ‘natural’ propensity to care among women but, of course, for
others society has restricted admission to some paid work and encourages
engagement in ‘appropriate’ occupations (Hearn, 1982; Williams, 1995). Indeed,
what is considered ‘work’ - and which work is paid - is socially defined, with many

49
activities not seen as work (such as caring for children) traditionally allotted to
women. Orme (2002, p803) points out the essentialising of care as a female role,
which:

“… not only denies the contribution of men and constructs them as non-caring [but] it
also confines women to performing care functions in ways which impact on their
capacity to be full citizens.”

Many participants in the research undertaken for this thesis spoke of ‘being caring’,
not only individually but as a national trait or identity. Furthermore, though not
necessarily a gendered dynamic, within social welfare and social work one can
identify roles which attract payment and others that do not. Again, social structures
such as government and family impact upon the work people do and the value
afforded to such work. Whilst there is not room here for an extended discussion of
gender in social work, it is discussed often within the social work literature (Balloch et
al, 1995; Orme, 2002; Christie, 2006) and will reappear when considering the
primary data.

Social work in the Philippines is not highly-paid, though it can offer at least some
form of relative financial security in a country where so many live in poverty. In
considering motivation for work, such extrinsic rewards are hugely important.
However, Bradley et al (2000, cited in Erickson et al, 2009, p120-1) also discuss
intrinsic rewards:

“… satisfactions to the inner self that arise from working such as the use of skill, the
challenge of work, the sense of self-worth that arises from work, and the construction
of identity, particularly occupational identity…”

In the Philippines, to have a job brings social capital and, unlike in some countries, to
be a social worker provides even more. Intrinsic motivations might come from
belonging to a profession, believing in the aims of the agency you work for or
feelings of satisfaction through trying to make a difference. A sense of vocation is a
strong form of intrinsic motivation and, in the Philippines, one which very often links
to faith (predominantly Roman Catholic but also other Christian faiths and Islam).

50
Participants in this study fell broadly into two categories: those for whom a calling
existed before entering the profession (often influenced by family, priests, etc.) and
those who effectively stumbled into social work but came to ‘love’ the profession.
For Pierre Bourdieu, to whose ideas we now turn, this might indicate habitus in
action.

2.8 Bourdieu and this thesis

The work of Bourdieu offers a good deal to this project, as a framework for
understanding how individual workers develop a professional identity which reflects
their own biographies and education but also is formed by the national and
international fields of social work. Indeed, Huegler, Lyons and Pawar (2012, p14)
refer to Bourdieu’s work when considering the significance of ‘space’ (discussed
earlier in this chapter) for an understanding of social work:

“… Bourdieu (1999) described ‘physical space’ (the site where people are physically
present) and ‘social space’ (people’s relationships or ‘symbolic locations’ in relation
to other actors and objects).”

No claim is made that the thesis develops Bourdieu’s work, though it does offer a
rare application of his ideas to social work and the first known attempt to do this in
relation to the Philippines. His conceptual arsenal was able to ‘hold’ the research
questions and enabled them to be considered from many angles. So, for example,
the idea of ‘field’ applied to social work internationally and in particular countries and
was sufficiently dynamic to allow for struggles within those fields between different
social work visions (linking meaningfully with the work of Fook, Payne and
Thompson). Meanwhile, the concept of habitus bridges structure and agency in a
way that made sense when examining participants’ accounts of motivation, identity
and professional purpose. It helps us also to consider the extent to which habitus
must adapt in order to practice in different contexts. Using Bourdieu’s theoretical
framework, one can consider, at a macro level, the nature of the field of international
social work and, at a micro level, the factors that drive and shape an individual
worker.

51
Bourdieu acknowledges that resistance occurs within fields and that individual actors
can effect change, whilst insisting that various forms of capital exert power over the
potential for agency. Bourdieu’s preoccupation with the interplay between
institutions (in their broadest sense) and ‘acquired dispositions’ within ‘socialized
bodies’ (1993, p15) offers much to our understanding and development in practice of
reflection or reflexivity in social work:

“If it is true that the idea of personal opinion itself is socially determined, that it is a
product of history reproduced by education, that our opinions are determined, then it
is better to know this; and if we have some chance of having personal opinions, it’s
perhaps on condition that we know our opinions are not spontaneously so.”
(Bourdieu, 1993, p27).

Bourdieu wrote only briefly about social work itself (1999) but took a political stance
that was critical of the march towards neoliberalism and alert to the plight of poor and
marginalised people. Indeed, Bourdieu was dismissive of the notion of ‘profession’,
seeing it as a category constructed by those with vested interests and suggesting
that ‘field’ be used as an analytical unit instead. This section introduces the core
dimensions of Bourdieu’s approach and applies it to social work and the central
concerns of this thesis. It looks first at the concept of field, before introducing the
notion of habitus and Bourdieu’s understanding of capital. Finally, the concept of
symbolic violence is discussed, before applying these terms to social work in the
Philippines.

For Bourdieu, social practices, “… are not objectively determined, nor are they the
product of free will” and, in an attempt to bridge the agency-structure divide, he
developed the concepts of field and habitus, with practice representing the dialectical
relationship between these internal and external states (Ritzer, 2007, p174). People
- and people as professionals - are shaped by social structures, expectations and
norms but by no means is this an absolute or deterministic process, which reflects a
broadly critical realist orientation. Callinicos (2007, p291) cites Bourdieu (1990, p14,
123) as follows:

52
“… Bourdieu does not totally break with structuralism. Thus he toys with the
formulations ‘genetic structuralism’ or ‘constructivist structuralism in order to
characterize his own position. He believes that ‘there exist in the social world itself,
and not merely in symbolic systems, language, myth, etc., objective structures which
are independent of the consciousness and desire of agents and are capable of
guiding or constraining their practices or their representations.”

The concept of field which, for Swingewood, is Bourdieu’s “…fundamental objectivist

concept” (2000, p212), draws in part upon Weber’s ideas of rationalisation, discipline
and regulation, which of course also have bearing upon the actions of professions.
However, “Bourdieu thinks of the concept of the field relationally rather than
structurally” (Ritzer, 2007, p178). In a field, individual agents and collectivities or
institutions take positions and struggle for influence but, importantly, this operates
within the constraints of the field itself. For Bourdieu (1993, p72):

“Fields present themselves synchronically as structured spaces of positions (or

posts) whose properties depend on their position within these spaces and which can
be analysed independently of the characteristics of their occupants (which are partly
determined by them).”

This thesis seeks, as the above quotation suggests, to identify characteristics of the
field of social work (in the Philippines and/or England) and of those social workers,
social work academics and policy makers who are part of those fields. However, it
also reflects upon the influence those actors (individually or collectively) have upon
the field as well as ways in which the field is itself constrained and, in turn, shapes
the practice and perceptions of those who practise within it. As Eisenberg (2008,
p319) helpfully points out, fields occur, “… on a local level reflecting particular
situations as well as in broader, social contexts… Similar to a 3-D chess game,
actors find themselves embedded within fields that are embedded in larger fields.”
Thus, the field of social work is much bigger than just the profession, though of
course professional associations and individual workers are a key part. Field refers
to dominant and subversive positions within the social work hierarchy, including the
relative dominance of ‘western’ social work, to its traditions and institutions. The field
of social work (or a macro version of it) also ‘comprises’ academics and educators,

53
those with influence over social policy (locally and beyond), international social work
associations and so on. One of the implications for this research is the existence of
‘layers within layers’ of social work field(s). The historical development of social
work can be examined in terms of the establishment of an acknowledged field,
different from other helping efforts and within which struggles exist around roles and
purpose. One might look also at processes by which social workers are ‘inducted’ or
‘co-opted’ into the field (and, as we shall see below, adopt a ‘revised’ habitus).
Importantly, all fields involve battles between more dominant voices and other actors
(by no means necessarily at the level of individual people). One might ask whether
Philippine social work is an ‘iteration’ of international social work or a separate field
(or of course somewhere between these extremes). It was certainly possible to
identify struggles within the field of Philippine social work from the comments made
by workers about identity and purpose (not least in relation to focus on maintenance
or change, person or environment).

So, the concept of field gives us a conceptual tool through which to consider the
profession of social work as part of a wider field of social work within which battles
take place over definition or mission, practices and functions. It also allows us to
situate social work within wider social debates and fields of relative power, be they
the Church or politics. After all, fields perform political functions and social work
does this in very direct ways. Importantly, the field of social work seeks both to
develop and to defend itself from perceived threats. We now turn to Bourdieu’s
concept of habitus. As Swingewood puts it,

“Bourdieu is concerned with the general historical trend towards the autonomisation
of fields and identifying mechanisms which produce change. In describing his
standpoint as genetic structuralist, he identifies the dynamic principles producing
change as the relation of habitus to field in which dispositions oriented agents both to
the past and the present.” (Swingewood, 2000, p216)

The potential for change within the profession of social work (and the generation of
personal-professional identity) lies somewhere in the relationship between habitus
and field. Bourdieu defines habitus as follows (1977, p72):

54
“The structures constitutive of a particular type of environment (e.g. the material
conditions of existence characteristic of a class condition) produce habitus, systems
of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function
as structuring structures, that is, as principles of the generation and structuring of
practices and representations which can be objectively ‘regulated’ and ‘regular’
without in any way being the product of obedience to rules, objectively adapted to
their goals without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery
of the operations necessary to attain them and, being all this, collectively
orchestrated without being the product of the orchestrating action of a conductor.”

The collective is ‘deposited in each individual’ in the form of habitus (Bourdieu, 1993,
p15) from childhood but evolves as people re-learn the rules of the game in order to
master the practices of ‘new’ fields (Moore, 2008), such as that of becoming a social
worker. Through habitus, conscious factors interact with the unconscious to restrict
perceptions of what is possible.

“Habitus is the mental or cognitive structure through which people deal with the
social world… internalized schemes through which they perceive, understand,
appreciate and evaluate the social world. Through such schemes people both
produce their practices and perceive and evaluate them.” (Ritzer, 2007, p175)

A social worker’s habitus will have been formed within a particular socio-cultural
context and augmented by messages and behaviours (collective practices) that, over
time, have come to be expected of social workers. Critical reflection offers some
possibility of identifying and perhaps challenging one’s habitus. For Bourdieu, social
structures (family, religion, social class, ethnicity) produce and control practice but in
ways which are not deterministic but similar to the (more familiar to a British social
worker) notion of ‘internalised oppression’ (Cudd, 2006). Habitus is restructured
throughout life, as people engage with new experiences and fields. This research
has afforded an opportunity to reflect on individual and collective habitus among
Filipino social workers and to situate this within an analysis of the field(s) of social
work. Whilst not naming it as such, participants were encouraged to bring to the
surface aspects of their personal and professional habitus (or to identify processes
which may have impacted upon that habitus), which have been analysed and placed

55
in the ‘field’ of international social work. All of this is, of course, situated within the
context of social work seeking to identify what it is/does and also struggling to
establish a position vis-à-vis the state (and powers beyond the nation state).

Though individuals become socialised into the field of social work and habitus tends
to repeat itself, this does not mean they are passive. They can challenge and modify
social work, at the level of individual practice and in broader policy or definitional
ways. To become a professional social worker, an individual must accumulate
capital as, indeed, must a profession in order to be accepted or validated. Bourdieu
(1977) demonstrated that power was no longer wielded (always, at least) through
processes of direct subjugation but identified four forms of capital (economic, social,
cultural and symbolic) which contribute to an individual’s power and influence. In the
field of social work, such capital may manifest itself in many ways: for example, in
the form of dominant policy orientations such as managerialism or a development
ethos; more ‘accepted’ and contested narratives within social work academia; or in
the direct use (or abuse) of power in social work interventions with service users.

The first of Bourdieu’s forms of capital, economic capital, is probably less central to
the focus of this thesis, though access to social work training (and therefore to the
profession) is unlikely to be available easily to – or to be considered a realistic option
by - those in society with very limited economic resources. In the Philippines, where
many live in absolute poverty, education was described by participants as a prized
and respected resource. This, in turn, contributed to a sense of deference to those,
including social workers, with more formal education and associated qualifications.

Bourdieu uses the term social capital to refer to networks (in this case, professional
or academic) and connections (including, for example, political contacts). Social
workers accumulate social capital through their qualifying training and on-going
practice experience. They learn the ‘rules of the game’ through contact with others
(for social work, perhaps, influential colleagues or educators) and must work
(consciously or otherwise) to maintain their social capital. As we shall see, the
development of social capital for social workers in the Philippines might be
exemplified by an expected ability to engage with local politicians through the
Barangay (see section 3.6).

56
 Thirdly, Bourdieu speaks of the accumulation of cultural capital, which – in this
context – relates to formal processes such as registration and the less formal
adoption of attitudes and ways of working which others in the field recognise. Thus,
for example, Filipino social workers had learnt to conceptualise their practice as anti-
poverty work (something which was less readily meaningful for those who had
moved to the Philippines). Cultural capital, in the form of approaches, skills and
values, also plays a large part in differentiating between professions. Though social
work does not buy entry to social privilege, such factors are, of course, relative to
other forms of work and one can certainly observe the machinations of social and
cultural capital within the profession:

“Institutionalized cultural capital alludes to the certifications (like degrees and

diplomas) that give official acknowledgement to the possession of knowledge and
abilities.” (Allan, 2006, p178)

The final form of capital discussed by Bourdieu is symbolic capital, which Allan
(2006, p176) describes as, “… the capacity to use symbols to create or solidify
physical and social realities.” Whereas capital brings power, symbolic capital lends
legitimacy to that power. Bourdieu (1977, p177-8) refers to symbolic capital as all
“… goods… that present themselves as rare and worthy of being sought after in a
particular social formation – which may be ‘fair words’ or smiles, handshakes or
shrugs, compliments or attention, challenges or insults…” Therefore, symbolic
power creates and reveals social divisions and might be seen as a form of operation
of power that is seen to be legitimate. Bourdieu wrote of symbolic violence, which
Ritzer (2007,) presents as a ‘soft’ process through which power relations and the
legitimacy of those in power are legitimated. Thus, in social work, factors such as
the legislative basis for practice and the validity and value afforded by others in
society to social work impact upon levels of symbolic power and social legitimacy of
the use of professional power. Individuals in different professions and in different
cultural contexts will need to do different things in order to gain and hang on to
capital.

Social workers from the Philippines felt, on arriving and beginning to practice in
England, that they had less social and cultural capital in practice contexts and

57
broader society. They spoke of a process of developing these forms of capital and
identified also the need to accumulate different forms of symbolic power (for
example, in contexts where forms of practice were legitimated in terms of law and
due process but where power was less able to rest upon grateful or compliant
service users than was perceived to be the case in the Philippines). Filipino workers
in England did, however, accumulate capital through, for example, observing (and at
times ‘copying’) the practice of colleagues in the ‘new’ field, through the supervision
process (a site perhaps for passing on ‘how things are done) and through a more
general process of coming to understand cultural expectations and behaviours in
England. The data suggests that, having left a social work field in which they had
been relatively comfortable with their sense of self (or their habitus as a social
worker) and undergone processes which, in Bourdieu’s terms, demonstrate the
hysteresis effect, Filipino social workers came, over time, to develop a ‘feel for the
game’ of social work in England (see section 1.3).

This thesis seeks to apply, make sense of and offer some developmental thoughts in
relation to the formula Bourdieu sets out in his most celebrated text (1984, p95):

“[(habitus)(capital)] + field = practice

The study attempts to explain the genesis of the social world field and the
contribution social workers and organisations might make to the continuation or
change of that field.

Before looking further at the application of Bourdieu to professions and to social

work, it is important to acknowledge some criticisms of his work. The most obvious
limitation of Bourdieu for this piece of work, potentially at least, is the fact that he
actually rejected the term ‘profession’ (seeing it as produced by those within the so-
designated occupations rather than a sociologically-defined term) and suggested
instead that we think in terms of “autonomous, historically constituted social fields”
(Schinkel and Mirko Noordegraaf, 2011, p77). In response, however, the writers
make the valid point that Bourdieu seems inconsistent in this respect, as he adopts
other forms of language apparently uncritically, and go on to claim (p80) “… that it is
possible… to retain the concept of profession in some form while maintaining critical

58
distance from the “native” point of view… it is also possible to regard professions as
occupational fields in Bourdieu’s sense, and as themselves enmeshed in a larger
field of struggle between such professional and extra-professional or newly
professionalizing fields.”

It is this approach which has been taken in this research project. However, the main
criticism of Bourdieu which requires response is what Turner (2010) terms his cynical
approach. As Turner puts it (p156):

“Bourdieu’s work is littered with words like ‘mis-recognition’, ‘invisibly’, ‘denial’ and so
on, words which suggest that he, Bourdieu, can see what others cannot see, and
that it is the task of sociology to lay bare the mechanisms that those who enact them
are unable to articulate.”

Indeed, reading Bourdieu at times brings to mind notions of ‘false consciousness’

and carries a somewhat reductionist message that social actors have limited ability
to appraise the fields in which they are situated or to develop their own attitudes. He
is accused of overstating the significance of structure over agency, despite seeking
to forge connections between these. As Cuff et al (2006) point out, though the
relationship between habitus and individual action is not a deterministic one, for
some it is very close to this, whilst others critique Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of
forms of capital:

“Marxists see only a Weberian-style dissolution of Marx, a transformation of the

notion of class into an equivalent of ‘status’.” (Cuff et al, 2006, p328).

Despite these reservations, for this work Bourdieu provides a theoretical framework
which spoke to the data and avoided the equally reductionist tendencies of some
forms of social constructionism. Indeed, one can argue robustly that the field of
social work does indeed reproduce dominant social structures, not least social class.
Also, in defense of Bourdieu, much social research (not least critical social work
research) is, indeed, about seeing things that may not be immediately obvious to the
participants or anyone else.

59
Another related criticism often levelled at Bourdieu’s work is a perceived focus on
selfish individuals struggling within fields to achieve greater status. As Swingewood
puts it (2000, p217):

“It is not a question of agents agonising over values, principles and fundamental
beliefs in a critical and reflexive mode but of action which is wholly instrumental.”

As will be discussed in the next chapter, many people do agonise over the social
work mission, locally and internationally. There are divisions and debates which
Bourdieu’s notion of field, taken at its purest, might underplay. However, the
operation of social, cultural and symbolic capital cannot be underestimated, even in
a supposedly altruistic profession. Importantly, there is a solid base of literature
applying Bourdieu’s conceptual framework to the professions (Artaraz, K., 2006;
Rhynas, S. 2005; Schinkel & Mirko Noordegraaf, 2011) and some application to
social work in particular (Garrett, 2007a, 2007b; Houston, 2002). This section now
provides an overview of key themes from that literature.

Two articles examining professions using a Bourdieusian framework, were published

by Mirko Noordegraaf and Schinkel (Mirko Noordegraaf and Schinkel, 2011;
Schinkel and Mirko Noordegraaf, 2011). Here, they set out their approach to the
professions, which echoes that taken for this thesis:

“We regard professionalism as a form of symbolic capital, the substance of which is

constantly at stake in power-driven contexts, both internally and externally.
Professional fields are embedded in objective relations with other fields… Within
each professional field, the legitimate substance of what it means to act in a
“professional way” is constantly at stake. In turn, across various professional fields,
within what Bourdieu describes as a larger field of power, the very idea or “formal
content” of “professionalism” is subject to struggle and (re)negotiation.” (Schinkel
and Mirko Noordegraaf, 2011, p67)

Having pointed out that professions typically define themselves in terms of ‘good
work’ and a ‘higher calling’ (phrases which resonate particularly in the context of
vocation and faith in Philippine social work), they go on to remind us that theorists

60
and researchers such as Leicht and Fennell (1997) and Evetts (2003) moved the
sociology of professions beyond its earlier functional conceptualisations and
development of taxonomies:

“Functional approaches are then replaced by power-centred approaches that

highlight clashes between professions, as well as within professions…” (Schinkel
and Mirko Noordegraaf, 2011, p70).

Schinkel and Mirko Noordegraaf’s work speaks also to this research in making
connections to historical and political context (2011, p85), seeing:

“… “professionalism” as a form of symbolic capital characteristic of a historically

constructed field of power. This can be linked to available constructionist and critical
accounts of professionalism, but it also adds a lot.”

In the article attributed to Mirko Noordegraaf and Schinkel, they consider a study of
conflicts between professionals and managers in terms of struggles over symbolic
capital. There is certainly evidence of such conflicts in social work, though the
profession can also be analysed in terms of battles with other professions. For Mirko
Noordegraaf and Schinkel, Bourdieu offers a way to transcend the dualisms common
in the sociology of the professions (2011, p103):

“Meanwhile, the mainstream literature on professionalism is full of sharp divisions:

between functional and power-centered approaches, between material and symbolic
understandings, and between systemic and strategic outlooks. By contrast,
Bourdieu’s social theory… enables us to overcome such dualities.”

Mirko Noordegraaf and Schinkel begin (p98) to observe that the historic
development and continuing evolution of professions can be observed, in political
and economic context, through a Bourdieusian lens. A profession is a field, within
which one can identify practices and forms of capital (qualifications, positions,
networks) and which is striving for relative autonomy and influence (symbolic capital)
in relation to other fields. Individual members undergo a process of adjusting to the
professional field. A social worker’s habitus may have ‘fitted’ the profession before

61
entering it but then adjusts over time, reminding us of the model (after Nimmagadda
and Cowger, 1999) proposed in Chapter 2. Again, Mirko Noordegraaf and Schinkel
provide a helpful explication of this:

“… the professional is not only educated in a technical sense. He or she is also

socialized into a group as a member and really “becomes” a professional in an
embodied sense. Over time he or she will develop a socially constituted capacity to
act and acquire a professional habitus, a set of dispositions that influences how he or
she perceives, thinks and acts. This embodiment of capital is more than subjective; it
is influenced by objective social structures, not only within a (professional) field but
also in society, such as class, family and (earlier) education.”

(Mirko Noordegraaf and Schinkel, 2011, p104)

When considering the data, attempts are made to identify factors shaping habitus
(and external and internal factors shaping the field of social work). Again, one might
refer to ‘fields within fields’, or those larger fields of power, in the context of
globalisation and neo-liberalism, which shape the perception (or manipulation) of
economic and social troubles and the policy priorities within which social workers
operate.

Peillon’s attempt to integrate Bourdieu into an understanding of social welfare

provides important insights. With regard to the field of welfare, he says (1998,
p217):

“But another ‘power resource’ matters in the welfare field: the capacity of agents in
the field to accede to ‘individuals’ in order to mould their behaviour… This form of
power capital… can be conceptualised in terms of Bourdieu’s framework. In the past,
people such as doctors and priests possessed the cultural and symbolic capital
which enabled them to patronise those they dealt with and command access to their
privacy. This relationship was elaborated on the basis of a habitus organised around
trust and deference. Nowadays this power of access to individuals is more likely to
take place within a bureaucratic field... nearly always based on investigatory and
classificatory practices…”

62
It could be argued that Philippine social work relies both on ‘expertise’/classification
and, as we shall see, trust and deference. Peillon (1998, p222) states:

“Two sets of practices are implicated here: one engendered by the habitus of those
who deliver social benefits and services, the other by the habitus of those who
receive such benefits and have to cope with official agencies.”

Thus, the habitus of the social worker and of the recipient of support play a part in
constructing any interaction although, as Peillon points out, both are subject to the
field of welfare and the larger field of social formation which, I suggest, includes
national and international dimensions. Those forced to rely on social services in the
Philippines no doubt possess little of any of Bourdieu’s four forms of capital, though
within their communities and families may possess capital in several ways.

Morberg, Lagerström and Dellve (2012) used field, habitus and capital as a
framework for analysing and presenting data from interviews and focus groups with
school nurses. The profession was seen to occupy a subordinate position within
schools, where the dominant field (numerically and in terms of social, cultural and
symbolic capital) was that of education. The school nurses perceived themselves in
ways that demonstrated a different habitus and different forms of capital, which were
valued and understood less in contexts where they had a minority presence. Again,
relative capital within and between professions (and vis-à-vis other social groupings
in the Philippines) is important for this thesis.

Another interesting application of Bourdieu can be found in Artaraz’s article on

professional habitus within ‘Connexions’ (a young people’s careers service) in the
UK (2006). Artaraz considers the impact on individual identity of professional
cultures. Again, Bourdieu is seen to address both the structural and individual, whilst
stressing the inter-relationship between the two. In his interviews with advisers from
the service, Artaraz found resistance and a determination to retain a distinctive
professional identity within a context of significant structural and cultural change,
suggesting the ability of professional habitus both to adapt and struggle for continued
‘levels’ of capital within a shifting field.

63
Artaraz makes reference to research by Garrett (2002b) into the impact of the
‘Connexions’ culture. As we shall see, Garrett went on to be the most prominent
proponent of the application of Bourdieu to social work, not just in relation to the
profession but to its broader vision. However, the first direct attempt to understand
the significance of Bourdieu for social work was made by Houston in 2002.
Houston’s project was to outline a model of culturally sensitive practice based on
Bourdieu’s work which, he says, “… acknowledges, on the one hand, that there are
irrepressible structures linked to the mode of production within capitalism that shape
culture, while, on the other, it gives recognition to actors’ abilities to effect change in
their daily lives.” (Houston, 2002, p155). Thus, Houston (p156) appears to equate
fields of power with culture and presents habitus as a rather more deterministic
‘process’ than Bourdieu intends:

“For Bourdieu, there is a fundamental danger of misrecognizing how culture cements

individuals and groups into patterns of domination. Because we are immersed in
culture, it will determine our thoughts and actions – often in subliminal ways.”

Whilst some of his application feels crude, Houston (p159) does make the link – for
social work, in particular – between reflective practice and habitus:

“Unless we reflect on our personal habitus and the professional field in which it is
anchored, there is a danger of replicating biased notions that have been inculcated
through professional training, managerial directives or experiences in embattled
social work agencies.”

For Houston, processes within the social work field such as training, supervision and
policy expectations result in social workers perpetuating and contributing to symbolic
violence. Though he perhaps tries too hard to bring the need for critical examination
of habitus, field and capital around to a ‘solution’ in the form of ‘conscientization’,
Houston (p163) raises questions which apply to social workers and service users:

“Who is in the field? What stakes or interests feature? What types of capital are
being used and by whom? Are there any alliances? Where are the main divisions?
Are there any discernible contradictions between the various actors in the field..?”

Importantly, Houston makes connections between the personal, cultural and

64
structural dimensions of anti-oppressive social work (Thompson, 2012) and the
notions of field and habitus and the operation of capital in all its forms.

Garrett (2009, p39) goes so far as to suggest, about Bourdieu, that, “… there are at
least two significant ways in which he might aid in the construction of a reconfigured
critical and ‘radical’ social work in the early twenty-first century.” Citing the
aforementioned work of Peillon (1998), he argues firstly that an understanding of
Bourdieu’s social theory could alert workers to the potential to create or compound
more or less positive manifestations of capital in the lives of ‘clients’ (p39). Thus, his
ideas should inform direct practice, such as assessment. Secondly, and importantly,
Garrett states (p40) that:

“… Bourdieu’s work could help social work to reflexively fold inwards, with social
workers and ‘social work academics’ scrutinizing their own personal and collective
habitus… to interrogate more closely these destabilized and evolving professional
fields…”

Garrett concludes that workers and academics must be alert to attacks on the
autonomy and integrity of the field but also needed to fight within the field for more
progressive ways forward. In an earlier article (2007b), Garrett asserts (p225)
Bourdieu’s “role as a critical intellectual and activist, foe of neo-liberalism and
defender of embattled public services” and someone for whom (p238) “the relation
between people and their environments and more expansive ideas associated with
the championing of liberation, human rights and social justice are all core themes...”.
His view is that (2007b, p240):

“Still related to the importance of social workers’ interrogating the spaces they
occupy, Bourdieu encourages us, to see the social totality… His work emphasises
how this is a more than abstract consideration because on a daily basis neo-
liberalism bites into practice in social work and related fields…”

Though relevant to all, this could not be more relevant to the Philippines and to the
tensions facing social work there. The extent to which critical voices exist, in a
country where demands for greater professionalisation and specialisation ‘battle’ with
calls for collective, development perspectives and social action, will be discussed.
However, as Dominelli puts it (2010, p164), social work could do worse than learn

65
from Bourdieu’s thoughts on the ‘tyranny of the market’:

“A critical, reflexive, holistic approach to practice enables social workers to become

allies in acts of resistance to the logic of the market, which has elevated an
economic order managed for the benefit of the few over social life, human need and
the planet (Bourdieu, 1998).”

Having discussed how Bourdieusian concepts are relevant to reviewing the literature
and analysing and presenting themes from the data, we now consider theories of
motivation for work and notions of personal and professional identity.

2.9 Social Work: Motivation & Identity

This section draws predominantly upon literature from and about the Global North
and is used with caution. Nonetheless, issues of initial (and ongoing) motivation to
be a social worker and of professional identity are an important theme in the
research and what follows is an overview of literature which has informed the study
in this regard.

An appropriate starting point is the seminal work of Perkin (1989) looking at the
historic rise of professionalism. He identifies a process whereby the professional
ideal became a powerful force in ‘western’ society: the belief in professionally-
granted expertise; the ethic of service to society; and the claim of greater social
efficiency, benefiting whole nations, derived from the contributions of the
professions. These impacted heavily on public policy through the twentieth century
and, “… became the leading factor in the passing of those Edwardian social reforms
which we now recognize with hindsight as the origins of the welfare state.” (Perkin,
1989, p155)

Perkin was, of course, writing of England but his articulation of processes of

professional growth have much to offer more widely. It is probably the case that
social workers never achieved the independence from which it could “criticize without
fear of the consequences” (p379), though Perkin did see social work as a profession

66
which had achieved success in establishing itself, albeit as gatekeeper and part of
the system:

“Most of the social services have been organized around professional skills rather
than client needs, for the obvious reason that the professionals came with the rise of
public welfare to control access to the service and allocation of its resources at the
point of provision.” (Perkin, 1989, p348)

In the Philippines, social work is also tied to the state, though the profession defines
itself as a much broader (often literally) church. Social workers can be involved in
disaster relief and working in conflict zones, where the help provided is much more
tangible. However, particularly government social workers do take on roles of
assessing eligibility for support. It is interesting to look at Philippine social work
identities in these contexts.

A critical realist account of identity would suggest that there are ‘external’
structural/cultural influences on identity (such as class or religion) and more
individualised or psychological factors. Parallels may be drawn with Bourdieu’s
conceptual framework: social capital; symbolic violence; field; and habitus.
Approaching their research from a social constructionist perspective, Butler et al
(2007, p285) offer the following thoughts on identity:

“The need to give shape to personal experience, seek coherence through the
process of selection and synthesis, ascribe consequence and value by such means,
and make those accounts available to others is a prerequisite of the human
condition… Identity is not fixed but dynamic, subject to ‘thawing and freezing’ as
historical, social and psychological contexts change (Williams, 1996: 71).”

So, whilst subscribing to a postmodern-feminist, narrative approach, the impact of

what could equally be called social structure is acknowledged and there is a central
concern with the relationship between the personal and the political in social work
identity (Butler, et al, 2007, p281). Payne (2006) also sought to apply postmodern
and social constructionist conceptions of identity to social work, suggesting that

67
identity derives from the interaction between consciousness of self and relationships
with others, including other professions:

“A professional identity is a social identity, interacting with personal identity.” (p140)

Payne cites Jenkins (1996), who sees identity as a dialectic between the internal and
external dimensions of identity. The social work profession also has an identity
reflecting debates, tensions and power relations within and outside the profession.
Again, the relevance of Bourdieu’s concepts will be discussed in this regard. Payne
says (p140):

“Thus, a social worker acquires a personal identity as a social worker that affects
their general and professional behavior and attitudes, and this identity is created
through the social processes that create the professional group. The personal
identities of social workers contribute to the social construction of the social identity
of the professional group.”

Payne reflects the view that, in postmodern society, there has been a shift from
structure to agency and that identities are less socially ascribed than was formerly
the case. Whilst this may be partly true, this thesis maintains that dominant forces
continue to play a significant part in social control and the identities people see to be
possible. Social work’s identity is, in part, shaped by law, policy and social norms
(which, in turn, reflect patriarchy, the power of capital and media and so on). In the
Philippines, where the fluidity and resistance identified by postmodernist theory is
less evident, religion plays a key role and the poor depend on international aid, the
relative place of self and structure in forging identity must again be questioned. For
Payne, there is not one identity but, “… a constantly changing set of social works”
(p143). He suggests (p144) there are three inter-related arenas in which the identity
of social work is created:

(1) “a political-social-ideological cycle, in which political and social ideas affect

the nature of social work in a society as debate changes”

68
 (2) “an agency-professional cycle, in which professional organizations such as
education and professional bodies interact with agencies to define the sort of
social work that will be practiced”
(3) “a client-worker-agency cycle, in which demands from clients, patients and
carers and professional colleagues change the kind of practice that social
workers perform”

In the Philippines, this suggests one might construct cross-cutting layers of identity,
which filter down to and are absorbed and adapted by individual workers. When
discussing individual professional identity, we must consider such aspects as
dominant and minority political and cultural perspectives on social problems; the
demands of those engaged in social action; the definitions of social work
promulgated by international and national associations; the roles and tasks ascribed
by agencies; the impact of education and training on identity; and the expectations
and demands of other professions and of service users, individually or collectively.

There is some literature looking at motivation for (and evolution of professional

identity after) becoming a social worker, though none in relation to the Philippines.
This was, however, an area discussed by participants in the research for this thesis
and is examined later. Jovelin (2001), writing of social workers in France, identified
themes which felt familiar when reviewing what Filipino workers said about their
journeys into the profession. His work builds on a series of studies which found that
people justified their move into social work by reference to ‘wanting to help’ but that
their stories suggested other influences including socio economic status, family
history and feelings of having been failed by the education system (and therefore
‘forced’ into social work). Jovelin (2001) questioned the existence of vocation among
more than half of his research participants, suggesting that they often became social
workers for pragmatic reasons, out of necessity or because of some aspect of their
personal story (such as failing to achieve the grades their parents had hoped for).
However, he also identified a post hoc rationalisation of entering the profession,
identifying with the value base of social work and suggesting that it ‘fitted them’ in
some way. As we shall see, though some Filipino social workers spoke of vocation
or family tradition, many talked of coming to the profession by accident but then of
strongly identifying with (their version of) what social work stands for. Social work, it

69
seems, provided a sense of meaning and purpose but this came not before but after
entering the profession. A proud professional identity, linked to personal identity,
was constructed later, perhaps through socialisation into the field of social work and
continued development of professional habitus. In a sense (Jovelin, p101), the
hidden causes of choice of profession were resolved and rationalised once
membership had been embraced.

For Jovelin, in considering motivation, one must consider both macro dimensions
(the employment situation; the balance of social work across statutory and non-
statutory settings; new social movements; range of social work roles and settings)
and individual dimensions:

“These factors will in turn interact with the personal biographies and motivations of
individuals who have or who are intending to enter social work.” (2001, p95)

We will look both at historical and structural factors, including importantly the place of
religions, in the Philippines as well as individual accounts of motivations for and
orientation to social work. There is, it seems, perhaps a stronger vocational drive in
the Philippines, for cultural reasons, and yet the picture is not simple, with few
speaking of innate personal qualities. The tone of Jovelin’s piece is uncomfortable in
that the researcher appears to know better than the workers whose stories are
presented and interpreted. In the Philippines, some participants named processes of
initial ambivalence whilst others spoke of ethical, religious, personal or political
motivations. We can certainly take from Jovelin’s work the fact that the growth of
professional identity is a complex process of adjustment that reflects the pre-existing
field of social work (internationally and locally).

Another European academic, Silvia Fargion, researched dimensions of identity

emerging from Italian social workers’ accounts of their practice. In a 2006 article,
echoing longstanding debates around social work as art or science, evidence-based
or evidence-informed, she used Mannheim’s discussion of two forms of thought
(1953) to illuminate data from interviews in which 22 social workers gave accounts of
their cases. Her hypothesis (p2578) was that workers who are ‘Enlightenment
Thinkers’ would be forward looking, trusting in science and universal truths and

70
seeking to bring order to practice issues, whereas ‘Romanticist Thinkers’ would be
more skeptical and not seeking to predict or control everything. Fargion did not
necessarily find two types of ‘thinker’ in social work but did identify two styles of
thought. Enlightenment thinking was, she said (p269), “…the most widely
legitimated model of professional practice”, evident where workers spoke of systems,
rules and process. However, this form of thought appeared to be rather more rule-
driven than, ironically, grounded in theory. Meanwhile, the Romantic style of thinking
was more accepting of unpredictability and of the part played by the worker in
defining problems but was not indicative of anti-intellectualism or of basing decisions
on emotion. Fargion’s later (2008) qualitative study of social workers’ views of the
profession, again in Italy, pursued similar themes, suggesting three dimensions of (or
contributory factors in) professional identity. She concluded that:

“… we can identify in practitioners’ representations different and opposing tensions:

between social and psychological dimensions, between rigor and
immediacy/spontaneity, between the idea of a relationship with knowledge as use of
ready-made theories and as generating theory from practice.” (Fargion, 2008, p216)

Fargion states (p207) that, “… despite being rooted in a particular national context,
practitioners’ self-representations identify themes that recur in international debates.”
These are (p207) balancing three things: the individual and the social (or person and
environment), the scientific and humanistic and the application or generation of
theory. She did not, however, find a political or social justice orientation within the
identity of Italian workers, suggesting that this might reflect a desire for ‘professional
neutrality’. This will be reflected upon in relation to social work identity in the
Philippines. In this regard, Fargion reminds us (p206) that:

“Stressing the existence of a common professional project is seen by some as a way

to oppose the power of neo-liberal ideologies linked to globalization processes…”

The aforementioned article by Butler, et al (2007) argues strongly for the reinjection
of use of self and relationship into a social work overshadowed by evidence based
practice. They are not anti-evidence but argue (as does Fook) that all knowledge
(‘findings’ from assessment, service user knowledge, practice wisdom and personal

71
emotional response, social work theory and research) should be seen as incomplete,
contradictory, uncertain and partial (p283). Using the phrase ‘the personal is
professional’ (p290), they suggest that:

“Current inequalities of power in most user-worker relationships are exacerbated by

an imbalance of disclosure, such that the professional remains remote and unknown
to the service user, often to quite an astonishing extent.” (Butler et al, 2007, p294).

The research draws upon a particular narrative tool, in which the sharing of stories
and inter-subjective process is central. Whilst this may be a less common approach
in the Philippines, the question of ‘use of self’ was (as will be demonstrated) one that
arose frequently. One particular dimension of identity which also arose in the data,
and to which the chapter now turns, was that of spirituality.

2.10 Social Work Motivation and Identity: The Place of Spirituality

and Religion

As the data collection progressed, the need to undertake a fuller review of the
literature around faith and spirituality became apparent. Some writers (Mathews,
2009; Neagoe, 2013) identify ambivalence or even hostility within social work (in
some parts of the world, at least) towards faith and religion. Yet, for many social
workers and service users, religious or spiritual beliefs form a key part of their
identity. Social workers in the Philippines are mostly Christian and predominantly
Roman Catholic but there are also significant numbers of Muslim workers, reflecting
the profile of the population as a whole. Here, we discuss some themes from the
literature, whilst acknowledging that little of it is Philippines-specific. The purpose is
not to understand faith in the Philippines but to sketch in some of the preoccupations
and themes in published material looking at the interplay between social work,
religion and spirituality.

Writers such as Neagoe (2013) have traced how social work, in much of the Global
North at least, underwent a process of secularisation alongside, and resultant upon
broader processes of secularization in society and in social science (Wilson, 1966).

72
Though there have been “a number of challenges to the secularization thesis”
(Cohen & Kennedy, 2007, p391) even in the global north, many within the
Philippines (including this social work academic) are concerned that belief is in
decline, with negative social consequences:

“The family has been the source of basic religious precepts, teachings, and the
settings for religious practices. However, the family’s value system appears to be
fast deteriorating. As shown in the dailies and broadcast media, the family has gone
through shock, pain, and suffering due to the different forms of crimes, lawlessness,
and other immoral acts.”
(Pineda, 2000)

Even social work, therefore, at times aligns itself with perspectives which attribute
people’s circumstances to family values and personal morality rather than poverty.
The link between personal religious orientation and social work judgment (in political
context) could not be starker. Before identifying some themes around spirituality and
religion, we should pause to consider what these terms might mean. Here is not the
place for a detailed discussion but rather to offer some thoughts on definition, taken
from UK and Filipino writers:

Pineda (2000, p655) says that spirituality is “… not a belief system, but an emerging
state of awareness… a transformative process... which opens up to discovery,
awareness, or insight to a higher order.” Thompson (2010, p208) suggests that
spirituality is about “having a meaningful understanding of the world and how you are
part of it”. For Thompson (2010, p208), a religion is “a structured institutionalized
form of spirituality”, whilst Pineda (2000, p655) defines it as “a system of faith and
worship, of rituals and codes of conduct”. There is, on the face of it, broad
agreement as to the meanings of ‘spirituality’ and ‘religion’, at least in definitional
terms. Both writers agree that one might be spiritual without subscribing to a
religion. Thompson (2010, p209), acknowledges the implications of religion and/or
spirituality for our developing sense of identity, making an explicit link between
Bourdieu’s idea of habitus and the individual’s sense of self:

“Habitus can be understood as the individual’s connection with the cultural level… In

73
trying to understand the ‘person’, therefore, we need to bear in mind that he or she
will be a unique individual in their own right, but will also be ‘embedded’ in wider
cultural and structural foundations that are very influential, but which do not
determine who or what the individual is…” (Thompson, 2010, p66)

Thus, Thompson links Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and field to his own ‘PCS’
model (mentioned earlier). Interestingly, Moss (2005, p100-101) suggests that, “…
this theoretical framework may be creatively expanded into a PCSS model, where
the dimension of the spiritual may be added to the other dimensions… if full justice is
to be done to a person’s experience and chosen world-view.”

Recent years have seen a revisiting of the place of religion and spirituality in social
work and the lives of service users. Whilst some of this has come from writers in the
UK (Mathews, 2009; Furness and Gilligan, 2010a, 2010b), there is a stronger
tradition within North America of religion (or, at least, Christianity) in professional
practice. Indeed, a journal entitled ‘Social Work and Christianity’ is published by the
North American Association of Christians in Social Work. Given the influence US
social work had on the Philippines, this dynamic is of interest to this study. Indeed,
for the chapter of the Philippine Encyclopedia of Social Work on ‘Spirituality and
Social Work’ (Pineda, 2000), approximately half of the sources drawn upon were
from the United States. Thus, in calling for a ‘biblical morality’, Pineda (p657) draws
upon a piece by Swindol attributed to ‘USA: Word Publishing’. We will return to
Pineda’s chapter below. This section, however, identifies themes from the literature
more generally around social work, spirituality and religion, where this informed the
approach taken to the thesis.

Furness and Gilligan have written widely about spirituality and religion in social work.
Based on a pilot study carried out with social work students in the UK, (2010b) they
proposed a framework for social workers to help them decide if and how the spiritual
or religious beliefs of service users are relevant to meeting their needs. They
suggest, drawing upon a range of studies (Hodge, 2005; Purnell and Paulanka,
2003; Gray et al., 2008; Stirling et al., 2009; Papadopoulos, 2006; Hogan-Garcia,
2003), that such a framework would support workers in being ‘culturally competent’,
anti-oppressive and making positive use of religious or spiritual beliefs when working

74
with service users. Importantly, Furness and Gilligan identify two main routes to
more ‘spiritually-sensitive’ social work: through reflective practice or through
incorporation into assessment models. It is of note that Pineda (2000, p660) also
makes the point that:

“Assessment may focus on one’s religious beliefs and practices as well as the
meanings they have on the individual’s life situations.”

Furness and Gilligan (2010b) found that a framework brought judgments and
assumptions to the surface, for those with or without religious affiliations or spiritual
beliefs. For this thesis, this raised issues for the researcher and research process as
well as analytical concerns around what might constitute an appropriate balance
between prescriptive social work (perhaps imposing belief on service users) and
judicious incorporation of these dimensions into practice (Neagoe, 2013) in a country
where faith underpins so much of culture. In an earlier article (Gilligan and Furness,
2006), the same writers presented findings from their research project in more detail.
Whilst those findings related to the UK, the questions asked of social workers and
students in questionnaires provided food for thought. Participants in the UK were
asked about the appropriateness of forms of intervention, including gathering
information on clients’ religious or spiritual backgrounds; recommendation of spiritual
books; praying for (or with) a client; using religious or spiritual language; referring
clients to religious or spiritual services; sharing own religious or spiritual beliefs;
helping clients clarify their beliefs or develop ritual; touching a client for healing
purposes; recommending forgiveness or penance; and performing exorcism (Gilligan
and Furness, 2006). Though this article was accessed in response rather than prior
to undertaking research in the Philippines, the approach to gauging attitudes and
identity was influential.

For Graham (2001 cited in Cree, 2011) spirituality is a philosophy of valuing fellow
human beings and collective identity. Discussing beliefs in Africa, he notes that, “…
who you are, your personhood, comes about through your relationship with your
community…” (p145) and speaks of a cultural “… emphasis upon human similarities
or commonalities rather than upon individual differences” (p146). In the Philippines,
the researcher was struck by what seemed to be a culture where collectivity seemed

75
more significant than individualism (yet personal morality was clearly emphasised)
and, perhaps as a result, where notions of ‘social divisions’ and individual
empowerment were less prominent. Thompson (2010, p216) also identifies the
significance of collectivity when discussing the importance of connectedness:

“Connectedness is a term used in the spirituality literature to refer to the important

ways in which having other people in our lives is a central way of shaping our identity
and our feelings of security or otherwise in the challenges of human existence.”

He goes on to discuss social capital in this context though might have considered
other forms of capital. Bourdieu was conscious of hierarchies of capital, in that those
with greater power possess more access to capital and to the perpetuation of capital.
The poor of the Philippines have limited capital ‘resources’ but one might consider
the ‘emotional’ capital provided by faith (and communities connected to faith), as well
as more general forms of social capital sustained within very poor communities and
which often form the basis of informal sources of welfare and support.

Thompson raises two more themes, regarding spirituality, worthy of mention in

relation to social work in the Philippines. Firstly, he reminds us that faith can bring
hope (2010, p221), something which social workers the world over seek to develop
in service users, families and communities. Pineda (2000, p663) refers to a study
undertaken of Filipino ‘disaster victims’ by Ignacio and Perlas (1994). Discussing
their findings, Pineda says:

“… coping with what looked like impossible situations was the Filipino’s faith as
source of ‘courage, daring, optimism, inner peace and ability to accept tragedy and
bear grief’. The Filipinos’ religious nature helps them accept reality with a sense of
optimism in the context that all events are within God’s will and plan for the world
(Ignacio and Perlas, 1994).”

Participants in the research for this thesis spoke of hope, often imbued with religious
connotations and also in a context of strength in the face of adversity. A billboard
under a Manila flyover read “Never Give Up. God Loves You” (notes in research
journal). Finally, Thompson suggests that spirituality and connectedness link with a

76
sense of feeling valued. He highlights the article by Houston discussed earlier, in
which it is suggested that Bourdieu’s conceptual framework hinges, to some degree,
upon people being motivated by the need for recognition or validation (Thompson,
2010, p219). This too was a theme that arose often in the Philippines, mostly from
social workers wanting to be appreciated and valued by service users. However, as
Houston points out (2002, p161), those excluded or marginalised by society may be
those least recognised and most likely to be denied a sense of personhood or value.

It is surely of significance that Pineda’s contribution on spirituality to the Philippine

Encyclopedia of Social Work discusses aboriginal culture but makes no mention of
the Muslim faith. It attempts briefly to acknowledge the various forms beliefs can
take but is shot through with Biblical references. Thus, for example, “What is needed
is a sustained treatment approach with spiritual empowerment from within, self-
propelled by a Christ-centered relationship” (p663). Pineda’s concluding message
(p664) is one of individual faith and stoicism as the way to overcome adversity, with
social work supporting this process. The reference to self and/or environment
appears to be a nod towards causes of circumstances outside of the individual,
though it is very much down to the individual (with the help of the social worker and
God) to sort their life out:

“Spirituality in social work is like an umbrella with spokes represented by

responsibility, accountability and commitment. The handle is the belief that one has
dignity and worth as a child of God and who helps others to become worthy. One
needs a perspective of a ‘victor’ who thinks of what is better or best, and one who is
motivated to want to bring change to self and/or his environment, than a ‘victim’ who
has no choice.”

In some parts of the world, most notably Latin America, religion has played a major
part in the development of critical forms of social work. As Payne puts it (2014,
p221):

“Traditional Christian ideas were considered as accepting oppression as the

preparation for a happier afterlife. Liberation theory contests this by seeking a
movement from oppression to liberation within the concrete issues of daily life… both

77
personal and ‘social’ sin, that is, structural oppression by social institutions, must be
overcome by non-violent social change…”

Whilst this thesis is not a place for extended discussion of ‘liberation theology’, it
certainly exists within the Philippines (Haight, 1985; Liwang, 1992; Nadeau, 2002;
Pernia, 1990). However, its absence from the social work literature and, indeed,
from primary research findings was noticeable. This is an appropriate point to return
to Bourdieu, who discussed religious fields mostly with reference to the Catholic
Church (Bourdieu, 1991). As one would expect, Bourdieu conceptualised the
Church in terms of symbolic violence and its generative relationship with habitus,
emphasising its global influence but also acknowledging potential for resistance.
Some would argue (Rey, 2007) that he overstated the determinist influence of
religion on day-to-day practice (for example, of social workers) and underestimated
the power of human agency through movements such as ‘liberation theology’. As
will be seen, religion was a central theme in the data gathered for this study and
(with a number of notable exceptions) was seen as a positive aspect of social work.

2.11 Conceptual Framework: Concluding Comments

This chapter has drawn upon a broad-based analysis of social work and sociological
literature to develop a conceptual framework and to identify a set of theoretical and
research-informed themes that are utilised throughout the thesis. The aim of the
research project has been to understand professional social work journeys by
situating the evolving individual professional habitus within macro contexts that
shape and influence the fields of social welfare and social work. This ‘journey’ will
be explored within the field of social work in the Philippines (itself, in part, a product
of international and national policy, social work education, public perceptions,
historically and culturally constructed societal expectations and so on) and also in
relation to Filipino workers who move to England. Attention is paid to individual and
collective orientations to social work (for example, as seeking social maintenance or
transformation) and to the role of professional socialisation. This feeds into an
understanding of the importance which work can have for identity, considering
aspects of motivation, vocation and symbolic capital. Again, the theoretical

78
framework suggests that all of these things can change as a person develops
through a professional career, within (in this case) the Philippines and potentially
when practising overseas. The notions of field and habitus, along with the capital
which the field of social work affords to its members in different contexts, have been
introduced and are revisited throughout the thesis. Professional identity has been
presented as the product of the interplay between self, relationships with others
(culture) and social structure. An ‘individual’ habitus will reflect political and societal
constraints and aspirations, social structures (for example, religion and family),
competing positions within the profession and social work academia and factors
which have shaped the life-course of each individual worker. It is this interplay,
between macro and micro, between structure and agency and between field and
habitus which will be explored in the chapters that follow.

The next chapter identifies and critiques literature that considers the purpose of
social work as an international activity which may have some core common values
and mission. It then looks at the growth of social work internationally and, in
particular, the specific experience of the Philippines in this regard.

79
Chapter 3: Philippine Social Work in Historical and
International Context

3.1 Introduction

This chapter concerns the processes by which social work developed as an

international activity and as an international profession, and the specific experience
of the Philippines in this regard. In other words, it, “… uses an international lens to
view social work as a local activity…” (Huegler, Lyons & Pawar, 2012, p2). It begins
with a discussion of the growth of social work in the Global North, before exploring
the development and current state of social welfare and the field of social work in the
Philippines, drawing attention to the impact of imperialism and attempts to indigenise
social work. These context-setting accounts are then situated in a discussion of
broader attempts to define social work internationally and literature which considers
the ‘export’ of social work from the Global North and the response of countries in the
Global South. The chapter draws upon international and Philippine literature to
provide a picture of the nature and orientation of social work in the Philippines,
connecting back to the theoretical material in Chapter 2. It reviews the global
processes that influenced the field of social work in the country and subsequent
attempts to render it ‘relevant’ to local culture and needs, within an ongoing context
of ongoing international aid and development status.

3.2 The Growth of Social Work: Competing Orientations

Literature on the early development of social work typically refers to what Hugman
(2010, p1) calls, “...assistance for those people who were seen to be experiencing
problems of daily life that were grounded in poverty.” This might seem self-evident
but, of course, poverty existed long before social work. It is, therefore, suggested
that social work evolved as a ‘modern’ response to the impacts of ‘modernisation’.
Social work arose as a named occupation towards the end of the nineteenth century
in North America, the UK, Germany and the Netherlands (Midgley, 1981; Payne,

80
2005; Weiss & Welbourne, 2007). For Davis, social work in Birmingham, England
was a reaction to the, “...poverty and disadvantage of individuals and families
struggling with the rapidly changing social and economic conditions of a growing and
industrialising City.” (2008, p3). It arose to formalise or bring some coherence to ad
hoc responses to the fallout from urbanisation, whether through religious
organisations, institutional ‘care’, individual charitable works or more politicised
responses (Horner, 2009). Dominelli (2010, p12) is clear that, “Social work as an
informal but structured helping profession within social institutions and organizations
predates modernity. However, modernity initiated the formation of professional
social work and, with it, the individualization of both the service user and the way in
which help was delivered.”

Social work is a relatively young profession and has struggled to assert or even
explain itself. In the latter 1800s, in North America and Europe, universities began to
deliver social work courses (Healy, 2008) and, in 1928, the First International
Conference of Social Work in Paris hosted delegates from 42 countries (Lyons &
Lawrence, 2009). To contextualise, the Philippines were, in 1898, beginning a
period of American rule lasted for approaching 50 years and followed over 300 years
as a Spanish colony. More will be said of the Philippine experience but, for now,
parallels can be drawn with much of Northern Europe, at least in terms of the role of
the Church in encouraging private charitable acts and poor relief (Almanzor, 1966;
Yu, 2006). The Roman Catholic Church remains a core participant, alongside state
and voluntary sector agencies, in care in the Philippines, through encouraging
donors, providing care and delivering social work education (Lee-Mendoza, 2008).

The early history of social work is inescapably a history – or series of histories - of

the ‘Global North’, as social work emerged alongside urbanisation and
industrialisation. Prior to – and alongside – the development of professional social
work, family and community based caring and charitable acts were the primary ways
social needs were addressed. However, “Charitable giving was often rooted in a
moralizing tendency that sought to affirm views of goodness and ‘acceptable’
behaviour. Such acts were normative, consistent with the dominant views held by
society, and often punitive, in that they sought to limit claims on goodwill to avoid
legitimating a desire to expect handouts rather than working for one’s living”

81
(Dominelli, 2010, p18). Payne (2005, p23) identifies factors influencing the
emergence of social work: the shift from rural to urban employment; the
municipalisation of local government (increasingly responsible for administering
welfare and ‘care’ institutions); transition to more secular forms of care; growth of
organised approaches to caring, typically by women; and a heightened State
concern about the effects of social change and disorder. As the 1800s progressed,
industrialised countries saw a growth in asylums, hospitals, boarding schools and
workhouses (Foucault, 1965; Horner, 2009) and shifting attitudes towards charity.
Social welfare in Southern (predominantly Catholic) Europe might be characterised
as dependent upon faith-based charitable acts and individual donations, whilst the
Protestant nations of Northern Europe, though reflecting religious underpinnings,
saw growing State influence. The notion of charity itself was questioned, particularly
in northern Europe, on the grounds that it created dependence. The interplay of
‘traditions’ of Catholic charitable giving when a Spanish colony and notions of
targeted relief and limited state involvement in welfare introduced by the US helped
construct the Philippine approach to social work, of which more will be said later.

A further influential dynamic in the development of social work, particularly in the UK,
was the growth of the women’s movement and of the labour, co-operative and
settlement movements (Dominelli & McLeod, 1989; Ferguson & Woodward, 2009;
Horner, 2009; Payne, 2005). The latter, which arose in the UK but also grew solidly
in the US, emphasised living alongside poor communities, social education,
community development and (less so in America) social action. Projects like these
remain common in Philippine social work and students regularly move into deprived
areas to undertake ‘practicums’. Social work from the nineteenth century did,
therefore, incorporate collective dimensions (mostly less radical in the US) but social
casework came to dominate. Horner (2009) sees these tensions between
community and individual, between collective responsibility and personal social
services, played out in the UK in disagreements between those proposing a
continuation of Poor Laws and those demanding social reform and a comprehensive
welfare state. One can identify similar tensions and debates throughout the history
of social work, in all of its international manifestations and the reader is referred back
to the discussion of social work orientations in Chapter 2.

82
Most accounts see the evolution of more formalised and comprehensive approaches
to welfare, including the rise of ‘welfare states’, as a further phase for the profession
(Beveridge, 1942). In the USA, psychoanalytic casework remained dominant, in the
context of increased state support but a system which fell far short of being a
‘welfare’ state. In the UK, social work became primarily a state activity, with
interventions targeted at individuals in need and families. As other government
departments took responsibility for income maintenance and housing, and as the
voluntary sector struggled to find a place within the emerging welfare state, social
work in the UK embraced casework models from the USA (Payne, 2005). As will be
seen, social work is viewed positively by the Philippine public which, in part, reflects
links with tangible forms of support. It is centrally important here to acknowledge the
place of Biestek, whose social work values are cited to this day. Emphasising the
worker-client relationship, people as individuals; controlled emotional involvement;
self-determination; and confidentiality (Biestek, 1961, p. 17), they are criticised for
being Eurocentric and for their potential to pathologise, to see service users as
‘patient-like’ (see discussions of care ‘versus’ self-determination in the Philippines,
later in the thesis) and to ignore structural causes of ‘private’ problems. Filipino
workers cited many of these values but, as we shall see, interpreted them rather
differently.

Social welfare and social work grew more rapidly, typically as a state activity, in
Northern Europe in the period from, say, 1945 to 1975 and less so in Southern
Europe. “Part of the reason for this was the reliance of the Iberian dictatorships until
1974 (Portugal) and 1978 (Spain) on the Catholic Church and charitable effort.”
(Payne, 2005, p72). Whilst the Philippines were, during this period, moving out of
direct American rule (and direct influence on social work), the combined influences of
Church and charity remained. By the 1970s, the social work profession (or field),
with a growing base of practice methods and education, had begun to establish itself
in northern Europe and North America. The nature and positioning of social work
varied, as did approaches to state welfare, but the profession gained recognition and
functions. Alongside this growth, some within the social work field (profession and
academe) developed a critique of its roles, responsibilities and methods. Corrigan &
Leonard (1978) and Brake & Bailey (1980) highlighted workers’ control functions,
emphasising alliances with service users and community-based solutions to

83
structural inequalities. The impact of radical social work on practice should not be
over-stated but it influenced particular projects and the evolution of the social work
value base. The individualised notions of Biestek were questioned and, in tandem
with growing critiques of other structural inequalities (for example, second-wave
feminism and anti-racist social work), informed the move towards anti-oppressive
practice (Dominelli, 1988, Dominelli & McLeod, 1989), the restricted perception of
which in the Philippines is discussed elsewhere. As will be discussed, research for
this thesis led to a questioning of simplistic links between community oriented
practice and social transformation.

Radical Social Work, whilst importantly emphasising social class, initially said little
about other social divisions and failed to acknowledge the uniqueness and individual
perspectives of service users (Ahmad, 1990; Oliver, 1990). The response was Anti-
Discriminatory Practice and, later, Anti-Oppressive Practice, which better
acknowledged the complexity of power relations (Dominelli, 1995). Horner (2009,
p102) cites Thompson in offering the following synopsis: “Modern social work
practice rejects the dichotomy between individualisation and deindividualisation, and
perhaps the essence of social work lies in its capacity to see, “...individuals as both
unique in their own right” and “part of a broader web of social and political factors
(Thompson, 2005, p121-122).” Again, this connects with the thesis’ focus on agency
and structure, field and habitus. However, if social work had come to understand the
oppression experienced by people in these layered and complex ways, the question
remained – and remains – as to how it should respond. Payne (2005, p100) points
to the development of notions of empowerment and the valuing of “diverse cultures
and identities” as the most identifiable outcome of these debates and this will feature
in the data chapters later in the thesis.

In the Philippines, with its focus on economic and social development, social workers
spoke consistently of poverty but rarely of other dimensions of inequality, which
raised questions around how social work can best take an anti-poverty stance (often
implemented at a collective level) whilst also tackling difference and other social
divisions. One might conclude tentatively that, where social work responds
predominantly to conditions of absolute poverty, natural disaster and armed conflict,
then attention to other dimensions of oppression (‘race’, ethnicity, sexuality, disability

84
and gender) may constitute a less urgent priority and perhaps a less visible
component of the social work field. This over-simplifies the situation in the
Philippines, where there is evidence of agencies and the profession seeking (for
example) to respond appropriately to issues of faith, age and disability. It should
also be said that, though the alleviation of poverty was cited consistently by workers
in the Philippines as a central purpose, few spoke of its eradication. Garrett (2002,
p193) makes the important point that, as social work (in some countries) focussed
increasingly on anti-discriminatory practice, underlying issues of poverty may have
been obscured:

“For social workers seeking to operate in an anti-discriminatory way, therefore, it is

vital that they are aware of how poverty relates to other dimensions of structural
inequality rooted in, for example, gender, ‘race’ and ethnicity.”

The rise of neo-liberal economic and social policies from the 1980s onwards, saw a
questioning of the role of the state vis-a-vis the private and voluntary sectors in most
economies of the Global North (Harris, 2002; Petrie, 2009). In many countries this
signalled a shift back towards specialised and individualised practice and away from
generic, community-based or universal provision (Cree, 2011), with a growing
emphasis on managing individual risk (Slater, 2004; Webb, 2006) and increased
private and voluntary sector provision as a route to efficiency and effectiveness
(Harris and McDonald, 2000; Rhodes, 2004). Ferguson & Woodward (2009)
acknowledge that similar processes have impacted on social work in many parts of
the world but suggest the UK was worst affected:

“...it has lost much of its focus on holistic approaches… misplaced its commitment to
social justice… bought into punitive notions of individual responsibility, which sit
uncomfortably with concepts of partnership and empowerment; and… embraced,
uncritically on the whole, the managerial agenda” (p35).

As will be shown, the field of social work in the Philippines (as everywhere) is both a
product of the historical development of the profession and of its own ‘unique’
cultural and structural make-up. This thesis suggests, at least in the case of the
Philippines, that social work purpose and intervention are, to a large extent,

85
dependent upon the conditions in which they operate. In other words, social work is
situated practice. However, it is argued that this makes attempts to understand
social work internationally all the more important. Before turning to the international
(and in particular the Philippine) development of social work, it is important to say a
little more about social work as situated and/or universal.

Much of this part of the chapter concerns perspectives on what social work is, could
or should be, with the search for the essential features and mission of social work
globally. However, this section begins with what Lyons (2006) presents as a
‘dissenting voice’:

“Webb (2003, p. 191) has suggested that ‘social work has at best a minimal role to
play with(in) any new global order, should such an order exist’ and that ‘any notion of
global or trans-national social work is little more than a vanity’. I agree in part with
his view that social work is predominantly about local practice (and, as such, is
framed by national traditions, policies and culture(s)), but I also consider that social
workers will lack understanding and miss opportunities to contribute to promoting
welfare, individually and collectively, if we fail to recognize the effects of global and
regional processes on the aetiology of social problems, and the need to develop
responses (often in conjunction with other occupational groups and organizations)
which aim to address such problems at regional as well as international levels.”
(Lyons, 2006).

In researching and writing this thesis, the relationships between ‘local’ and
international influences became very apparent. Workers were seeking to adapt
‘western’ models and knowledge to the Philippine context but were also practising in
ways which were culturally bound and dependent upon national circumstances and
resources. Narhi (2002), drawing upon action research with social workers in
Finland, makes the related point (made by others, including Fook) that reality is
contextual and knowledge is socially constructed, not least in the interactions of
service users and workers. For Narhi, therefore, any social work knowledge is,
inevitably, situated; it may be transferable but cannot be generically applicable. This
will be discussed further in relation to the historical transfer of social work from Spain
and the US to the Philippines and Filipino workers in England. We now turn to the

86
growth of social work as an international activity, before focusing on the Philippines
in particular.

3.3 International Development of Social Work

Thus far, the chapter has discussed mostly the evolution of social work in the Global
North. Of course, this version of history relies, in part, upon definitions of what
‘counts’ as social work and connections made between social work and something
called ‘development’. It often ignores the experience of much of the Global South
and the processes both of ‘export’ and indigenisation of social work internationally
(Gray et al., 2009). Much has, however, been written about this, particularly since
Midgley argued that social work had engaged in a process of professional
imperialism, sometimes linked explicitly to empire itself (Midgley, 1981).

3.3.1 Social Work & Globalisation

Those writers who have sought to understand the history of social work
internationally have concluded that the histories of individual countries and
continents must be seen within processes such as colonisation and globalisation
(Midgley, 1990; Lawrence et al, 2009; Harrison & Melville, 2010). Payne observes
that social work had been only a residual (and usually voluntary or philanthropic)
activity under colonial powers until the post-war period, when demands for
independence grew and political stability was required, often in contexts of
industrialisation and fears about Soviet influence. Following independence,
countries typically adopted versions of community/social development work, a model
preferred by the newly-formed United Nations and often supported by former colonial
powers, through the establishment of Non-Governmental Organisations. A form of
that model continues in the Philippines today. Agencies including UNICEF, the
World Health Organisation and the UN Development Programme remain active in
the Philippines, with the latter commenting recently as follows:

87
“While the 2010 Philippines Millennium Development Goals Progress Report
indicates improvement in promoting gender equality, reducing child mortality and
malaria… the overall Millennium Development Goals situation is not encouraging.
The likelihood that the Philippines will reach the Millennium Development Goals on
poverty, education, maternal health, HIV/AIDS and environment is low… The
Progress Report calls for sustained socially inclusive economic growth; improved
targeting of anti-poverty measures; strengthened governance with greater
transparency and accountability to ensure more efficient use of resources… and
strengthened partnerships, including with the private sector, on Millennium
Development Goals initiatives”. (UNDP, accessed 10.4.14 at:
http://www.ph.undp.org/content/philippines/en/home/countryinfo/)

Meanwhile, the World Bank (also established post-war and mandated to reduce
worldwide poverty through sustainable globalisation) is very much part of the
development context in which the field of Philippine social work is defined. The World
Bank clearly see employment as the central route out of poverty:

“Underlying the slow progress in poverty reduction is the lack of good jobs. 75
percent of workers or some 28 million Filipinos are informally employed with little or
no protection from job losses and opportunities to find gainful employment”.

(World Bank, accessed 17.3.14 at:

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/philippines/publication/philippine-economic-
update-2014-pursuing-economic-growth-through-sustainable-reconstruction-and-job-
generation)

The work of such international agencies is, of course, controversial and has a
significant impact on the field of Philippine social work. This is revisited later but, for
now, we return to the international growth of social work. Following independence,
new national governments attempted to balance the needs for economic stability,
welfare development and independence (Payne, 2005, p75-6). Midgley (1997, p176)
describes a process whereby social workers and academics realised the limitations
of imported individualised, remedial forms of practice, designed for ‘western’ urban
settings, and instead set about designing methods which offered more to

88
development in contexts where lack of food and mass illiteracy (often in rural areas)
were more typical problems. At a pan-Asia conference held in the Philippines in
1976, Delos Reyes noted that 64% of the Philippine population lived in rural areas
and urged that, “Noting the gross inequalities between urban and rural areas in
income, facilities and opportunities, the thrust of rural development needs to be
social justice and working towards a just society. The method best suited is that of
social action-community organization” (1976, p89). Though urbanised areas are
expanding rapidly, approximately 52 percent of the Philippine population still live in
rural areas and 70 percent of the total number of poor live in those rural areas,
according to Philippines government statistics (Department of Health, Philippines,
2005). As will be seen, the primary data used in this thesis was gathered from social
workers, academics and policy makers with experience of work in both rural and
urban settings.

Those processes which, for now, will be termed ‘globalisation’ have had and are
having profound effects upon the needs of those who use social work services,
responses considered appropriate by the profession internationally and governments
who have seen their capacity to implement independent social welfare policies
restricted in the global context. Though this is not the place for an extended
discussion of ‘globalisation’, this thesis adopts a multi-dimensional definition akin to
that suggested by Midgley:

“Whilst globalization does indeed involve international economic integration, it also

has demographic, social, cultural, political and psychological dimensions. In this
broader interpretation, globalization is viewed as a process of rapidly increasing
human interaction within a ‘one-world’ system that transcends previous political,
spatial and temporal boundaries…” (2001, p26)

Though by no means a dominant theme in international social work literature, writers

within the field are increasingly critiquing the place of social work within globalisation
(Deepak, 2012; Lavalette and Ferguson, 2007). For the Philippines, government
and many NGOs are dependent on aid, with strings attached. As everywhere, social
work engages and arguably colludes with processes that perpetuate inequality but in
circumstances not of their own making. Deepak (2012) reminds us that the Global

89
North have squeezed governments in the Global South, particularly in relation to
social services provision, in turn leaving these subject to INGOs implementing
directives of foreign governments.

Having paused to consider globalisation, we now look at attempts to define social

work internationally before discussing the process by which social work came to the
Philippines (which impacted hugely upon the type of social work there today).

3.3.2 Defining International Social Work

There is a long history within social work of attempting to articulate what is unique
about the profession (a process necessary to be considered a ‘true’ profession,
nationally or internationally). This section examines processes of producing such
statements or definitions. In 2003, a special edition of the journal Research in Social
Work Practice took up this debate, in the context of a review of the US ‘Working
Definition of Practice’. As Holosko (2003) notes, the Working Definition was
produced by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), which formed in
1955 following a merger of various associations (including those for community
organisers and group work practitioners). To contextualise, the Philippines became
a republic in 1946 (ending US administration) and through the 1950s the first Filipino
social workers were trained in the USA. So, as social work in the US was
amalgamating and developing its standards, recognition and prestige, social work in
the Philippines also sought to adopt the practices and institutions of a profession.
The field of social work in the Philippines was, as in many places, to some
considerable degree ‘imported’. By the late 1950s, Holosko notes that US social
work latched onto the ‘person-in-environment’ model, which was sufficiently broad to
encompass casework, group work and community organising. This formed the basis
of social work education in the US and Philippines and remains so (certainly in the
Philippines) to this day.

Debates around ‘reworking the Working Definition’ in the US acknowledged

international context. Fulcher tackles the ‘taken for granted assumptions’ underlying
western definitions, pointing out (2003, p377) that:

90
“… cultural assimilation and transformation through education have been carried out
through the work of early missionaries and teachers since the beginnings of cross-
cultural contact.”

Fulcher does not refer to the Philippines but the comment could scarcely be more
applicable. Indeed, much social work education there is still provided by Catholic
Universities and much intervention delivered by Catholic agencies. For Fulcher, the
Working Definition could ‘learn from’ perspectives within the social work field
internationally and should reflect such principles, not least as the US remained
influential on social work in many countries. Turner (2003) comments that social
work is shaped significantly by ‘external’ social forces. The profession or, in
Bourdieu’s terms, the field of social work is shaped by societal expectations and
governmental priorities (which in turn are increasingly influenced by global forces).
Whilst there are developments from within and outside the field of Philippine social
work, it still reflects and reinforces Spanish and US influence and the broader
expectations of providers of foreign aid.

Ramsay (2003) reflects upon the individualistic focus of the Working Definition,
preferring to emphasise co-dependency. When considering findings, this is
discussed in relation to the Philippines. The ruminations in the US took place
following the adoption of a revised definition by the International Federation of Social
Workers (IFSW) and the International Association of Schools of Social Work
(IASSW) in 2000. Isadora Hare, who coordinated the development of this statement,
reflected on the process in an article in 2004. It is striking that the central focus
adopted as applicable across very different forms of social work in very different
countries was (in words, at least) the very same as that devised in the US fifty years
previously:

“Initially some doubted whether these apparently divergent methodologies could be

reconciled in one rubric. What emerged however was the core concept of person-in-
environment.” (Hare, 2004, p409).

91
The words may be similar but the meaning would seem to be different. Hare says
responding to globalisation was at the forefront of the minds of those updating the
profession’s mission. The appropriate form of practice (such as clinical, community
organisation or social development, which seeks to integrate social and economic
policy) depended upon the orientation of individual workers, settings and countries
(reflecting habitus and field). The situational nature of social work was stressed,
suggesting some contexts emphasise the individual and others the environment
(defined in broad terms to include, for example, family, social policy, natural
environment). The 2001 Definition says the profession seeks social change (which
could be achieved at any ‘level’) through problem-solving (again, at micro or macro
level). It therefore allows for practice which, for Hare, can be divided into Direct
Services (at the micro/mezzo levels) which focus on service users (clinical social
work; family therapy; social group work; case management; empowerment;
brokering; social casework) and Indirect Services (macro level interventions focusing
on agencies, groups, communities, institutional systems or societies) such as social
action/advocacy; community organization; political action; ‘conscientisation’; social
development; agency administration; and policy practice). Again, attention is drawn
to the ‘typology of orientations to social work’ offered in Chapter 2. For Hare:

“These two components have continued to characterize the profession. In general,

the direct or ‘clinical’ services provided to individuals, families and small groups have
been dominant. However, the other component, variously described as community
work, social and political action, and policy practice… in some contexts, and social
development in others… has persisted and gained in significance.” (Hare, 2004,
p411).

At the point of completing this thesis, the most recent attempt to define the purpose
and parameters of social work internationally was coming to a close (IFSW, 2013)
and, indeed, a revised definition was published in July 2014 (IFSW, 2014). What
follows is a brief account of the process to this point. Following a process of drafting
and consultation, discussions took place at the joint-conference of the IFSW, IASSW
and International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW) in 2010. At the conference
(where this author presented and discussed initial reactions to data collection in the
Philippines), workers and educators were encouraged to begin building a ‘Global

92
Action Agenda for social work and social development’. In an editorial piece in 2008,
the project had been announced thus (Jones, Yuen and Rollet, 2008, p847):

“Significant moves have taken place… to strengthen the global collaboration

between IASSW, ICSW and IFSW. The outcome will be the enhanced global
influence of the social work profession as we make full use of our joint strengths and
networks.”

Working together on a common statement was one step towards a stronger voice for
social work internationally, in influencing social policy and social development
(Jones, Yuen and Rollet, 2008). The previous definition had been adopted in 2000,
replacing one adopted in 1982. Lyons, Manion & Carlsen (2006) are among many
who have commented on the laborious processes for developing and agreeing such
definitions historically and the fact that the outcomes have often been accused of
reflecting the values and agendas of countries in the Global North.

As stated above, a final International Definition of Social Work was approved by

IFSW and IAASW members in July 2014. However, the interim definition (IFSW,
2013) commenced as follows:

“The social work profession facilitates social change and development, social
cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice,
human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social
work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and
indigenous knowledges, social work engages people and structures to address life
challenges and enhance wellbeing.”

The draft definition was, therefore, couched in terms of a ‘mission’ for social work as
a professional activity. The accompanying draft ‘commentary’ places critical
dimensions of social work centre stage:

“The development of critical consciousness through reflecting on structural sources

of oppression and/or privilege and developing action strategies towards addressing
structural and personal barriers are central to emancipatory practice where the goals

93
are the empowerment and liberation of people. In solidarity with those who are
disadvantaged, the profession strives to alleviate poverty, liberate the vulnerable and
oppressed, and promote social inclusion and social cohesion.”

Echoing the theoretical model outlined in Chapter 2, the draft ‘commentary’ goes on
to discuss aspects of agency and structure and to acknowledge that social work
happens at individual, group and community levels:

“The social change mandate is based on the premise that social work intervention
takes place when the current situation, be this at the level of the person, family, small
group, community or society, is deemed to be in need of change and development. It
is driven by the need to challenge and change those structural conditions that
contribute to marginalization, social exclusion and oppression.”

In a section entitled ‘Principles’, the draft document seeks, it seems, to balance

individualised (arguably ‘westernised’) principles with those of collectivity and
community:

“‪The social work profession recognizes that human rights need to coexist alongside
collective responsibility”‪

As discussed later, some (notably Huang Yunong & Zhang Xiong, 2008, 2011) have
critiqued the often simplistic representation of culture and society in the Global North
as individualistic and in the Global South as collectivist. Furthermore, writers such
as Healy (2008) have commented upon the mismatch between such international
statements and the fact that social work has failed to deliver, or to be seen as
delivering practice that promotes and safeguards human rights:

“While many more statements and codes could be quoted here, it is safe to say that
at the abstract level of mission and values, social work is indeed a human rights
profession.” (Healy, 2008, p738)

94
For the Philippines, social work at times focuses, out of necessity, on what Healy
describes as “…emergency, action oriented human needs efforts, leaving human
rights policy to others.” (Healy, 2008, p745)

In terms that go much further than previous international statements in naming and
standing against professional and academic ‘imperialism’, the draft document
includes the following comment:

“… social work is informed not only by specific practice environments and Western
theories, but also by indigenous knowledges. Part of the legacy of colonialism is that
Western theories and knowledges have been exclusively valorised, and indigenous
knowledges have been devalued, discounted, and hegemonised by Western
theories and knowledge. The proposed definition attempts to halt and reverse that
process by acknowledging that indigenous peoples… carry their own values, ways of
knowing, ways of transmitting their knowledges, and have made invaluable
contributions to science…”

Finally, the section of the draft headed ‘Practice’ holds that:

“Social work practice spans a range of activities including various forms of therapy
and counselling, group work, and community work; policy formulation and analysis;
and advocacy and political interventions… incorporating into a coherent whole the
micro-macro, personal-political dimension of intervention. The holistic focus of social
work is universal, but the priorities of social work practice will vary from one country
to the next, and from time to time depending on historical, cultural, political and
socio-economic conditions.”

So, there is acknowledgment of the breadth of approaches and spheres within which
social work may seek influence, together with a reference to the situated and
contextual nature of practice. However, the statement refers explicitly to professional
social work. This chapter goes on to say more about professional identity,
particularly relevant in relation to social work, which some consider a semi-
profession (Etzioni, 1966). Lyons, Manion & Carlsen adopted the term “social
professionals” in recognition of the fact that ‘social work’ internationally covers a

95
range of occupational groups with different titles, with differing organisational
locations (government, NGO, INGO, voluntary or informal providers, private
companies) and that people calling themselves social workers will have different
(and sometimes no) qualifications. It may be that, to consider social work
internationally, broad definitions are needed. However, Askeland and Payne (2006,
p49) questioned the value of attempts to devise an all-encompassing international
definition, suggesting that,

“A less hegemonic approach would be to accept distinct local social work traditions
and identify some common elements between them.”

It is hoped that the new Definition, published in Summer 2014, will go some way
towards achieving this end. The chapter will now identify some key relevant themes
from literature addressing social work as an international profession or which
considers how we might incorporate or adapt ‘best practice’ and knowledge
internationally.

3.3.3 This Thesis as International

The area of social work literature typically described as ‘international’ is large and
contested. This thesis draws upon themes from some of this literature and
contributes to understandings in this area. My own location, as a white British male
social worker researching Philippine social work (discussed elsewhere), places the
thesis within the ‘field’ of international social work. The ‘international’ credentials of
the thesis derive also from the fact that it draws upon international literature to frame
the analysis and situates social work in the Philippines within international context.
As has been discussed, a significant component of the research concerns
international influence upon Philippine social work, not least through intervention by
foreign powers and the on-going influence of neo-liberalism, global capital and
foreign aid.

In the thesis, the process by which social work in the Philippines initially adopted a
broadly North American model and then attempted to localise or indigenise that

96
practice, within the context of the developmental ambitions of the country and
external donors, is a significant theme. For all these reasons, it is essential to draw
upon the body of work that might be seen as ‘international social work’. Firstly,
however, the breadth of this area and some criticisms levelled at it should be
acknowledged. International social work is concerned with practice, research and
the relationships between the two. It relates, inter alia, to forms of practice which are
international in nature or cause (such as work with asylum seekers or in international
aid agencies), to the exchange of ideas between nations and to the fostering of an
appreciation among all social workers that the issues they and their clients face are,
in part, global issues (Haug, 2005; Healy & Thomas, 2007; Lyons, Manion &
Carlsen, 2006; Dominelli, 2010).

One issue of particular relevance is the international drive towards

professionalisation. Social work in the Philippines has taken professional form for
many years, influenced by the US. There are longstanding debates within social
work about the benefits of being professionalised. These include balancing prestige
and quality assurance of practice against potential distancing from service users and
greater state control over practice (Simpkin, 1979; Wilding, 1982; Healy & Meagher,
2004). For Hugman (2005), whose comments resonate with findings from the
sociology of professions, the search for certainty (or evidence based practice) is not
a pure quest for knowledge. Instead, it reflects the search for a social work identity,
the need to demonstrate discrete theories, skills and contributions to service users
and other professionals, to justify professional status (or symbolic capital):

“Claims that social workers can resolve social problems, whether for individuals,
groups or communities, had been the basis for the growth of the profession
worldwide.” (Hugman, 2005, p613)

Yet, as Hugman (and others, such as Fook) asserts, the territory of social work is
one too complex for certainties, truths or infallible solutions. Rather, for Hugman
social work research and practice is about a simultaneous search for the certain and
uncertain, which cannot and should not play the positivist game. Drucker (2003,
p64) cites Martinez-Brawley (1999, p334) discussing related points regarding the
‘international knowledge base’:

97
“Does the profession speak with the single voice of science and empirical evidence
or with the complex fluidity of art? Is it possible or even appropriate for social work
to be bound by the canons of positivism and scientific methodology or should it
accommodate alternative, less orthodox approaches to knowing? Can a profession
which is intimately bound to culture and language find generalizable principles?”

Haug (2005) is critical of international social work, suggesting that all too often it
equates to what Midgley called professional imperialism. International social work
(ISW) is, for Haug, not neutral or benevolent but had devalued and ignored
knowledge and approaches from the Global South, seeing such as somehow ‘less
professional’. She says:

“The dominant professional social work paradigm, from which most of the ISW
discourse has been constructed, represents a globalized local tradition whose
theories and methods have been presented as a unitary knowledge system,
universally applicable and superior to all other pre-existing traditions of social care.”
(2005, p129).

Haug suggests (p133) that a truly critical social work would challenge the premise
and impacts of structures and policies implemented at a global level by the IMF,
World Bank and so on. If one were to apply such perspectives to the Philippines,
inappropriate ‘evidence’ and approaches were imposed, by Spain and the US,
cloaked in a guise of professionalisation. Furthermore, where international social
work has embraced developmental or humanitarian models, it has been largely
uncritical of the fact that these are often implemented in ways which made people
poorer and even more powerless.

In social work, therefore, as in many disciplines, there has been a growing concern
about who sets the agenda and decides what knowledge ‘counts’ in a context of
unequal power relations at an international level. Bourdieu would conceptualise this
in terms of struggles for capital within social work fields. For some, such as Haug
(2005) and Mohan (2008), this links to dominant paradigms (science and
professionalism), to colonialism and global inequity. What is clear is that, whereas

98
such voices were less common 20 years ago (Hartman, 1992), they are much
stronger today and have exerted real influence on the attempts of international
associations to say what social work should aspire to. Nonetheless, in a 2007 article
reviewing fifty years of the journal International Social Work, Healy and Thomas
drew attention to the very limited reference in articles throughout those years to
globalisation or to issues such as debt and structural adjustments. It is of particular
interest for this thesis that, in the 1970s, along with articles critiquing American
models of social work, the journal saw attention shift to macro forms of practice, in
recognition of the concerns of Asia and Africa:

“The dominance of the traditional casework method of intervention was being

dethroned by notions of social welfare, social planning and the need for social
workers to become involved in the policy-making machinery.” (Healy & Thomas,
2007, p588)

Hence, international social work increasingly engaged with social work in the Global
South but, perhaps, offered little in the way of critical voice or discussion of
international forces or responsibilities. Furthermore, despite (as we have seen)
ambitious ideals of securing human rights and social justice, it may be that social
work at best offers localised support to the poor (in part, casualties of global
systems) rather than exposing causes, responding to large scale suffering or
challenging policy at a macro level. As Drucker asks (2003, p55):

“Despite our sworn values, do we in fact function largely as selective stretcher-

bearers (as Richard Titmuss used to categorize those who dealt with the halt, lame
and excluded) of our own society, and act predominantly with a Western cultural
orientation, indistinguishable from others, currently dancing to the compelling tune of
unrestrained free market forces?”

For Drucker, there is much value in responding to need at an individual level and he
understands that social workers may choose to operate in this sphere only (for
Thompson (2012), the Personal domain of the PCF model). However, Drucker
suggests that social workers are typically ‘professional outcasts’, devalued
operatives within marginalised services and perceived by service users to be part of

99
the problem in unjust societies. In the Philippines, although practice is more evenly
distributed across clinical and community orientations and, on the face of it,
responding to poverty (an aim rarely expressed in social work in the ‘west’), one
could question the extent to which it operates beyond the micro level. In short, social
development work may utilise collective rather than individualised responses but
may collude equally with root problems. Having said this, as we shall see, there is
also a tradition of direct action within Philippine social work, which may be less
present in many other parts of Asia or the world.

Most relevant for this thesis, Drucker (2003, p66) discusses his own interactions with
social work in the Philippines and other parts of Asia in 1970 when, he says, “Asian
social work was seeking to adopt… a broadening of the educational agenda and
practice and embraced the field of social development”. This he conceptualises as
an attempt to move beyond the preoccupations and approaches of Western social
work, though one might question why developmental issues were (and are) a
concern for countries in the region. This was not an unfettered decision to adopt a
developmental form of social work but reflected the local, global and historical
conditions which rendered some places ‘developing’ and others ‘developed’.
However, Drucker suggests the Global North could learn from the discussions and
resolutions made in Asia at that time:

“In Manila at the same time (1970) there were also conferences of the… IASSW…
IFSW and the International Congress of Social Workers… The in thing there was to
exult at the prospects of social work operating effectively ‘in the corridors of power’
as the ‘challenge of the seventies’. By 1970, then… social work had authoritatively
had its attention drawn not only to the nature of the Asian situation, but emphatically
to the necessary widening of social work priorities and direction everywhere.”
(Drucker, 2003, p67).

So, though driven partly by forces beyond the control of individual states, a challenge
to ‘western’ social work did begin to develop in Asia in the late 1960s and 1970s.
Midgely (2001) suggested that the influence of ‘western’ social work was not all bad.
It led to collaboration, innovation and an expansion of understanding. The fact that
there is a wealth of literature to inform this thesis is testament to the positive aspects

100
of international social work. Yet Midgely reiterates the messages from workers in
developing countries that, “…the profession’s individualized, therapeutic approach is
unsuited to the pressing problems of poverty, unemployment, hunger, homelessness
and ill health that characterises the global South.” (2001, p28). Midgely
acknowledges the limited (but present) social and political activism within social work
and more common commitment to remedial practice. In a comment that speaks to
the Filipino context, he says (p29):

“But some writers believe that developmental forms of social work do not address
underlying social inequalities and injustices, and that they fail to challenge the
pervasive exploitation of the poor, women, gays and lesbians, people with disabilities
and other oppressed groups.”

This theme is developed in relation to social work in the Philippines, when we look in
detail at the data.

3.4 Indigenisation and Reconceptualisation

“Bringing education to countries or regions where it would otherwise be inaccessible

appears to be a valuable gift, but it also tightens the dependency of the receiving on
the giving countries.” (Askeland & Payne, 2006, p735).

The field of social work internationally (dominated by ‘western’ perspectives and

methods) has, in part, constructed the field of social work in the Philippines. This
initially involved the imposition of culture, including religions and other institutions,
upon the country under colonial rule and via a process of US training, followed by
years of social work education drawing upon western models and values. Ferguson
(2005) traces the exchange of social work from Europe to America, then (post-war)
from America to the rest of the world. Drawing upon the work of Cox (1997), she
identifies a ‘typical’ process whereby local forms of support continued but ‘western’
responses were also introduced:

101
“The arrival of western colonial powers and missionaries in Asia, together with the
rapid industrialization and urbanization of countries throughout the region, marked
the inception of… the industrial charity model. During this period, the western model
of remedial and charitable social services was introduced to schools of social work
and to governmental and non-governmental agencies.” (Ferguson, 2005, p522).

Following this, Ferguson discusses two processes: indigenisation (the modification of

‘western’ models and understandings) and reconceptualisation (or what Askeland
and Payne (2006) refer to as ‘cultural translation’). Whilst the former attempts to
adapt imported approaches to local political priorities, culture and social structures,
reconceptualization is described as follows:

“In the late 1960s, dissatisfaction with the outcomes of indigenization in the
developing world prompted many countries to distance themselves from the western
social work model and to generate new responses to structural social problems from
within. The social work profession in many developing countries recognized that
inherent in the western model were remedial approaches based on individual need.”
(Ferguson, 2005, p521)

Ferguson points out that the theoretical origins of attempts to reconstruct social work
to address structural inequalities originated in the Catholic University of Chile. There
are few indications of this radical turn being taken-up by the Roman Catholic
universities in the Philippines, though academics and practitioners did seek to
indigenise and to focus, in part at least, on social development, community work and
activist strategies. Certainly, the Philippines shifted from individualised forms of
practice to social development approaches, though these arguably promote
individual responsibility for getting out of poverty rather than challenging structural
inequalities.

Askeland and Payne (2006, p733) acknowledge that education was used within
empire to shift local values and culture towards those of the colonising country.
Post-colonially, ‘western’ forms of knowledge (and knowledge production) were
considered superior, universal and transferable. As we shall see, most texts used in
Philippine universities delivering social work education are in English (including

102
indigenous texts). Askeland and Payne (p739) point out that the majority of
international exchange in social work is in English or one of the other “most powerful
colonial languages” (Spanish and French). They acknowledge, however, that, whilst
globalised educational exchange may lead to homogenisation, it could promote good
practice, whereby countries adapt and learn without compromising the local. Though
Filipinos speak English and often study in English, the ethical implications of
language for this research (and potential for cultural and linguistic misunderstanding)
were ever present, as was the researcher’s position within this.

Yan & Tsui (2007) use a case study of US social work literature to consider themes
of universality and transferability to the Chinese context, or what they describe
(p641) as, “…the opposing forces of internationalization and indigenization”. They
make the important point that ‘western social work’ is riddled with different
approaches and views upon desired ‘mission’ and that therefore any suggestion of
indigenisation as a form of resistance to some homogenous, externally imposed form
of social work is simplistic. In respect of the ‘Person-In-Environment’ definition, they
point out (p646) that:

“One ongoing controversy among social workers in the USA concerns the focus of
social work: should social workers help people to adjust to the social environment or
should they concentrate their efforts on changing the environment to eliminate the
structural causes leading to human suffering?”

Yan & Tsui also address the value of professionalised social work, again drawing
upon the US example. In their analysis, the move to professional status usually
entailed having a legally protected title (as in the Philippines) which, in turn, placed
social workers further under state control, less able to exercise discretion, more
distanced from unqualified workers (who often provide excellent services, such as
those in NGOs) and less able to advocate for policy or political change. Their
suggestion for Chinese social work is that the profession remain as broad as
possible and open to all sources and forms of knowledge and practice methods. In
two statements which resonate with the broad conception of social work evident in
the Philippines, Yan & Tsui suggest the following:

103
“Perhaps the social work profession in China needs to be more inclusive. It should
embrace both trained and untrained social work practitioners and establish an
agreed division of labour.” (p649)

“For the social work profession in China, the example in the USA suggests that,
instead of protecting an exclusive ground which may deter potential allies, a more
inclusive approach should be adopted.” (p650)

Particularly interesting perspectives on indigenisation are offered, also from China,

by Huang & Zhang (2008, 2011). In their earlier article, an overview is provided of
calls for indigenous Chinese social work, including reference to Xiong’s 2006 article
that interestingly applied Bourdieu’s theory of action to indigenisation but which
(ironically) is available only in Chinese. Huang & Zhang (2008) argued that Chinese
people might, if asked, prefer ‘western’ social work values like human rights, as a
route out of oppression. This brings to mind the limited scope for self-determination
for disabled people in the Philippine family-oriented culture (discussed later).
Essentially, they suggest that a simplistic ‘West is Bad/Indigenous is Good’ model
was unhelpful. In response, Gray & Coates (2010) reiterate the concern that social
work in the Global North had insufficiently recognised local cultures, failed to hear
alternative voices and introduced inappropriate forms of practice to other countries.
This prompted a response from Huang & Zhang (2011), again stating that sensitivity
to cultural difference was a vital component of social work but that this should be an
expectation everywhere, not just in ‘developing’ contexts. They take issue with the
dichotomous characterisation of the ‘west’ as liberal individualism (despite evidence
of significant collective activity in the west) and the ‘east’ as something very different.
These idealised types may, they say, serve to further marginalise and disempower
those who are different. The case is also made that there are significant
commonalities in terms of ‘east/west’ value bases and that the idea of universality
should not be ‘ditched with the bathwater’. Finally, given the positioning of
indigenisation as a counter-balance to modernisation and global homogenisation,
Huang & Zhang ask what social work should be trying to achieve if not development.
Again, as we have begun to see, social work in the Philippines is very much tied to
the economic and social development agenda.

104
3.5 Characteristics of the Profession in the Philippines

Accounts from within social work of its international (and national) development
typically point (as have some sociologists) to factors like professional recognition, the
growth of social work education, the sharing of ideas through conferences and
internet-use, efforts to indigenise and evidence of cross-national practice, student
learning and academic endeavour:

“The professional concept rests as much on scarce resource as the landed or

capitalist, but instead of controlling land or capital it sets out to control the supply of
expertise… its value has to be protected and raised, first by persuading the public of
the vital importance of the service and then by controlling the market for it.”
(Perkin, 1989, p378)

Hence, indicators of professionalisation include the development of professional

bodies, strategies of closure (limiting admittance) through qualification, protection of
title and some form of monopoly of ‘unique’ forms of practice. Such dimensions are
now considered, making connections to the particular focus of this thesis. Weiss and
Welbourne’s (2007) comparative text, looking at the social work profession across
the world, is illuminating. They name the ‘drive for professional status’ as a
consistent –and consistently controversial – feature of the development of social
work in all countries (p1). Indicators of ‘degree of professionalisation’ (such as the
existence of Codes of Ethics and enforcement mechanisms, monopoly of specific
roles or protection of the title of ‘social worker) suggest social work is significantly
more established and formalised in some countries than others. This section looks
at those dimensions of the profession addressed by Weiss and Welbourne and
offers comments on social work in the Philippines (not one of the countries surveyed
for the text).

The first indicator of professional social work adopted by Weiss and Welbourne
(2007) is that of having a knowledge base which is in some ways unique. The stage
of development of “country-specific knowledge” varies, and most developing
countries identified the limited transferability of ‘western’ casework models (ibid,

105
p227-8). In the case of the Philippines, the Preface to the second edition of one of
the most-cited social work texts suggested that, “...we must mobilize support for
theory-building efforts so that we do not merely adopt or improve on practice theories
or concepts developed in other lands but also develop our own” (Lee-Mendoza,
2008, viii). Lee-Mendoza goes on to introduce qualifying students to a range of
theories and approaches developed in the US or UK. Whilst case studies and
examples of agencies in the Philippines are employed, to ‘localise’ the concepts
presented, little is described as ‘Philippine social work theory’. In addition to
knowledge connected to practice methods, Weiss and Welbourne say the knowledge
base for social work typically includes knowledge about social problems in a country
and about populations that suffer oppression. A review of the Philippine literature
suggested there is evidence of a well-developed knowledge base in terms of social
conditions and issues. Whilst there is certainly a literature engaging with structural
factors such as poverty and gender in the Philippines, this would not appear to be
conceptualised in terms of social divisions, power or anti-oppressive practice.
Finally, in relation to knowledge base, Weiss and Welbourne refer to dissemination.
In the Philippines, the cost of books is prohibitive and libraries struggle to maintain
stocks of current literature, so access to knowledge is certainly affected by
resources. A good number of local texts have, however, been published (Cordero,
Pangalangan & Fondevilla, 2000; Veneracion, 2003; Lee-Mendoza, 2008) and a
number of social work and related Journals exist, including the Philippine Journal of
Social Development and Philippine Journal of Social Work. Finally, various social
work associations hold conferences and other events at which knowledge is shared.

The second aspect of professional development explored by Weiss and Welbourne

is that of public recognition, defined in terms of restriction on use of title, licensing
and level of qualification. Here, social work in the Philippines ‘scores well’. Republic
Act 4373, passed in 1965, introduced the requirement that social workers complete a
bachelor’s degree, incorporating 1000 hours of supervised practice learning, and
pass a government board examination to be registered (Lee-Mendoza, 2008; Viloria,
1987). Such recognition and regulation took far longer to achieve in many other
parts of the world, ‘developing’ or ‘developed’. Weiss and Welbourne found, in all
the countries they considered, that social work qualifications were part of higher
education systems (p234), though levels, requirements and standardisation of

106
curriculum varied. It is notable that a national curriculum has been in place for social
work in the Philippines since the 1960s, with the most recent version developed by
the National Association for Social Work Education (NASWEI) and the Philippine
Association of Social Workers (PASWI) and approved by the Government’s
Commission on Higher Education in 2010 (CHED, 2010). The long-standing
existence of social work associations in the Philippines is another indicator of
professional maturity, according to Weiss and Welbourne. From the 1960s, the
country saw ongoing efforts to set and monitor standards in social work education
(Lee-Mendoza, p61-4). For Midgley (1997, p167), “American influences can be
readily detected in Asian social work education, particularly in India and the
Philippines, where the American preference for university-level training was
adopted... While India, the Philippines and Korea have numerous schools of social
work, countries such as Singapore, Thailand, and Papua New Guinea have more
limited provision.”

A further dimension of professionalisation identified by Weiss and Welbourne (p230)

is the extent to which social work has a monopoly over, or is the preferred provider
of, certain forms of practice. It is suggested that those areas seen as ‘requiring
social work input’ are being eroded in parts of the Global North, often related to other
professionals or unqualified/voluntary workers carrying out those tasks. Though
social work is a legally recognised profession in the Philippines, no preserved roles
have been identified in the literature review. An associated dimension of the
development of social work as a profession is, for Weiss and Welbourne (p233), that
of professional autonomy. They say this varies from workplace to workplace but
particularly reflects the sector (private, statutory or not-for-profit) and nature of
management ‘control’ over decision-making and action. As social workers operate in
all these contexts in the Philippines, one can conclude that levels of autonomy vary.
As we shall see, social workers and academics interviewed for this study
commented on the impact of political influence (Yu, 2006) and financial constraints.
Social workers are also commonly employed by self-help/people’s organisations
(whose agenda is set by service users) and by local and international NGOs (which
expect funds to be used for pre-agreed purposes). As in all countries, therefore,
social workers in the Philippines vary in their autonomy.

107
Weiss and Welbourne go on to identify the existence of a national Code of Ethics as
a further indicator of professional development. The Philippine Association of Social
Workers, Inc. adopted a code in 1964, with the most recent revision being in 1998
(Lee-Mendoza, 2008, p134). The Code is discussed later in this chapter. The final
dimension discussed by Weiss and Welbourne is that of prestige and remuneration.
They comment (p240) that, “Generally, the status and prestige of social work... is not
high. In half the countries... its status is particularly low relative to that of other
helping professions.” In the Philippines, again this in part depends upon the sector
within which practitioners work but several research participants commented on low
wages and on this being one motivation for becoming a ‘Filipino Worker Oversees’.

Weiss and Welbourne’s work offers a helpful framework for considering the
profession of social work, though one which is largely functional in sociological
terms. By placing Philippine social work within this framework, we see an
established and well-developed profession but one that continues to tussle with the
advantages and challenges of professional status and tensions associated with
practice in varied agency contexts. The authors see much common ground in social
work across the world, both in terms of, “...the emergence of social work from a
tradition of philanthropy and ‘good work’, often underpinned by religious values”
(p246) and the later influence (initially from the USA) of psychosocial casework,
which, “...was seen as a valuable tool in the struggle to professionalize social work
by providing a unifying methodology for social workers in diverse practice settings”
(p247). Social work in the Philippines, where Christianity was imposed by Spain and
the influence of North America was very direct, unsurprisingly followed a similar
pattern of development. However, Hugman makes the significant point that ‘social
development’ has constituted a core dimension of post-colonial social work (2010,
p81-4). Whilst this may well be a response to poverty, Hugman also suggests that
social development forms a bridge between micro and macro approaches,
incorporating notions of ‘harmony and cohesion’ (p81) central to African and Asian
societies. Whereas western’ social work emphasises the inter-personal and
individual social need, Hugman suggests that social work in ‘developing’ countries
typically engages with capacity building in communities and with economic
development at the local level, seeking to reconcile individual rights with those of
family and community, in ways which might be considered contrary to western ideas

108
of anti-oppressive practice. However, for Hugman (p85), “Ironically, we have to
recognise that the terms of this debate are couched in the value system derived from
the European tradition, in which the post-Enlightenment notions of human rights and
social justice are understood predominantly in a very individualistic way... For social
work to operate only with an overly individualistic notion of how these values are to
be achieved in such contexts may be both practically counter-productive and also
constitute an implicit form of neo-colonialism.” Dominelli goes further (2010, p12),
asserting that, “...challenges to hegemonic forms of practice are more diverse in the
international domain, where social development goals are intertwined with individual
interventions.” As we shall see, differing interpretations of the nature of oppression
arose in data collected for this study.

This chapter now turns to the development of social work in the Philippines, tracking
links to (and departures from) those ‘Western’ forms of social work and considering
whether such processes accompanied that development.

3.6 Development of Social Welfare & Social Work in the Philippines

Almanzor (1966, p27) notes that “the humanitarian impulse” was present in the
Philippines before colonial rule but goes on to identify the influence of Spain and the
USA on the country. Over 300 years of Spanish rule, to the end of the nineteenth
century, resulted in the ‘unification’ of thousands of islands within one state.
Although Almanzor (1966) acknowledged the processes of ‘Western’ influence on
Philippine social work, it fell to Yu forty years later to offer a more critical account of
the pervasive ideological impact upon the profession of the colonial powers (Yu,
2006). Both accounts present Spanish rule as a time when social welfare
developed, as missionaries converted most of the population to Christianity and
developed schools, hospitals and almshouses. American rule (1898 – 1946) saw
further development of charitable provision but also the extension of public
coordination and welfare services. The position of the US vis-a-vis the Philippines,
however exploitative, was different from that with Spain. Howe (2002, p32) observes
that, “...the indirect or informal political control exercised by... the United States over
the Philippines, might (or might not, according to political preference) be described

109
as imperialism. But it is not colonialism, since... the Philippines retained formal
political sovereignty. Nor is it colonization, since... American migrants did not settle
in... the Philippines in significant numbers...” Social work developed as a profession
following independence, initially through the influence of aid workers from the USA
and elsewhere and then through a small number of Filipinos, trained in the USA, who
established the Philippine Association of Social Workers (Almanzor, 1966; Yu,
2006). Thus, writers on social work in the Philippines have broadly identified the
adoption of Christian philanthropy/charity and American social work practice as the
two major influences, with debate continuing around the interplay of those factors
with indigenous culture.

Yu (2006) asserted that existing accounts of the development of Philippine social

welfare failed to engage critically with the repressive dimensions and lasting legacies
of foreign rule. He acknowledges that home-grown critical histories of the
Philippines exist (Constantino and Constantino, 1978) but correctly sees these as
absent from the writings of social work academics. Thus, “The austerity of the
Spanish colonial government and the omnipotence of the clergy created a model of
social welfare that was dominated by the religious orders, with minimal government
involvement.” (Yu, 2006, p561). Dominant accounts in social work continued to
present Spanish rule as the time when hospitals and orphanages were established
by a benevolent church and kindly individuals made private acts of giving as a route
to salvation. This thesis will show that the ethos of charity and of donors is very
much alive in Philippine social work (Price and Artaraz, 2013). Whilst the community
orientation of practice in the Philippines impacted strongly upon the researcher, the
potential for faith to limit expectations and individualise deservedness for support
was equally striking. Again, for Yu (2006, p562), these beliefs “…hold perseverance
in suffering as a virtue, fate as the will of God and misfortune and poverty as
punishment for sin or a test of character.” Notions of individual failings and salvation,
within welfare and broader society, were a key legacy of Spain’s colonisation of the
Philippines.

Developments under US-rule included the establishment of a Board to coordinate

the efforts of charitable organisations, some initiated and sponsored by American
citizens; a chapter of the American Red Cross; the gradual growth of health centres,

110
social work offices in poor areas; and limited attempts to remove people from slum
living (Landa Jocano, 1980). However, the impact of economic depression in the
1930s, in a context of reliance upon the USA, led to a need for basic relief work
(Lee-Mendoza, 2008). A small number of women gained scholarships to attend
American universities for social work training from the 1920s onwards. In 1935, the
Philippines entered a commonwealth period under its first President. The economy
began to recover, a minimum wage was introduced and there was expansion of
public welfare legislation and programmes. For Landa Jocano (ibid, p63), the 1930s
saw a transition in social welfare (prompted by American influence), both through a
growing ‘professionalisation’ and increasing emphasis on coordination. In 1940, the
Department of Health and Public Welfare was established. USA rule saw the
introduction of democracy and of public provision and funding in welfare but,
“…welfare initiatives only had value if they facilitated colonial subjugation and
assimilation. An individualist perspective also came with the restrictive colonial
environment that would also have provided penalties for anyone who suggested
structural attributions to social problems” (Yu, 2006, p565). For Yu, therefore,
colonial rule brought a functional, residualised and individualist form of welfare. It
could be argued that the Spanish and US influences complemented and reinforced
each other in this regard.

Lee-Mendoza, former Professor of Social Work at the University of the Philippines,

deserves credit for writing a text which was among the first to seek to account for
social work in a Philippine context and provide culturally-recognisable case
examples. The third edition was published in 2008, some time after Yu’s analysis (in
which Lee-Mendoza is among the authors criticised). Yet, this edition retains a
‘neutral’ - and in many ways positive - account of welfare under Spain and the USA
(and, for that matter, of the years of martial law). Of course, no history is neutral and
Lee-Mendoza’s oft-cited text is disappointingly uncritical, suggesting that social work
responds to “personal inadequacies” and “situational inadequacies” (2008, p8).
Though this does place individual ‘inability to cope’ within a loose social context, no
framework of structural inequality is offered, but rather a ‘maintenance’ vision
(offering a particular interpretation of the ‘person in environment’ definition).
Humanitarian and social justice goals are described as, “… the identification of the
most afflicted, the most dependent, the most neglected, and those least able to help

111
themselves…”, whilst the social control dimensions of social work are, “…based on
the recognition that needy, deprived, or disadvantaged groups may strike out,
individually or collectively, against what they consider to be an alienating or offending
society. Society therefore has to secure itself against the threats to life, property,
and political stability in the community…” (2008, p6).

Lee-Mendoza is not alone in her take on Philippine history and the place of social
work. Viloria and Martinez (1987) and Landa Jocano (1980) paint a similarly benign
picture. Although Viloria and Martinez offer some critique of Spanish domination,
highlighting the “appalling rise in destitution” and the pain caused by “the Sword and
the Cross” (1987, p23), this is tempered with a grateful acknowledgment of the
growth of education, Christianity and charitable support for, “the poor, the sick, the
aged, the mentally ill and defective, the orphans, and youthful delinquents…” (ibid,
p24). No critique of the motives or impact of the ‘American phase’ is offered or,
indeed, of the Marcos regime, which had collapsed the year before this account was
published. Meanwhile, for Landa Jocano:

“The early Spanish missionaries not only ‘watched over’ the spiritual well-being of
the people but also administered in the maintenance of hospitals, asylums, and
orphanages for the natives.” (1980, p19); and “The colonization policies of Spain
also emphasized education. By the middle of the 16th century, schools and
universities were opened all over her colonies, introducing her cultural heritage to the
subject states.” (1980, p21).

In 1946, the Philippines became a republic and state engagement with welfare grew.
1947 saw a Social Welfare Commission (later the Social Welfare Administration)
which, for Lee-Mendoza (2008, p25) “…signified the formal recognition of social
welfare as a responsibility by the state.” The main areas of social work activity were
financial and other forms of relief; institutional care; work-training/income-generation
projects; and rural welfare (not only concerned with relief but the development of
community kitchens, self-help programmes and cooperatives and construction of
road networks). Building on the experiences of Filipinos trained in the USA, social
work schools were established. The Philippine Association of Social Workers was
formed by that same handful of overseas-trained workers in 1947. Social workers in

112
the 1950s and 1960s worked predominantly in hospitals and mental health settings,
assessing eligibility for free treatment and financial support (Lee-Mendoza, 2008,
p56), and this more tangible link between social work and welfare remains a
significant difference between Philippines social work and that in much of the Global
North. UNICEF-funded training of social workers boosted numbers. A key
development for the profession came in 1965, when Republic Act 4373 introduced
regulation of social work and social work agencies. The formation of the Schools of
Social Work Association of the Philippines in 1969 was indicative of a growing
presence and recognition but also a response to the need for a revised curriculum
post-RA4373.

In 1965, Marcos became President and remained so until 1986. Again, Lee-
Mendoza offers no critique but does provide information relevant to understanding
the development of social work. Importantly, she points to growing UN focus on a
development agenda (2008, p31). UNICEF, for example, became more active and
funds were directed to national initiatives aimed at tackling poverty and raising living
standards. Indeed, it is suggested that Marcos’ early years saw real attempts to
achieve such aims. However, he faced growing protest and at times violent
opposition, from students seeking educational reform, from the Filipino Communist
Party and from Muslim separatists. In 1972, Marcos declared Martial Law, which
remained, tellingly, until a visit of the Pope in 1981. Opposition leaders were
silenced or forced into exile. Curfews were imposed and, seemingly, ‘accepted’ by
much of the population. The armed forces grew in size significantly. Yet the 1970s
saw economic growth, relative prosperity and a form of repressed stability. Much of
this was sustained – if not created – by billions of dollars of US-aid, and American
markets for Philippine produce.

In 1976, government welfare agencies evolved into the Department of Social

Services and Development which, for Lee-Mendoza (2008, p31) reflected the
“...shifting emphasis from the traditional, often institution-based social welfare to
community-oriented programs and services which underscored people’s own
capacities for problem-solving.” Though social work continued to provide services
like emergency relief and day care, it became increasingly part of a drive for
development, working with communities to develop small businesses and skills for

113
employment. So, as Martial Law continued around it and the country became ever
more reliant on a former imperial power, many social workers arguably engaged with
a system which placed the onus on the poor to work their way out of poverty.

Much of the development agenda was promoted through the existing political
structure of ‘barangays’, originally a system of small village communities under
hereditary local rulers grouped into regional federations. Viloria and Martinez (1987,
p22-23) describe it as a structure for settling disputes or seeking communal support
at times of need but one which existed around a social structure based on the
subsistence of individual, self-sufficient families. The barangay were central to the
social structure of the country until the Spanish introduced a centralised structure
under a Governor General. Zulueta and Nebres (2003, p56) suggest that this
concentration of power was “the primary source of graft and corruption”, which
blights politics and development in the Philippines to this day. For the first 200 years
of Spanish rule, the Philippines was divided into ‘encomiendas’, regions charged with
promoting welfare and conversion to Catholicism. They constituted a reward to
Spanish people who had assisted in the colonisation process. Towards the end of
the 18th Century, a system of provincial government was introduced. Corruption
manifested itself at every level of the system and, with the union of Church and
State, a repressive state structure led to “much oppression and untold suffering”
(Zulueta and Nebres, 2003 p60).

Social workers continue to grapple with a political and welfare system in which the
personal power of elected representatives and paid officials holds huge sway. At the
local level, the need to always work through the barangay is something which
academics and practitioners raised in interviews for this project, often as a barrier but
also as an opportunity, a resource and a link to local people. Thus, for better and for
worse, the community context is direct and real for Philippine social work and those
connections between barangay and welfare were first forged as part of Marcos’
development programme. He emphasised barangays as the focus for community
decision making and planning, though it is difficult to see how this was to happen
under a declaration which, “...denied the people any meaningful participation [and]
respected no constitutional rights, no civil liberties.” (Zulueta & Nebres, 2003, p251).

114
Marcos’ final years as president saw economic stagnation, increasing poverty and
corruption. His position was fatally damaged by the assassination of opposition
leader Benigno Aquino, Jr. in 1983. In 1986, when Marcos was declared winner of
an election, mass ‘people power’ demonstrations were held, Marcos went into exile
and Corazon Aquino became President. She, too, was keen to see a shift from relief
to a development approach, creating the Department for Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD), which exists to this day. By the early 1990s, the DSWD was
the largest employer of licensed social workers in the Philippines and policy was
focusing on “Low Income Municipalities (LIMs) and other socially-depressed
barangays” (Lee-Mendoza, 2008, p35-6).

The Local Government Code 1991 (Republic Act 7160) decentralised a broad range
of responsibilities and functions from national to local government. Most social work
and welfare responsibilities were devolved to the Municipality, with some devolved to
the Barangay (Local Government Code, 1991). The DSWD became a research and
policy planning agency but, “...had to devolve its implementing functions together
with its programs and services, direct service workers, budget corresponding to the
salary and funds of the staff and programs, and assets and liabilities to the local
government units starting in 1992” (Lee-Mendoza, 2008, p35). This was a wholesale
revision of the context in which most statutory social workers operate. Those
employed within DSWD itself would, in future, be involved with support to – and
regulation of – the services provided by local government, NGOs and ‘people’s
organisations’. Yu (2013, p193) argues that, “the devolution resulted in a policy
environment that allows for varying levels of social support across municipalities and,
consequently, the fragmentation of Filipino citizenship.” Indeed, Yu goes so far as to
suggest that, “… in welcoming devolution, social workers welcomed the advance of a
policy regime underpinned by conservative ideology as a national social welfare
system was dismantled in the name of local empowerment and development” (Yu,
ibid, p204). In a section that says much about ‘space’ (Huegler, Lyons and Pawar,
2012), Yu (ibid, p205) adds:

“What practitioners need to realize is that the devolution does not only represent a
change in their location in the institutional space comprising the national
bureaucracy. Even if it does not appear to do so, devolution represents a

115
fundamental change in the character of Philippine social policy and, as a
consequence, of their work… What does it mean when the national government
commits the country to the promotion of social justice, the protection of human rights
and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals? Given our experience
with the devolution, the answer now seems to depend on which locality one resides
in.”

From the 1990s onwards, social work continued to operate within local government
units, NGOs, faith-based charitable providers and some private sector agencies
(such as private hospitals and industrial settings). All of this activity is, to varying
degrees, subject to the oversight and ‘vision’ of the DSWD, which still employs social
workers in research and monitoring roles (some of whom participated in this study).
Legislation since 1990 has focussed on empowerment/rights (for example of
Disabled People in 1992 and Indigenous Peoples in 1997) and on protection (of
Children, in 1992, and through an anti-trafficking law in 2003), which reflects the co-
existence of development approaches and some growing concern with individualized
needs and forms of practice. Lee-Mendoza (2008, p37) emphasises the pluralist
nature of welfare in the Philippines and the particular role played by NGOs:
“…countless social agencies, organizations and institutions under private
sponsorship are engaged in the provision of many different social services to meet a
great variety of unmet human needs. With our scarce resources, NGOs supplement
government efforts especially for the poor and disabled sectors of our society.” The
Philippine Council for NGO Certification suggests there could be 60,000 NGOs in the
Philippines. It is very significant that, to a much greater extent than in parts of the
‘west’, the work of NGOs is seen very much as part of social work and a place for
social workers. Thus, the Mission of the DSWD (in 2011) was as follows:

“To provide social protection and promote the rights and welfare of the poor,
vulnerable and the disadvantaged individuals, families and communities that will
contribute to poverty alleviation and empowerment through social welfare
development policies, programs, projects and services implemented with or through
local government units (LGUs), non-government organizations (NGOs), people’s
organizations (POs), other government organizations (GOs) and other members of
civil society.” (DSWD, 2011 (1))

116
The DSWD’s 2009 Annual Report set out some areas of attention within the sector,
including, “...the expansion of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) or the
conditional cash transfer program… from 337, 416 in 2008 beneficiaries to 1 million
in 2009.” (DSWD, 2009, p3) Under this programme, to which participants referred
during interviews, grants are made to poor households “upon compliance to
conditions set by the program” (ibid, p4). “The conditionalities include sending their
children to school and bringing them to health centers on a regular basis, and
providing pre and post natal care and delivery by a skilled birth attendant to pregnant
women” (ibid, p24). However, Raquiza (2010) notes that 1 million beneficiaries
constitute only a quarter of those in poverty in the country. Furthermore, with a focus
on education and health to break inter-generational poverty, the more direct issue of
a regular income was, she suggested, being overlooked. The Report also highlights
the growth of emergency employment measures, ‘economic resiliency’ assistance,
disaster relief and rehabilitation.

What is striking about the Report is the extent of reliance upon agencies outside the
Philippines. Many schemes were funded as part of efforts to achieve the Millennium
Development Goals (UN, 2000). The 4Ps Programme was supported by UNICEF;
projects in poorer regions (day centres; irrigation and infrastructure projects; health
stations; livelihood centres; schemes to reduce ‘gender violence’) were funded by
the Spanish government; and assistance to those affected by conflict in Mindanao
was supported by the UN World Food Programme. A further high profile
programme, part-funded through loans from the World Bank (Raquiza, 2010) and
overseas grant aid, is called Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan - Comprehensive and
Integrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI-CIDSS). Funds support community
initiatives including basic infrastructure, community enterprise, skills training and
health/day-centres. Part of this programme, in urban poor communities, was
supported by a US$3million grant from the Japanese government through their
Social Development Fund (DSWD (2), 2011). Participants for this study discussed
this programme which, again, is largely funded by international loans and grants.
Raquiza (2010, p16) recognises some positive outcomes of the programme but
emphasises the scale of poverty:

117
“While program evaluation has been generally positive – increased incomes for
barangay residents, increased access to social infrastructure and decision-making
processes, the development of new skills for local residents, higher levels of
collective action, social capital and local empowerment – the highly ‘micro-ized and
project-ized’ nature of many of the initiatives under this program have shown that its
impact is, at best, localized.”

The above article is taken from the ‘Social Welfare and Development Journal’ which,
as a government publication, is far from independent although, as has been seen,
some writers are critical of existing policy. Articles convey strongly the fundamental
and emerging social issues facing the Philippines such as ‘children in conflict with
the law’ (Mendoza, 2010); an increasing incidence of suicide (Gamboa & Lapuz-
Estal, 2010); responding to natural disasters (Hashim-Taradji, 2010); and progress
towards the MDGs. On the latter, Serrano notes that, “Despite consistent positive
economic growth – 6 percent on average – there are more poor Filipinos now than
when we set off on the MDG track in 2000. The high inequality picture of 1990 –
expressed in income, employment, spatial, gender, ethnic dimensions – hardly
changed or might have even worsened” (Serrano, 2010, p2).

The theme of poverty is also taken-up by Raquiza (2010), who essentially argues for
a comprehensive welfare system. Raquiza cites the concept of poverty adopted in a
UN Declaration (UN, 1995), which encompassed social exclusion and deprivation
(Raquiza, 2010, p17). She argues that certain groups, such as poor women and
indigenous people, face particular discrimination and inequality in Philippine society;
that the country is dominated by a small number of powerful families; and that
population growth should be tackled within a reproductive rights framework. For
Raquiza, current anti-poverty initiatives fail to address the structural causes of
poverty and agrarian reform, progressive taxation and a universal system of social
protection are needed. “The Philippine government is also urged to explore a
broader definition of social protection which includes addressing ‘vulnerability
associated with being poor’ (for which social assistance is needed), vulnerability with
the risk of becoming poor (for which social insurance is needed) as well as social
injustice arising from structural inequalities and abuse of power (for which social
equity is needed)” (Raquiza, 2010, p19).

118
Critical voices do exist, therefore, if less commonly within social work academia.
Whilst this chapter is critical of much Philippine social work literature, it appears that
the Philippine Association of Social Workers has questioned government policy and
actions. It, “took a stand on such social issues like (sic) family planning, the
integration of cultural minorities into Philippine society, the release of activist social
workers who were detained for charges of rebellion during the Martial Law Period…
(and it)… campaigned for opposition to the government initiated proposal to merge
the DSWD and the Department of Health in the 1980s.” (Lee-Mendoza, 2008, p60-
61).

This section has considered what social work is in the Philippines. Three
dimensions of professional practice remain core to the social work curriculum and
evident in practice. These are Social Casework (conceptualised as assistance
towards individual adjustment), Social Groupwork (group activities organised for
welfare purposes) and Community Organisation (Landa Jocano, 1980, p5-6). The
latter, Landa Jocano describes thus (1980, p8): “Its major interest is focussed on
community problems and on how to mobilize all available resources - human, social
and cultural - in the community in order to correct these deficiencies.” Thus, since
the 1950s, social work education and practice have been “patterned after the
American model” (Lee-Mendoza, 2008, p499). The scope of social work in the
Philippines is seductive, yet the tone of this explication of social work purpose,
whether at the individual, group or community level, is very much one of
maintenance rather than opposition, of responsibility and, perhaps, blame.

3.7 Practice: Some defining features of Social Work in the

Philippines Today

Social workers in the Philippines work across a wide range of organisational and
practice contexts. They may, for example, be employed by international or national
NGOs, central or local government, factories, charities or faith-based organisations.
Areas of practice in the Philippines include child welfare and family support; work
with older people, women, disabled people and those with mental health problems;

119
disaster management; community development and sustainability; community
organising; and advocacy and social action. Roles and tasks range from direct
practice with individuals, families, groups and communities to positions focusing on
social administration, project development, training and programme management.
Social work takes place in settings including private companies, military contexts,
private and public hospitals, courts, statutory and non-statutory welfare institutions,
schools and church-based services. Practice sometimes focuses upon particular
‘groups’ within the population, such as street children, farmers, the urban poor or
migrant workers. However, it is equally likely to take the form of generic practice,
tackling issues as they arise within a local area. Many qualified and registered social
workers are in posts with titles that do not mention social work. Almanzor (1988)
commented that this can be because they are working for NGOs or international
organisations where the job title relates to funding requirements or specific aims
(say, around youth work or campaigning for the rights of older people) or that they
are in planning or research positions within, for example, the UN. Social work in the
Philippines is, indeed a very ‘broad church’, though methods tend towards
collective/community approaches far more than in England. As has been stated,
social development is the underpinning aim of much state social work.

This considerable range of sectors, settings and roles has implications for the degree
of autonomy afforded to social workers. Social workers do work in government
positions but are also commonly employed by self-help/people’s organisations
(where the agenda is set by service users) and by local and international non-
governmental organisations (which will, of course, expect funds to be used for
agreed purposes). Workers and academics also recognise the impact of political
influence and financial constraints on professional autonomy. As in all countries,
therefore, one can identify differences in the extent to which social workers in the
Philippines are able to act as autonomous professionals.

Above all, social work in the Philippines is described (in the literature and by
research participants) as responding to poverty. However, social work, whether at
an individual or community level, is arguably oriented to maintenance rather than
change or to a conception of change reliant upon self-help and hard work. As has
been said, the country imported an American model with 3 core dimensions:

120
casework, groupwork and community organising. However, despite the country
being community-based (for example, through the barangay), social work did not
take community form until the UN push for development in the 1960s. The
preference for generalist skills and approaches (Birkenmaier et al, 2014) also makes
pragmatic sense, in a context where one social worker may cover a large area with
extensive social need, particularly in rural parts of the country. One might argue that
generalist practice offers a richness of role and strategies denied to many workers in
the Global North. Indeed, Lee-Mendoza comments that, even where social work in
the Philippines takes individualised form (for example, in responding to child abuse
or to adults with mental health needs), “... case managers have no choice but to also
provide direct service which means... resource provider, mediator, social broker,
enabler, counsellor/therapist, and advocate” (Lee-Mendoza, 2008, p529). Roles are
perhaps defined ‘softly’, with workers able to conceptualise ‘problems’ broadly and
work across boundaries, in ways that do not occur in many countries. This is, for
some, a strength but others in the profession argue for increasing specialism.

One form of indigenisation of social work, though driven by an international agenda

of development, was this shift towards generalist practice or what was known as the
‘integrated method’ (Lee-Mendoza, 2008, p500). Practice that engaged at the
individual level was not encouraged, as it did not easily support a development
perspective. Tackling poverty was seen as a community issue: “The recognized
need was for social workers who have the knowledge and skills for engaging people
in problem solving, in bringing needs and resources together, and in systematically
using practice experience to document the level of effectiveness of existing policies
and services.” (Lee-Mendoza, 2008, p500-501). An interesting phrase used, again,
by Lee-Mendoza is, “...working with an individual or a group as an entry point for
working with a community” (ibid, p503). Workers facilitate access to resources, raise
funds, motivate people to participate and train community members to coordinate
local projects.

Developmental social work uses a range of approaches to build capacity, self-

sufficiency and prevention. Lee-Mendoza identifies the first of these approaches as
‘advocacy’ but employs the term very differently to its typical definition in the Global
North. She says, “...the practitioner takes a stand regarding important issues or

121
causes affecting client populations, and defends or recommends her position... in
efforts to change policies and programs on behalf of sectors of the population, based
on... professional values” (ibid, p414). This interpretation of ‘advocacy’ differs hugely
from the offering of support to individuals with which the term is associated in the
‘west’. However, these are not the only dimensions of ‘developmental social work’
identified by Lee-Mendoza. ‘Intercession-Mediation’ (a phrase with ecclesiastical
origins) refers to practices which support individuals or groups through ‘the system’,
negotiate on their behalf and use law, policy and procedure to negotiate or confront
on behalf of clients.

The next defining feature of developmental social work in the Philippines is, for Lee-
Mendoza, what she terms ‘Mobilizing the Resources of Client Systems to Change
their Social Reality’ (ibid, p273). This approach springs from a belief that problems
are not the fault of individuals but reflect the fact that their basic needs are not being
met. Though this acknowledges the structural, for Lee-Mendoza this perspective
manifests itself in projects that support communities to be resourceful, generate
income and undertake health promotion activities. Here, the social worker lives in
the target community, leads ‘study groups’ and promotes capacity building. One
could argue that models such as these do ‘collectivise’ rather than ‘pathologise’ but,
in a sense, still leave individuals and communities responsible for clawing their way
out of a poverty not of their making.

Lee-Mendoza goes on to stress the key role social work plays in planning welfare,
locally and nationally (ibid, p512-513). In this context, the potential role
developmental social work could make in challenging social inequality is discussed:
“The social action approach presupposes a disadvantaged segment of the
population that needs to be organized, perhaps in alliance with others in order to
make adequate demands on the larger community for increased resources or
treatment more in accordance with social justice or democracy. Its practitioners aim
at basic changes in major institutions or community practices. They seek
redistribution of power, resources, or decision-making in the community or changes
in basic policies of formal organizations” (ibid, p385).

122
Norman reports the findings of an exploratory project looking at international practice
variations, in which participants at an international conference completed a survey
and 46 responses were received from all continents. Norman is clear that the
findings could not be considered definitive or comprehensive but concludes that:

“… much of the work lies in meeting physical needs, accessing resources, social
development and community organization. Such efforts really reflect the heart and
history of social work” (Norman, 2005, p566).

Some of the responses received were from the Philippines. When asked to
characterise what formed the majority of social work practice, Filipino respondents
indicated ‘Physical Needs’ (presumably reflecting the focus on poverty, natural
disaster and conflict) but added that “In some schools, clinical social work is now
given priority.” This suggests a division within qualifying education in terms of
approach reflected in the data gathered for this thesis, where some believed that
more specialist, clinical intervention (akin to that in much of the ‘west’) was needed,
whereas others favoured social action or social development.

3.8 Philippine Social Work in Historical and International Context:

Concluding Comments

This chapter has considered the purpose and practice of social work in the
Philippines in historical and international context. It explored the meaning of
‘professional imperialism’ in the Philippine context and considered the degree to
which indigenous social work knowledge and practice methods have been
developed. In doing this, particular attention was paid to published Philippine social
work literature. It attempts to offer thoughts, specific to the Philippine context, on the
situated nature of social work which Payne describes below:

“The emphasis of social work varies depending on the society that it serves. In
societies and communities with poor resources, its focus is social development:
working with people to develop social cooperation and facilities, often allied to
economic development. In richer societies, its focus is social assistance or social

123
education (in Europe, this is sometimes called ‘social pedagogy’, emphasising its
educational element). Social assistance offers problem-solving where someone has
complex difficulties or distress, or personal growth and development where someone
seems unable to fulfil their potential.” (Payne, 2005, p2).

Much of the data gathered in the Philippines and with Filipino social workers in
England supports Payne’s suggestion. This thesis is, in part, concerned with what
lies between social development and social assistance, with the potential for
collaborative or cooperative forms of social work in ‘richer societies’ and for
alternatives to individualised responses to poverty and inequality. Having mapped
the development of the field of social work in the Philippines, within international and
historical context, the thesis now introduces the methodology underpinning the work
as a whole and the methods employed in gathering - and ‘making sense’ of - primary
data gathered in the Philippines and in England.

124
Chapter 4: Research Methodology & Process

4.1 Introductory Comment

Having outlined the motivation for this research and introduced some of the
central themes and preoccupations arising from the literature review, this chapter
concerns itself with epistemological and methodological approaches, the
research process itself, and ethical underpinnings and issues. Comment will be
made on critical realistic ontology and on the place of research as a critical
activity. The dimensions of this project will be discussed, as will the forms of
analysis adopted for the study. The methodology and methods of the research
both inform and respond to the research questions and objectives, which are set
out below accompanied by a brief commentary on sources of evidence. The next
section sets out the Research Questions and Research Objectives, offering some
brief notes on sources of data which were used in addressing them.

4.2 Research Questions and Objectives

Research Questions

Question Data Sources

1. How have historical and international  Primary data
processes shaped social work in the Philippines?  Literature review
2. How do social work practitioners, academics  Primary data
and policy makers describe social work purpose,  Literature review
motivation and identity in the Philippines?
3. What do Filipino social workers’ accounts of  Primary data
moving to and practicing in England contribute to
an understanding of the purpose and
transferability of social work in an international
context?

125
Although the concepts are inherently connected and overlapping, one might
broadly see Question 1 as considering the field of Philippine social work and
Question 2 as being more oriented to understanding habitus among Filipino
social workers. Question 3 tends also to an examination of habitus (shifting
and/or constant) but in the context of international and local fields.

Research Objectives

Objective Data Sources

1. To understand and evaluate the core purpose,  International and
approaches and functions of social work in the Philippine literature
Philippines, within historical and international  Primary data
context.
2. To determine the perspectives of social work  Mostly primary
practitioners, academics and policy makers in data
the Philippines on the purpose and practice of
social work.
3. To understand motivation for social work and  Primary data
the dimensions of social work identity in the  Philippine literature
Philippines.
4. To determine the perspectives of Filipino  Primary data
social workers practicing in England on
motivation, identity and purpose.
5. To consider how the Bourdieusian concepts of  Combining
field, habitus and capital might inform an theoretical
understanding of what it is to be a social worker literature with
and to do social work. primary data
6. To consider the implications of this study for  International
the field of international social work and, in literature
particular, the definition and purpose of social  Primary data
work internationally.

As already indicated, this thesis is concerned firstly with the meaning and purpose of
social work in the Philippines and in international and historical context and the
interplay between these. As Objective 6 above suggests, there was an interest in

126
the extent to which social work constitutes situated practice or an international field
with some collective core identity and purpose. The research design and process
were concerned therefore with understanding Philippine social work as a starting
point for then engaging with Filipino social workers in England. For this reason, a 5-
week study visit to the Philippines was undertaken, during which ‘indigenous’ social
work and related literature was gathered, study visits made to social work agencies
and projects and interviews undertaken with social workers, social work academics
and students and policy makers in the Philippines. The insights and extensive data
gathered during this visit feature in this thesis alongside what Research Objective 2
describes as the perspectives of social workers who qualified in the Philippines and
who were practising in England. Indeed, the various sources of data have very
much ‘spoken to each other’ throughout the processes of data collection and
analysis.

As discussed more fully in Chapter 1, it is not suggested that the findings

(particularly those relating to the Philippines) are easily generalisable. Indeed, it is
unrealistic and potentially dismissive to claim that findings from qualitative interviews
are ‘typical’ of Filipino people or of social workers moving to other countries (or even
to England). It is suggested that some of the core themes may, with caution, be
generalised (for example) to other North-South contexts; to countries subjected to
imperialist oppression; or to studies of work and professions. It may also be possible
to apply some of the more theoretical dimensions of the thesis to other research
studies, in particular those using a Bourdieusian framework. The central message,
however, is that the thesis presents findings which are valid and of value in
themselves, rather than in some transferable way.

4.3 Reflexivity

This interest in ‘international social work’ should be placed in the context of the
researcher’s own personal and professional ‘journey’. This has contributed
significantly to what I think social work is and might be. My own ‘habitus’, or
dispositions forged through experiences, have had conscious and unconscious effect

127
upon the work presented in this thesis. As Garrett (2007, p358), citing Brubaker,
puts it:

“…Brubaker (2003: 213, original emphasis) argues that ‘it is the habitus that
determines the kinds of problems that are posed, the kinds of instruments
(conceptual, methodological, statistical) that are employed… the habitus determines
the manner in which problems are posed, explanations are posed, explanations
constructed, and instruments employed.’”

I am a registered social worker who worked mostly with older people, disabled
people and people with ‘chronic’ health problems. My paid experience as a qualified
worker was in statutory settings but I also worked unpaid for two non-governmental
organisations (NGOs). Prior to becoming a social worker, I spent 10 years in
democratic services and policy development in a large English local authority, which
developed my interest in how people influence public policy. I then undertook a 2-
year masters degree in social work at a British university, which focused upon
training for practice in Britain. Whilst some attention was paid to community and
group work, the primary orientation was that of one-to-one practice, though nurturing
a critical concern with structural inequality. I am a white, British gay male who spent
all of his formative years in England, trained as a social worker in England and
practised only in England. Whilst employed as a social worker, I was a trade union
representative and a member of a work-based Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual &
Transgender Social Work Group. Since 2003, I have been a lecturer in social work
at an English university. All of these experiences have impacted upon this study and
some recur as the thesis progresses. They shaped my cultural ‘understandings’,
perspectives on the nature of society and social ‘problems’, personal and
professional value base and starting point for engaging with social work
internationally.

Formal social work education and the process of qualification is a fundamental step
in becoming a ‘professional’. Though centrally about practice, this study connects
also with social work education and training in the Philippines. Writers including
Butler, Elliott & Stopard (2003) and Dominelli (2002) have commented on the growth
of anti-oppressive practice within UK social work training and on a perceived dilution

128
of such perspectives within the Department of Health (2002) ‘Requirements for
Social Work Training’. My social work course saw responding to the impact of social
divisions, including poverty and class, as central to practice. My own experience as
a worker and ongoing contact with workers in statutory contexts (as an academic
delivering continuing professional development sessions) suggests many social
workers are frustrated by the managerialisation of social work, the technical,
bureaucratic nature of much of their practice and the rarity of opportunities for
engagement in any form of collective practice:

“They are well placed to see the ugliness of an unjust society but, under siege and
surveillance, are loaded down with new responsibilities and pressed increasingly into
a policing role, and are in danger of losing their commitment to progressive social
change”
(Humphries, 2008)

This sense that ‘there must be a better way’, sometimes conceptualised by

practitioners as ‘real’ social work, also attracted me to global perspectives on social
work and continued to emerge throughout the research process. I, like Midgley
(1997, p179), am confident that,

“Western social workers can benefit by learning about cultural diversity, poverty
alleviation, and managing budgetary constraints from their colleagues in the
developing countries. Third World innovations in developmental social work can also
be adopted with appropriate modifications in the individual nations.”

One other aspect of my ‘journey’ led me to this research. Having spent two years
teaching English in Taiwan and Thailand after qualifying as a social worker, I
experienced being an ‘alien’ (as my Taiwan visa described me) seeking to live and
work within a very different cultural context. My experience, as a white, English-
speaking and comparatively ‘rich’ male, was not similar to that of Filipino social
workers moving to England. However, the experience provided some appreciation
of the multiple impacts of living and working overseas and raised questions about
differing forms of social welfare internationally. The concern, in part, with transition
and transferability crystallised when, as admissions tutor for a qualifying course,

129
applications were received from ‘overseas students’ and one wondered what UK-
training offered to those wishing to apply their learning elsewhere in the world.

I have sought to adopt a critical reflexivity towards the research and would not wish
to separate myself from any part of the process. I approached the work as a critical
realist (Collier, 1994; Houston, 2001; Garrett, 2007), as an agent (rather than an
actor) with internalised dispositions or habitus (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu &
Wacquant, 1992) but also actively participating in the construction and interpretation
of data. I attempt to emphasise both agency and structure, as I maintain that both
contribute to the ‘reality’ of service users’ lives and of social work in its many
contexts. Perspectives from sociology and social theory are drawn upon, notably the
aforementioned work of Bourdieu, and also from social work theory, where I seek to
work within a critical and anti-oppressive framework (Dominelli, 2004; Dalrymple &
Burke, 2006; Price, 1997; Penketh, 2011). The renewed interest in the radical social
work tradition in the UK (Jones et al, 2007; Lavalette, 2011) offered much inspiration,
as did attendance and presenting at a Social Work Action Network Conference in
2011. My intention was to situate myself (as a social worker and academic wishing
to give due weight both to structural context and to individuals, to potential and to
problems) within the research and within this writing.

I could not begin to understand social work in the Philippines without going there.
During 2010, I spent 5 weeks in the country, exploring what social workers learn,
‘think’ and ‘do’ and beginning a review of Philippine social work literature. I felt a
‘connection’ when talking with Filipino social workers. Perhaps this reflected some
shared habitus. I believe this helped create a conducive and open research
relationship but also note that this sense of commonality said something about the
focus of my research. It felt (at times!) as though we had a core understanding of
the social work project. This thesis, in considering social work in the Philippines (and
some initial findings from Filipino workers in England), seeks to contribute to ongoing
academic and professional discourse about the meaning and purpose of social work
in an international context.

In the Philippines I was, perhaps, ‘dazzled’ initially by what felt like ‘real’ social work:
practice which engaged with communities, named the fight against poverty as its

130
core purpose and appeared to have retained space for social action and critique of
prevailing policy. This seemed in stark contrast to mainstream social work in
England, so often portrayed as a technical-rational, managerially-driven and largely
apolitical form of practice (Jones et al, 2007; Rogowski, 2010; Baldwin, 2011). There
was some truth in my early conceptualisation and yet other less attractive
dimensions of Philippine social work gradually came into focus. It continues, to a
significant degree, to work to externally-imposed priorities, as a result of reliance on
international aid and lending. Its focus on social and community development must
be understood in this ‘development’ context, where social work has the potential to
pathologise individuals and communities, requiring them to find economic means out
of ‘their’ situations. I began also to question whether social work in the Philippines
had an awareness of, or commitment to countering, forms of oppression related to
social divisions other than - or in tandem with - poverty. The data led me to consider
the extent to which collectivist approaches to social work might be just as (at best)
‘reformist’ in aim and outcome as individualised orientations (Payne, 2014). These
are just some of the questions that emerged reflexively from a research process and
orientation coming from a critical emancipatory position, which Grbich (2007, p7)
describes thus:

“A focus on questions of identity and how these have been shaped by… dominant
cultural institutions…”

As we have begun to see, the interplay between identity and social structure has
been at the heart of this project.

4.4 International Research Methodology

The study has, thus far, been situated broadly as ‘international social work research’.
Before looking at methodology in more detail, it is important to acknowledge that
several forms of international research exist and this has implications for the
approach taken to that research. Tripodi & Potocky-Tripodi (2007) propose a
typology, from which two ‘forms’ of international research seem most relevant to this
study. The focus on migration and a ‘host country’ places the study within

131
‘intranational’ research, whilst the use of qualitative and, perhaps, quantitative
comparisons between England and the Philippines introduces elements of
‘transnational’ research. Tripodi & Potocky-Tripodi refer here, in particular, to,
“programs, policies, laws, social resources, social needs, and/or social interventions”
and to, “social indicators and/or to international standards” (ibid, 171). Such data
very much informs this study. The researcher maintains that the intranational and
transnational features (Amelina & Faist, 2012) of the research required and justified
the employment of more than one method and also a degree of methodological
pluralism.

Given that the majority (27 of 33) of research participants were female and the vast
majority (29 of 33) were non-white, being a white male researcher must be
acknowledged. Significant ethical and practical concerns arose from the
international nature of the study and I was conscious that there was (and remains)
potential for power imbalance and misinterpretation throughout the research
process. In particular, reflected upon my position as a white researcher from the
Global North researching social work with non-white people in the Global South and,
although the Filipino participants interviewed in the Philippines were not minority
ethnic people in that country, part of my unease reflected a clear intention to avoid
viewing or presenting those participants as somehow less developed or exotic:

“Social research generally views minority ethnic people as the ‘other’ to general
society and, therefore, a legitimate target for marginalised research focusing on
difference and ‘exotica’.”
(Chal, 1999, p69)

Whilst Chai is referring to research in the UK and commenting on the danger of white
researchers choosing to focus on minority ethnic communities, I was alert to the
potential within this research for comparable dynamics around ‘race’ to play-out in an
international context, by perhaps stereotyping, romanticising or marginalising Filipino
people. The emphasis on professional imperialism and indigenised knowledge was,
in part, recognition of this concern. The fact that that the average length of interview
was 90 minutes also indicates that real efforts were made to verify understandings

132
and to give participants time to develop their points clearly. Nonetheless, alertness
to own location and identity was at the forefront of my reflexive thinking.

4.5 Methodology

The methodology of this study is qualitative and might broadly be considered

psycho-social, viewing lived experience within social and cultural ‘worlds’
(Bourgeault et al, 2010). The research has taken a critical realist approach, not least
because its starting point is that social work, however mediated and constructed it
may be, takes place within complex and very ‘real’ social, political and cultural
contexts. Bourdieu’s own reflections on interviewing a French social worker
captured something of the manifestation in social work practice of the tension
between agency and structure (1999, p190):

“Social workers must fight unceasingly on two fronts: on the one hand, against those
they want to help and who are often too demoralized to take in hand their own
interests, let alone the interests of the collectivity; on the other hand, against
administrations and bureaucrats divided and enclosed in separate universes...”

Efforts to understand and do social work require reconciliation of the personal and
structural dimensions of existence and agency (Mullaly, 1997; Thompson, 2006).
Likewise, social work research cannot and should not seek to be objective or,
indeed, apolitical. Building upon critical realist ontology, therefore, this study and
thesis is situated within the field of Critical Social Research (Humphries, 2005;
2008). Some of the reasons for this are indicated in the following paragraph.

The overwhelming influence of absolute poverty among users of social work services
in the Philippines was absolutely apparent in the country’s own social work literature
(Yu, 2006) and by all of the persons interviewed. One cannot understand this
poverty or social work responses without understanding the impact of imperialism,
neo-colonialism or globalisation. Equally, service users in England are typically
experiencing multiple deprivations and inequalities and issues of relative poverty
were raised by participants in England. How social work is expected to respond and

133
actually responds, at the individual and collective level, is an inherently political act
(Chu, Tsui & Yan, 2009). To give another example, Filipino social workers in
England were adapting to very different social norms, law and policy, work
processes, organisational structures and understandings of service user needs and
appropriate response. All of these reflect, reshape and often reproduce entrenched
social and economic forms of stratification. By way of final illustration, as will be
seen, some research participants described experiences of discrimination on the
grounds of ‘race’, ethnicity or cultural background in England. This thesis maintains
that social divisions and oppression are social ‘facts’. For Critical Realists, although
the social world is not tangible in the way much of the natural world is, social
structures and mechanisms (such as capitalism and racism) are seen to have some
form of objective reality beyond the interactions of individual social actors (Bhaskar,
2008; Houston, 2001; Sayer, 2000). Critical realism and critical social research set
out (to quote a social work student in the Philippines, commenting on their sense of
purpose) to “expose, oppose and propose”.

Ontologically, it should be apparent that this research was devised, undertaken and
written-up from neither a positivist nor interpretivist perspective (Crotty, 1998;
Denscombe, 2010). A purely positivist theoretical perspective and objectivist
epistemology, such as one which conferred primacy upon the causal nature of
structure, would underplay the validity and significance of the perspectives of
individuals within their social work roles and underestimate the potential of service
users to challenge or change (Bryman, 2012). This research, therefore, incorporates
constructivist perspectives. It maintains, for example, that individual identity,
meaning and motivations all play a part in the practice considered in the study and
that the profession defines and redefines itself over time (Payne, 2006) and from
place to place. Equally, social workers and service users construct meanings and
possibilities together, though such discourses arise within a context of internalised
oppression and external power relations across society.

Epistemologically, therefore, this thesis must address notions of objectivism and

constructivism: its methodology was designed to shed light upon human,
professional and social policy ‘realities’ and to engage with the subjective and
culturally-mediated nature of perspectives based in experience (Flick, 2009).

134
Focusing on the international development and nature of social work and, in part, the
process and outcomes of transition between cultures, the thesis is neither relativist
nor universalist:

“Understanding international social work requires that we identify and address a core
contradiction, that of the relationship between universalism and localism (relativism
grounded in national and cultural differences) in the definition of social work and its
theories, methods and values” (Hugman, 2010 p152-3).

It is argued that social work does not exist as one entity, one field, across the world
but nor is it an entirely local or situated construct. Discussion is offered of
dimensions of social work that may be ‘constant’, though the thesis in part concludes
that social work is ‘created’ in response to context (political priorities, socio-economic
conditions, professional and academic preoccupations, demands from the wider
population and so on).

Critical realist ontology integrates psychological and structural mechanisms, starting

from participants’ own accounts but alert to professional ideologies, institutional
structures and social divisions (Robson, 2011; Williams & May, 1996). A critical
realist approach appreciates that, “practice validity is a contested area and one that
is dynamically evolving, multi-faceted and subject to the exigencies (and vagaries) of
social trends, political whims and international influences” (Houston, 2001, p. 857). It
also encourages the identification of oppressive mechanisms including racism,
gender-expectations and the marginalisation of ‘alternative’ professional
perspectives. In his account of Bhaskar’s critical realist social science, Collier (1994,
p. 167) highlights the researcher’s role in questioning the perspectives of
participants. Whilst what participants in this research said has been analysed from a
critical perspective, to dismiss their expertise or the validity of their perspectives
(particularly as a ‘cultural outsider’) would be entirely wrong. However, the interview
schedule and process was sufficiently flexible both for the researcher to engage in a
critical dialogue with participants in response to particular comments made and for
emerging themes (notably a concern about anti-oppressive practice in the
Philippines) to be raised in subsequent interviews.

135
Research methodology – and the theories of knowledge and of being which underpin
it - must be ‘fit for purpose’. This study draws themes from the stories of social
workers, educators and policy makers in the Philippines and attempts to place them
in structural and cultural context. It also draws upon the perspectives of Filipino
social workers in England, again considering what they are trying to achieve, how
they go about doing this and the “enabling and disabling mechanisms” (Robson,
2002, p63) they perceive. Their perspectives prompted further thinking about the
meaning of – and potential for – more critical forms of social work. Theoretically,
therefore, the thesis draws upon critical realism and the conceptual frameworks of
Bourdieu and is also informed by the critical inquiry and ‘conscientisation’ of Paulo
Freire (1970). It seeks to contribute to international debates about the purpose of
social work and what a more critical practice might look like. In essence, its ambition
echoes that described by Bourdieu (1980, p2) as that of, “...reconciling theoretical
and practical intentions, bringing together the scientific and the ethical or political
vocation...”

Humphries (2008, p119) acknowledges that critical social research is sometimes

criticised for being “partisan and lacking objectivity” but goes on to identify as core
features that it, “is concerned with dominant social interests... is aligned with
oppositional social movements... is engaged in the project of social transformation
[and] insists on an examination of the historical context of any topic studied.” Finally,
and of most significance for this section, Humphries comments that the methods
used in such research are, “plural and wide-ranging”.

The data used in this research came from a range of sources and methods
(interview, observation, academic and policy literatures), which reflects efforts to
draw appropriately on several methodological strands and determination to place this
research within a critical historical context and reduce the potential for cultural
misunderstandings on the part of the researcher (Blaikie, 2007). Thus, for example,
elements of ethnography informed the research, in design and implementation, but a
full ethnographic study was neither feasible nor suited to the ‘critical lens’ through
which data was to be considered. From the outset, the researcher viewed his
observations, interviews and readings as part of what Guba and Lincoln call the
“value-determined nature of inquiry” (1994, p109): to name concerns about social

136
work and the society it ‘serves’ and engage reflexively with the research findings.
The approach to the research is post-positivist (Schratz & Walker, 1995; Ryan,
2006), to the extent that it locates the researcher as co-creator of the findings and
acknowledges the fluidity of meaning and power relations, yet it is also
philosophically grounded in a critical realist worldview. Maintaining a single
methodological stance in relation to all dimensions of the research felt neither
appropriate for a cross-cultural study nor necessarily the most effective way of
assembling or making ‘sense’ of data.

A flexible rather than strictly linear or prescriptive research design was employed.
The method and process is presented below in separate sections, considering
aspects of the study undertaken in England and the Philippines. Interviews were
digitally recorded and data transcribed into text by the researcher, with administrative
assistance. Data was analysed by the researcher using a combination of
documentary analysis, ethnographic explanation and more detailed analysis of
interviews using a thematic approach. The use of multiple sources offered the
potential for data triangulation and, though the complexity of manipulating and
analysing quite disparate data should not be underestimated, is felt to have improved
the validity and rigour of the study (Robson, 2011). Rubin & Babbie, cited in Tripodi
& Potocky-Tripodi (2007), draw attention to the need for international or cross-
cultural social work research to make use of multiple sources and voices, to engage
with literature which sheds light on particular cultures and to undertake observation
in naturalistic settings. Attention is drawn to the need for alertness to the dangers in
research of ethnocentrism and of essentialising through the homogenisation of all
members of a ‘cultural grouping’. It is for these reasons that the research design
incorporated interviews in both countries; observation of social work services;
meetings within agencies and with academics and policy makers; and the accessing
within the Philippines of ‘local’ documentary evidence and published literature. The
chapter now turns to a discussion of research methods.

137
4.6 Reviewing the Literature

The rationale for selecting particular areas of literature has been discussed in earlier
chapters. However, the literature review is a central part of the method through
which the Research Questions and Objectives were devised and approached. In the
earlier phases of the study, an exploratory literature review sensitised the researcher
to existing research which had a bearing upon the area of enquiry, some of which
(such as Nimmagadda & Cowger, 1999) had a formative impact upon how the
research process was conceptualised. In addition to helping the researcher
‘position’ this study within the broader area of ‘international social work’, the literature
review also underlay the search for a conceptual framework, as discussed in
Chapter 2. Thus, to some extent, this study was able to “adopt the
descriptive/analytic language and categories used by other researchers” (Gibson &
Brown, 2009). As an example, articles relating the work of Bourdieu to study of the
professions (Artaraz, 2006; Garrett, 2007) impacted upon the theoretical orientation
of this study.

The literature search took traditional and pragmatic form. Thus, in sourcing literature
relevant to, for example, the international definition of social work or the application
of Bourdieu to the professions and to social work in particular (Research Objectives
5 and 6), a range of key term combinations were entered into online databases and
journal sites, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists from key articles
(Stogdon & Kiteley, 2010; Robson, 2011). However, the search for literature relating
to social work in the Philippines was somewhat different. Though published research
was evident with regard to some related areas, notably the phenomenon of Filipino
Workers Overseas, the search relating to social work yielded a relatively small
number of resources. One of the reasons for undertaking the study visit to the
Philippines was, therefore, to access local social work and related resources, many
of which are unavailable elsewhere. This was successfully achieved, both by
purchasing texts in Manila and making notes from journals and books in university
libraries there.

138
Overall, engagement with the literature involved exploratory and more focused
literature reviews, as areas of interest and themes from the data became clearer.

4.7 Primary Research Process

The primary research process was designed to elicit insights into the field of social
work in the Philippines, the habitus of workers there and those who had travelled to
England, and the extent to which workers actually reflected upon field and habitus
(Bourdieu, 1997). The intention was to reveal thoughts on orientation to social work
(Payne, 2014) at the personal, cultural and structural levels (Thompson, 2012).
Attempts were made (for example in designing and implementing interview
schedules) to provide space for explanations to emerge which were both structural
and constructivist in nature, with deliberate efforts made to bring to the surface
critical realist accounts and interpretations within the analysis.

What follows is a reflective account of the processes through which data was
collected. For clarity, this is divided initially into sections on those elements
undertaken in the Philippines and England. Presenting the research process in this
way has some chronological accuracy, at least in relation to the initial gathering of
primary data. In May 2010, the researcher spent five weeks in the Philippines,
before returning to the UK to undertake interviews (mostly in July and August 2010)
with social workers from the Philippines based in England. In both countries,
interviews were undertaken to elicit thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973) of practice,
motivations and purpose. Since then, as the data and developing responses to the
data became increasingly intertwined, this division felt somewhat simplistic and
artificial. Nonetheless, it is intended that the following section will provide sufficient
detail of method and process that the reader may judge it credible, transferable,
dependable and confirmable (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Throughout, there has been a
reflexive engagement with Bourdieu’s notions of field, habitus and capital and with
the models introduced in Chapter 2.

139
4.8 Research in the Philippines

Central to this study was primary research carried out in the Philippines. This was
mostly undertaken in Manila but involved visits to, and interviews with, social workers
and academics from other parts of the country. A detailed journal was written
throughout the visit, as a tool for reflexive practice (D’Cruz & Jones, 2004; Bryman,
2012) and source of additional data. Writers have acknowledged the strengths and
limitations of diary-use in research (Johnson & Bytheway, 2001) and the status of the
journal should not be over-stated. Full field-notes were not produced, in the form
that ethnographers might gather detailed data (Fielding, 2001). The journal is largely
unstructured, though does distinguish between observation and reflection. Having
said this, the journal became a vital tool in particular during the study visit, not only in
the sense that it became important for the researcher, on a daily basis, to record and
comment upon experiences and reactions but also because the process ‘brought life’
to the ongoing data collection. The researcher stayed alone in the Philippines for 5
weeks, providing ample time to record occurrences and thoughts in hand-written
form. The journal was then taken to Taiwan, for reasons touched upon later. This
afforded opportunities to re-read its contents and begin to articulate – both in the
journal and for a presentation to Taiwanese social work students – tentative
reactions to experiences in the Philippines. Finally, these initial thoughts formed the
basis of a ‘work in progress’ presentation at the Joint World Conference on Social
Work & Social Development in Hong Kong in June 2010. The journal continued to
serve as a reflective space throughout the conference (and a further journal has
been maintained throughout the research process). The discussion that follows
draws, in part, upon contemporaneous notes made in the journal.

4.8.1 Purpose & Methodological Approach (Philippines)

The researcher’s own perspectives on social work are shaped by training and
practice in England, experience as a social work lecturer in England and by a life
mostly spent in that country. The study visit was an excellent opportunity to gain a
fuller understanding of social policies, welfare systems and social work education,
organisation and practices in the Philippines.

140
Elements of the research undertaken in the Philippines drew upon ethnographic
approaches. However, it was concluded early on that a full ethnographic approach
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007; O’Leary, 2005) would require a degree of direct
engagement and observation that was neither feasible nor appropriate. Having said
this, principles such as the centrality of shared cultural meanings, in this case
national and professional, and the notion of an evolving fieldwork (Punch, 2005) did
shape the study. Similarly, methods common in ethnography (notably observation
and, as discussed, the use of a journal) formed a core part of the research. It is,
however, acknowledged that in seeking to adopt principles and methods from
ethnography, there is a danger of the researcher perceiving – or being seen to
perceive - the Philippines as ‘other’ and England as somehow familiar or known. It is
true that the researcher has a much fuller understanding of cultural practices and of
social work education and practice in England than the Philippines. However, that
part of the primary research undertaken in the Philippines was an explicit effort to
address this imbalance. Social work has a developed literature around cultural
competence (Charnley & Langley, 2007; Laird, 2008) which also shaped the
researcher’s reflection on these tensions and which features again later in this
thesis.

4.8.2 Interviews in the Philippines

Preparation for visiting the Philippines took place over a period of a year. After
several exchanges of emails with the Philippine Association of Social Workers, Inc
(PASWI), the Association showed considerable interest in the study and agreed to
assist in accessing participants. Potential participants were also sought by the
researcher making direct use of the PASWI Yahoo Group. Access was then initiated
by email, using a Recruitment Flyer (Appendix 1) and potential participants were
invited to contact the researcher directly.

Early in the process a structured set of ‘stakeholders’ was identified for interview.
These originally fell into two categories: Filipino social workers in the Philippines who
had previously practised in England; and other participants who would help me to

141
contextualise social issues and social work in the Philippines. However, as the
process of accessing participants proceeded, it became clear that there were very
few, if any, known social workers in the Philippines with practice experience in
England. The decision was therefore taken to access these perspectives through
social workers currently in England and to concentrate, whilst in the Philippines, on
interviewing persons who fell into the ‘other’ category. Prior to the study visit,
contact was made by email with social workers, policy makers, educators,
academics and representatives of other key social welfare agencies in the
Philippines. Access was in part facilitated by PASWI, in advance and during the
study visit. However, an online search of agencies and universities also yielded a
good number of participants, as did word-of-mouth suggestions when in Manila.
Indeed, when in the Philippines, PASWI members assisted in accessing a wider
range of interviewees. Thus, the sampling strategy was a realistic combination of
convenience and snowballing (Bryman, 2012; Robson, 2011) with clear categories
from which it was anticipated that interviewees would be drawn (social work
academics and educators, social workers in practice and other persons engaged in
welfare policy development).

Interviews were ultimately conducted with a sample of 24 people in the Philippines.

More details are contained in the Participant Details at Appendix 8 but the sample
might briefly be described as follows:
 19 were female and five male
 all but two (senior staff of an International NGO) identified as Filipino
 nine participants might be described predominantly as practising social
workers, six as social work academics, five as holding welfare policy and
planning positions, two as current social work students and two others (the
aforementioned INGO staff): there was, however, some ‘overlap’ between
these categories

Data was gathered in individual, recorded semi-structured interviews, lasting around

two hours. However, in one case sound recording was not possible and a post-hoc
record of key points was typed up by the researcher and passed to the relevant
agency for approval/comments. Also, on two occasions (involving four participants),

142
interviews were held simultaneously with two participants rather than on an individual
basis, for reasons of their convenience and time availability. Here, the same
Interview Schedules were employed as for the one-to-one interviews. Whilst there
was inevitably some discussion between the two participants in each of these joint
interviews (Stewart, Shamdasani & Rook, 2006), each person was encouraged to
address the questions separately. In both cases, they were people who knew each
other well and had work connections. There was no indication of any participants
being inhibited by the joint process on the two occasions that this happened (and,
indeed, at times the interviews took on some of the more positive dimensions of
focus group methods (Merton, 1987), with one participant prompting a related
response from the other). On both occasions, the participants themselves
suggested a joint interview. The researcher acknowledged with them that this had
implications for confidentiality and they were very happy to continue. Whilst the joint
interviews inevitably introduced a different dynamic to the data collection process
(McLeod & Thompson, 2009; Merton, 1987; Merton & Kendall, 1946; Stewart
Shamdasani & Rook, 2006) and may have impacted upon what participants felt able
to say, the interviewees were undoubtedly comfortable to undertake the process in
this way.

The participants in the Philippines (and England) were considered appropriate for the
study. The predominant voices were of Filipino people, which was essential to the
study. All had experience to contribute which was relevant to the Research
Questions and Objectives and a good balance was achieved of roles, length and
types of experience. Indeed, though participants were predominantly female,
several were male (broadly mirroring gender representation in the profession).

4.8.3 Eligibility for Participants (Philippines)

It was a requirement that participants interviewed as qualified social workers in the

Philippines must: have been born and trained in the Philippines; be appropriately
registered; and be practising currently as a social worker. It was not possible or
desirable to set such boundaries around other participants in the Philippines, as they
were selected because of their position or role and willingness to be interviewed. A

143
conscious decision was taken (in consultation with the research supervisors) that –
as this was to be the only visit to the Philippines as part of the research – as many
offers as possibly would be taken to listen to, observe and engage with people
involved in social work in the country. On a daily basis, however, options and
possibilities were monitored, considering which participants might best ‘fit’ the
research needs and seeking/confirming appointments accordingly.

When designing the research, and within applications for ethical approval, it was
acknowledged that methods of data collection in the Philippines would need to be
flexible and might include:

(a) Gathering copies of written materials such as policy documents,

organisational structures and curricula for social work training. It was
intended that these would provide background and contextual information,
rather than be the subject of formal content analysis

(b) Attending provider-agencies and meetings (non-participant observation)

(c) Discussion with social workers who have not practised outside the Philippines

All of these forms of data collection were actually employed. In particular, the
opportunity was taken to acquire some 40 or more local journals and texts (including
indigenous social work, community development, sociology and psychology books),
which are used extensively throughout this thesis.

4.8.4 Further Considerations: Research in the Philippines

All research in the Philippines was conducted following endorsement by the

Philippine Association of Social Workers Incorporated. Approval was gained, as
required, from individual agencies, although a general observation would be that the
ethical approval processes were more limited in scope in the Philippines. It was,
therefore, considered all the more important to adhere to the ethical procedures for
which approval had been received from the University of Brighton in the UK. Hence,

144
for example, all interviews commenced with a clear focus on the Participant
Information Sheets and Informed Consent Forms.

4.8.5 Developing a Research Approach in the Philippines

The decision to use semi-structured interviews was a sound one, when undertaking
research within the dynamic and evolving context of the Philippines. Opportunities
arose at very short notice, schedules changed on an almost daily basis and it was
essential that maximum use was made of the time available. Many participants had
experience both as social work practitioners and as academics, policy makers and
so on, which meant it was more meaningful to select questions from the Interview
Schedules prepared for both groups (‘Social Workers Based In the Philippines’ and
‘Other Participants based in the Philippines’: see Appendix 6). Structured interviews
would not have allowed for the necessary flexibility and responsiveness.
Consideration was given to the possibility of unstructured interviews but the idea was
not pursued due to uncertainty about cultural expectations and appropriateness for
use with people for whom English was not first language. Semi-structured interviews
provided a better chance of collecting sufficient data within the constraints of a ‘one-
chance’ visit to the Philippines and interviews in various locations in England. Use of
the journal to record observations after interviews meant emergent themes or ideas
could be further explored in subsequent interviews whilst retaining the overall
structure and integrity of the Interview Schedules and ensuring, again in the context
of a one-off visit to the Philippines, that discussion was sufficiently focused.

The following examples offer a flavour of the reflexive process, as recorded in the
research journal whilst in the Philippines:

5.5.10:
“Not sure responses to my questions are providing enough detail – ask for
example of a piece of practice they are particularly proud of or what’s
frustrating/positive about their job?”

145
 “Question asking about Filipino culture – too abstract? How would I describe
the impact of British culture on my practice?”

13.5.10:
“Things people say that annoy me may be at least as pertinent to my
research!”

“Am I mostly accessing committed, passionate, well-trained, interested social

workers? Would that be true in the UK too?”

25.5.10:
“Understandable emphasis on poverty... scant discussion of social divisions...
no AOP [Anti-Oppressive Practice] focus?”

These shorthand comments, typical of those in the journal, record reactions to

particular events and comments but more particularly are indicative of an iterative
process of engaging with the primary research before any of the data was
transcribed.

One particular Filipino social work academic had been approached prior to the study
visit and had agreed to act as a mentor and contact point. More than one meeting
took place but on the final occasion – at the very end of the visit –the opportunity
was taken to raise some of the tentative ideas and hypotheses which had emerged.
This was a particularly helpful part of the process and, again, one to which the semi-
structured interview was well suited.

4.8.6 Hong Kong Conference

After leaving the Philippines, the researcher attended an international social work
conference and presented ideas and questions the study visit had raised. This was
an initial attempt to connect the data to issues of transition and social work purpose
in a Philippines-UK context. The data had not yet been transcribed or analysed and
interviews were yet to be conducted with workers in England, so these were raw

146
conceptualisations at a midway point. Nonetheless, it has been fruitful to return to
those thoughts as the research progressed and feels important to record them
below. At that stage, thoughts were presented, as below, in terms of (1) areas
where a Filipino social worker might need to adjust to the English context; and (2)
strengths or perspectives which a worker might bring to England. These brief ‘lists’
(of what were really initial questions for the researcher) are included here to convey
a sense of ‘work in progress’ and of the reflexive and iterative nature of the process:

Potential areas for adjustment - and thus indicative of ‘difference’ between the 2
countries - were: the nature of power relations in society and workplace; a possibly-
limited understanding of and attention to Anti-Oppressive Practice; the need to ‘learn’
different ‘specialisms’ in a context of largely generic practice in the Philippines but
with specialist skills such as those for working with street children or natural disaster;
issues around transferring knowledge and methods across cultures; what appeared
to be less concern in the Philippines with ‘professional distance’; a different
interpretation of confidentiality in the practice context; a dramatic shift from
community to individualised social work; making sense of the relative nature of
poverty in the UK; adjusting to possibly more formal and procedural modes of
practice; detailed use of different law; the secular nature of society and social work
intervention; and differing forms of engagement with colleagues and clients, such as
in relation to directness and confrontation.

Some ideas around areas of possible strength/difference suggested at the

conference were: professional resilience in the face of political dilemmas and ever-
present human suffering; creativity in under-resourced circumstances; commitment
to social work; some (perceived) commonality of value base; adaptability; a
propensity to use of self; challenging perspectives, for example in terms of
community engagement and the place of faith.

Preparation for and attendance at this Conference was a significant point in the
development of thinking for this thesis. A number of enduring themes and questions
took embryonic form at this point and the use of a journal contributed hugely to this,
at the time and beyond.

147
4.9 Research in England

Data was collected in England over a 3 month period, during which individual
interviews took place with 9 participants: 8 of these were working in (statutory) social
work positions across 4 English local authorities but 1 had decided to retrain as a
nurse and not practised as a social worker in the UK. Her perspectives have been
analysed and incorporated with caution into the findings, where not discussing social
work. One in-depth semi-structured interview, lasting up to 2 hours, was conducted
with each worker.

4.9.1 Participants & Recruitment (England)

The original research design intended that, in England, interviews would be

undertaken with a sample of 10 people with experience, as social work practitioners,
of transition from the Philippines to England. It was made clear that participants
must: have been born and trained in the Philippines; have practiced in the
Philippines for at least 1 year post-qualification and before undertaking work outside
the Philippines; be appropriately registered in the Philippines and with the GSCC
(ensuring they held a recognised social work qualification); and currently be engaged
in social work practice in England, for at least 15 hours per week, or have previously
occupied such a position. Consideration was given as to whether workers should be
required to have been practicing in England for a minimum period. It was, however,
considered that equally rich data would be provided by a worker adjusting to a recent
move to the country. The Philippine Association of Social Workers Incorporated
(PASWI) and individuals met whilst in the Philippines played some part in facilitating
the accessing of workers in England. They circulated a Recruitment Flyer (Appendix
1) to all members of the Association and potential participants in England were
invited to contact the researcher directly. Response was, however, limited and
accessing participants in England became a slow process of snowballing.

In all aspects of the research, demographic variation among participants (for

example, in terms of ethnicity, age and gender) was sought as much as possible,
though it must be acknowledged that convenience sampling was the dominant

148
driver. More selection was possible in the Philippines, where conscious efforts were
made, for example, to interview people from rural and urban areas, from different
regions and islands and also people who identified as Christian, Muslim and having
no religious beliefs.

4.9.2 Other Comments on Process: England & the Philippines

Attached at Appendix 6 are the interview schedules used in the primary interviews.
Separate schedules were employed for interviews with social workers in England
and the Philippines. A further, broader-based and more open interview schedule
was used for interviews with other participants (social work educators, students and
policy makers) in the Philippines. This latter schedule offered prompts for dialogue,
mostly about evolving and current issues in Philippine social welfare and social work
education. Meanwhile, the interview schedules used with social workers in the
Philippines provided mostly open questions encouraging participants to describe
their roles and tasks in particular settings but also triggering reflexive discussions
about individual motivation, values and conceptualisations of social need and
appropriate responses. For workers in England, the interview schedule additionally
sought reflective comments on the process and impact of transition and the meaning
and purpose of social work in the light of this experience.

Interviews were typically conducted in quiet settings away from the workplace of the
participant, though again sometimes interviews of necessity happened in noisier
settings (such as hotel foyers) or participants chose the convenience of meeting at
their place of work (in which case, they were asked to identify a separate room away
from direct colleagues). Flexibility was required in terms of selection of setting, as
this was driven by the geographical location of individual participants. In England,
participants were located in what might broadly be described as the South and
interviewed in locations of their choice. In the Philippines, appropriate interview
rooms and facilities were identified with the assistance of the Philippine Association
of Social Workers Incorporated, University contacts and the participants themselves.
Other meetings/ observations (undertaken to enhance the researcher’s
understanding of social work structures, practice and education) took place

149
throughout the study visit to the Philippines, for example in private and state
hospitals, non-governmental organisations and industrial social work settings.
Recording equipment and stationery were supplied by University of Brighton and its
use complied with University Health and Safety Regulations.

To conclude, the decision to use semi-structured interviews was a positive one. The
researcher carried out interviews very much in the way Gibson & Brown put it (2009,
p48):

“Researchers try to fit their pre-defined interests into the unfolding topics being
discussed, rather than forcing the interviewees to fit their ideas into the interviewer’s
pre-defined question order… and even to explore topics that may emerge that were
not included in the interview schedule.”

4.10 Language and Meaning

Throughout the research process (when reviewing Philippine literature; interviewing

Filipino participants; and analysing the data), I reflected often upon the potential for
meaning to be ‘lost in translation’ (Van Nes, Abma, Jonsson, & Deeg, 2010), even
though nothing was translated in the formal sense. All data employed was in the
English language. This did not mean that the position was by any means
straightforward. A particular issue was that of an English-speaking researcher
conducting interviews with participants for whom English was not their first Language
(Liamputtong, 2010). As has been said, the common usage of English in the
Philippines was a factor in selecting the country for study, as this reduced the
potential for misunderstanding or misrepresentation. Thought was given early in the
project to the use of interpreters for interviews but the research facilitator at the
Philippine Association of Social Workers was clear that interviews in English would
be entirely appropriate. The use of interpreters in itself would have raised a number
of real issues for qualitative research (Alexander, et al, 2004; Venuti, 1995) and was
likely to be, practically, very difficult to organise and verify ‘on the ground’ in the
Philippines (and in the UK).

150
The need to ensure that questions were understood and to ‘check out’ my
understandings during interviews was at the forefront of my mind. The excerpt from
a transcript set out at Appendix 10 illustrates this at a basic level, thus:

“75 And do you think most Filipino people would be the same?

76 P

77 Yes I think so

78 I

79 So they’re not quiet?

80 P

81 No, they’re not”

This transcript was chosen as it exemplifies an interview where the person’s spoken
English was less strong than that of most participants. As Seidman acknowledges,
the “issue of finding the right word in English or any other language” is a very
significant one (2006, p104). Attempts were always made to clarify during the
interview and the process of reading and re-reading the data subsequently has acted
as a further stage in verifying the data. Time – and other problems with access - did
not permit the submission of transcripts to participants for review, but the decision
was taken to not use data where there was any doubt around meaning. It should
also be said that, whilst there were particular language-related issues for this thesis,
the potential for words to convey different meanings is common to all qualitative
research. Meanings are constructed throughout the research process (Gubrium &
Holstein, 1997) and the researcher must remain reflexive in this regard:

“Language differences may have consequences, because concepts in one language

may be understood differently in another language. This is in particular relevant for
qualitative research, because it works with words; language is central in all phases
ranging from data collection to analysis and representation of the textual data in
publications.” (Van Nes, Abma, Jonsson, & Deeg, 2010, p313).

Finally, it is hoped that the extensive inclusion of direct quotations from participants
in the chapters which follow goes some way towards corroborating or mitigating any

151
issues of interpretation by the researcher. To some degree, the reader can
‘interpret’ the participants’ comments for themselves.

4.11 Ethical Dimensions & Considerations

The researcher is a registered social worker, subject at the start of the project to the
General Social Care Council Code of Practice for Social Care Workers (GSCC,
2004) and latterly to the HCPC (2012) Standards of Conduct, Performance and
Ethics. The study was designed and implemented (and any subsequent
dissemination will also be) in accordance with the British Association of Social
Workers’ Code of Ethics and in particular the provisions concerning social work
research (BASW, 2012). This section considers ethical issues raised by the study
and steps taken to respond to those issues. Ethical approval was received from the
Research Ethics and Governance Committee of the Faculty of Health and Social
Science (FREGC) at University of Brighton in June 2009 Subsequent approvals were
received in England from the employing authorities for all research participants.
Social workers from the Philippines were, to some extent, ‘clustered’ in particular
parts of England but the process of identifying and seeking approval from employers
was a considerable one. In the Philippines, approval was received from the
Philippine Association of Social Workers Inc. We now examine key areas of ethical
concern and how those issues were addressed.

4.11.1 Vulnerability & Harm

Participants in England were professional people engaged (with one exception) in

social work practice. In the Philippines, participants were qualified social workers,
academics and educators, people in employed in welfare policy positions and
students on approved social work courses. No users of services participated in the
research. Having said this, it would be absolutely wrong to assume participants
were therefore free from vulnerability or oppression. Indeed, for Filipino workers in
England, the very process of being far from one’s ‘home country’ clearly gave rise,
for some, to emotional issues, economic and practical struggles and feelings of

152
marginalisation. Parrenas (2001) discusses the impact of transnational caring
relationships, commenting powerfully upon the family separation leading to very
strong emotional responses. The interplay of gender, ‘race’ and social class in this
context was not underestimated, nor was the location of the researcher as a white
British male.

Protection from harm was, therefore, a core principle throughout. This was in part
addressed by acknowledging potential emotional impact before consent was given
and allowing time for potential participants to decide whether they wished to take
part. There were always opportunities to raise questions before deciding.
Participants were offered a debriefing session with the researcher, who is a qualified
social worker. This provided an opportunity to check out how the participant had
experienced the interview and whether it raised any difficult issues for them.
Participants were provided also with information about potential sources of support
(Appendix 7).

A study conducted in English with participants from the Philippines could in itself be
considered oppressive. The researcher was alert to this dynamic throughout and,
again, participants were made aware prior to engagement that interviews would be
conducted in English. Having said this, English and Filipino are both recognised as
official languages in the Philippines and English predominates as the language of
education and government. Furthermore, social workers practicing in England
needed to have met the English language proficiency requirements of the GSCC and
employers. Nonetheless, care was taken in devising all written materials and
interview schedules and the researcher reflected upon use of language throughout.
Participants were informed of their absolute right to decline to take part in the
research or to withdraw at any time, without giving reasons. The researcher was
clear that they did not have to answer any questions or lines of enquiry with which
they felt uncomfortable. In relation to the writing-up of findings, no specific concerns
have arisen about potential harm to participants.

153
4.11.2 Risk to Researcher

No significant potential risks for the researcher were identified. Personal safety was
addressed by undertaking all interviews in public spaces and by always informing
another person of location. There was a small possibility that participants might see
the researcher as a source of ongoing support, so this was addressed in advance by
explaining the boundaries to the researcher’s role and discussing other sources of
support. The researcher did not disclose any personal contact information and all
correspondence was conducted through University email and postal addresses.

Careful planning and preparation was undertaken in advance of visiting the

Philippines, in order to ensure that only meetings/visits the researcher and his
supervisors considered ‘legitimate’ and ‘safe’ took place. The researcher checked
with the British Consulate for travel advice periodically and immediately before
travelling. The Supervisors for the study were briefed on a regular basis during the
course of the fieldwork, particularly when overseas. The supervisors for the study
also appointed a liaison person in the Philippines, who acted on their behalf to
ensure the research was conducted within local governance arrangements,
facilitated the researcher as necessary and liaised with the supervisory team in the
UK.

4.11.3 Transparency & Consent

Although the BASW Code of Ethics for Social Work was revised and republished in
2012, it was the 2002 version that informed the earlier stages of this research. It
stated that researchers have a duty to, “inform every participant of all features of the
research which might be expected to influence willingness to participate” (BASW,
2002, para 4.4.4.4). This process began during recruitment, by clearly setting out
the nature of the study in the Recruitment Flyer. To avoid concealment or deception,
all potential participants were asked to read the Participant Information Sheet and (if
choosing to take part) required to sign an Informed Consent Form (Appendix 4). The
purpose and potential use of the research, along with the procedures involved, were
made clear from the outset. A copy of both documents was provided to potential

154
participants in advance. At the interview stage, the researcher talked through the
points on the Information Sheet with the participant and answered questions.
Participants were then asked to give written consent.

Before commencing interviews (or other meetings/groups), all participants were

asked if they were willing to be digitally recorded. Such approval was given in every
instance. Once the interview was completed, participants were reminded that: they
could withdraw any data from their interview, should they wish, within the stated
timeframe; the researcher could be contacted during the next 6 months with any
questions about the research process; and that a short summary of findings would
be made available to them once analysis was complete. It was made clear that it
would not be possible for participants to withdraw their data once they had been
aggregated into other data. A date was therefore given to each participant, by which
data could be withdrawn, in the information sheet and consent forms.

As has been stated, social work participants were accessed through their
professional association in the Philippines, who distributed an open invitation to its
members, and through word-of-mouth. Importantly, this also meant that the potential
for coercion was minimised, as no social workers (and, indeed, no participants) were
recruited via their employing agencies or line managers.

4.11.4 Confidentiality, Anonymity & Privacy

All possible steps were taken to maintain confidentiality and anonymity at every
stage of the research process. Participants were advised of the following
procedures at the outset:

 All hard data (tapes and any paper copies of transcripts) will be retained and
locked in the researcher’s desk at the University of Brighton. Electronic
transcripts and associated documents will be stored on the researcher’s
password-protected computer;

155
  At the conclusion of the study, data will be kept in the SASS archives for 5
years, after which they will be destroyed. This is in accordance with the Data
Protection Act 1998;
 A system of codes will be used to ensure that participants’ names do not
appear either in electronic media or paper transcripts. A list of participants’
names, with codes, will be kept separately in a locked drawer (Note: for
writing-up this thesis, participants have been assigned names which are not
their actual names);
 Participants themselves, and the agencies and locations in which they
currently undertake and/or previously undertook social work, will not be
named in the thesis and any subsequent papers (pseudonyms are used);
 Professional colleagues and users of services/those around them will not be
named or detail included which might make it possible for them to be
identified in the thesis or subsequent papers;
 Other information that may make participants identifiable will be removed from
the thesis and subsequent papers, subject to the limitations acknowledged
below in relation to the nature of the study.

Importantly, all names attributed to research participants in this thesis are

pseudonyms. In brackets after the pseudonym is a short code which provides some
demographic details, as explained at Appendix 8.

4.11.5 Limits to Confidentiality

Given the nature of the study, particularly where only small numbers of social
workers move to England, absolute anonymity could not be guaranteed. Participants
were advised that ethical approval in England would be sought from employing
agencies and therefore that they would be aware that an unnamed member of their
staff may take part in the research. Participants were also informed that broad
demographic descriptions in relation to individual participants (eg gender, ethnicity,
age) may also be included in this thesis and any subsequent publications.
Participants were made fully aware of the following issues in relation to disclosure.

156
Practicing social work participants were specifically requested not to refer to the
detail of individual cases or practice situations or to name clients or colleagues.
Also, they were advised of circumstances in which disclosures might require the
researcher to breach confidentiality. These circumstances were as follows: that she
or he might present a risk of harm to self or others; that a child or vulnerable person
may be at risk of harm; or that criminal activity may occur or have occurred. No
participants revealed anything which could have fallen into the above categories,
though participants were advised that, had this happened, the researcher would
keep a written record of the disclosure, inform their supervisors within 24 hours and,
if considered necessary, take action to report the concern.

4.11.6 Additional Ethical Considerations

Reference is also made to interviews with policy makers, academics, students and
representatives of other agencies in the Philippines. This, at times, involved
attending meetings and observing service providers in community and institutional
settings. No service users participated in the research although they were, on rare
occasions, present as in user-led organisations or when observing agency settings.
On each occasion, the researcher asked that consent to his presence be gained.
These principles enabled the researcher to respond appropriately to potential data
collection opportunities when they arose.

As has been said, a hand-written journal was kept, which is considered a legitimate
research tool. It was primarily used for reflective commentary and any individuals or
agencies were referred to using initials/descriptive terms, in order to ensure
confidentiality was not compromised.

Finally, we should consider the extent to which this research may have benefited
those who took part. The research develops existing understanding of Philippine
and international social work and offers an original contribution to knowledge around
the process of transition between countries and the purpose and practice of social
work. It is, however, with caution that one comments on the potential benefits for
participants.

157
Those taking part reported that they found the process of sharing their perspectives
a worthwhile opportunity to reflect on personal and professional issues. Some spoke
of satisfaction derived from the opportunity to contribute to the development of
research considering the experiences and contributions made by Filipino social
workers to the profession internationally. The researcher hopes that the research
process felt collaborative for all involved and believes that mutually-beneficial
contacts have been forged with practitioners and academics in the Philippines. It is
not felt that broader claims can be made in terms of possible benefits to participants
in the research.

4.12 Data Analysis

“Data analysis in social work research usually involves both inductive and deductive
reasoning within the same process... but, at its heart, tends to begin with an
inductive, general approach – open to exploring and understanding the range of
activity and complexity that is unfolding before it.” (Hardwick & Worsley, 2011, p115-
6).

As has been said, the use of a detailed reflective journal and presentation of initial
‘findings’ on more than one occasion meant that reflection upon feelings and
emergent meanings, understandings and uncertainties, was ongoing. Whilst mindful
of potential pitfalls in such a process, it was a fruitful and reflexive component of the
endeavour. Where commonalities or particular points of difference arose in
interviews, these were recorded in the Research Journal as ‘analytical memos’
(Coleman & Unrau, 2008) and sometimes introduced into subsequent interviews. As
the researcher returned to full time work shortly after completing the data collection
‘stage’, ongoing engagement with the slow process of transcription and analysis was
essential. All interviews were transcribed verbatim: the researcher was
uncomfortable with the notion of selective transcription, which could conceal the
process through which ideas emerged in interviews and also because the ordering of
questions varied across individual interviews and the opportunity was regularly taken
to pursue points raised outside of the schedule. It was, for example, important to

158
know if points were raised and/or pursued by the interviewee or researcher. A short
excerpt from a transcribed interview is attached as Appendix 10.

Humphries (2008, p193-4) maintains that, “Social work researchers need to take
sides consciously, not with ‘movements’ per se, but in embracing particular ethical
values towards a more just society… Surely such values must include an opposition
to injustice and a commitment to alleviating and even preventing suffering?” It has
been a core intention throughout this research to maintain such an explicit critical
stance and the data analysis process needed, therefore, to incorporate frameworks
and space for critical engagement. A pure ‘grounded’ approach to data analysis
(Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; 1994) was inconsistent with this.
The research did not, as grounded theory requires, maintain that theory would
emerge solely from the data. There was a component of ‘testing’ the data against
hypothesised models based on existing social work theory (as set out in Chapter 2).
Grounded theory has, however, influenced a good deal of sociological and social
research. The notion of an ongoing interplay between the collection and analysis of
data, already commented upon, was emphasised in grounded approaches, as was
the need for a process of refinement of response to the data through coding,
categorisation and comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Charmaz (2006) and
others continue to develop the fundamental principles of Grounded Theory beyond
the dispassionate positivism and inductive process of Glaser and Strauss, in
particular by forging connections with social constructionism and acknowledging that
all researchers bring pre-existing worldviews and experiences. However, for this
particular research study, the sheer quantity of transcribed data and explicit intention
to approach that data from a position ‘grounded’ in structural, radical and critical
perspectives, meant that a robust thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 2008; Gomm, 2004;
Grinnell & Unrau, 2008) was considered most appropriate.

All transcripts were imported into NVivo 8. The programme was, however, used
primarily as a convenient location for storing and accessing data and much of the
data analysis process used paper copies of transcripts and data sorted into themes.
NVivo was found to be helpful for organising data into nodes and ‘node hierarchies’
and for the convenience of printing out summary documents and themed chunks of
data. However, the decision was taken early on to make only limited use of the

159
programme and, instead, to engage with the data in a more organic and traditional
way.

The analysis included both inductive and deductive coding and theme development,
with some codes being more ‘theory-driven’ and others ‘data-driven’ (Fereday &
Muir-Cochrane, 2006). As data collection came to a close, a first attempt was made
to produce a coding scheme, an impressionistic attempt to capture early reactions to
the conversations of which I had been a part. After transcription, each transcript was
read several times, at least once whilst simultaneously listening to the original
recording. In the initial readings, notes were made on possible themes or points to
pursue and also contemporaneous comments were reviewed from the research
journal. These were used to extend, develop and amend the coding scheme. In
other words, the coding scheme (an early example of which is attached as Appendix
9) emerged, “both deductively from pre-existing concerns, questions and
hypotheses, and inductively from the data itself.” (Seale, 2004, p313). Some ‘apriori’
codes had been established before analysis (linked to the research questions and
areas in the Interview Guides) but many more empirical codes were generated
during the data analysis itself. Thus, the research used, “… a balance of deductive
coding (derived from the philosophical framework) and inductive coding (themes
emerging from participant’s discussions)” (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006, p9). As
one would expect, the coding became cumbersome and very detailed at this stage.
Organising the data again and again into comparative categories (or code families)
led to the development of provisional conceptual interpretations (Holliday, 2007).
The analysis focused on commonality and difference: within interviews; between
interviews; and in relation to emerging categories and themes. The second-level
coding process, where data categories were analysed “away from any association
with the person” (Coleman & Unrau, 2008, p399) led to the abstraction of themes
and theories. Thus, the thematic analysis took the form of an iterative “process of
data reduction” which focused variously upon themes from the literature review,
feelings noted in the research journal, repeated phrases or issues raised in the
interviews and, of course, the content of answers to each question (Grbich, 2007,
p31).

160
Most recently, opportunities to co-write a journal article (Price and Artaraz, 2013) and
to write a chapter on the Philippines for a book examining social work across East
Asia (Price, 2014) provided further opportunities to revisit and refocus the research.
These writing tasks, along with the writing-up of this thesis, were very much part of
the research process and in particular of the development of theoretical
explanations. The act of writing required that the focus return to the Research
Questions and Objectives and to the applicability of the models (including Bourdieu’s
critical framework) introduced earlier in this thesis to the data collected.

This section has hopefully begun to demonstrate that the researcher has undertaken
a non-linear approach to the project, including what Gibson and Brown call
‘contextualized analysis’, which is “about the relationship between data and
conceptual problems” (Gibson & Brown, 2009, p6). They expand upon this holistic
and fluid definition as follows:

“The situated approach to analysis helps to show, for example, how research
problems are developed through data work; how literature is used to construct
research problems and to think about and even work with data; how research plans
and designs are produced and worked through in relation to data and the analytic
work it is supposed to do; how ‘gathering’ data through research always involves a
simultaneous analysis of that data. When viewed like this, ‘data’ and ‘analysis’
becomes much less abstract, and more tightly integrated into research as a whole.”
(Gibson & Brown, 2009, p6)

Thus, for example, in this project the scope and focus of the literature review
developed as analytic themes became apparent and the content of interviews was
amended to incorporate ideas arising from discussion with previous participants.
This fluidity has continued into the writing of the thesis.

4.13 Research Methodology & Process: Concluding Comments

Gibson & Brown (2009, p33) suggest that researchers must, “… productively engage
with literature in their own field in order to develop their own analytic ideas and

161
position their research in relation to other research and writing.” It is hoped that this
chapter has demonstrated such an approach. A comment made by a social worker
in the Philippines stayed with me throughout this process:

“… how many authors really would give their stuff away? Yes and that’s actually one
thing that I would like to bring up in the international scene… you work so hard to
make the information because it makes sense to you, why not give it free to those of
us who cannot afford it?”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

It is intended that findings from this project will be made available in the Philippines,
by sharing copies of the thesis wherever possible and appropriate, offering articles
for publication there and hopefully contributing to conferences and university based
learning on return visits or via online opportunities. This will, no doubt, lead to further
reflection on notions of professional and academic imperialism and around
supporting indigenous knowledge and approaches.

This chapter has explored the methodology and process of the research on which
this thesis is based. Returning to the Research Objectives, it is evident that the
researcher’s core interest was in the purpose and tasks of social work in an
international context. It is argued that what social workers do and who they do it ‘to’
or ‘with’ is (in part) a product of political process and structural inequality. The
rationale for - and meaning of - a critical realist approach was therefore explored.
The design and implementation of a research project concerned with issues of
transferability, difference and similarity in social work was discussed, as were some
of the ethical considerations and efforts made to do ‘good research’. Finally, the
data analysis process was explained and justified. It is acknowledged that the data-
coding and identification of themes was undertaken solely by the researcher, which
might be considered an unavoidable limitation of doctoral research. However, the
analysis of data was discussed with supervisors throughout. The following quotation
has particular resonance in this respect:

“Even with thematic analysis there comes a point at which the analyst imposes a
structure on the data. It will only be one of many structures he or she might have

162
imposed” (Gomm, 2004).

The following chapter begins to introduce some of the results of this process. It is
very much intended that the next three chapters will provide what the anthropologist
Geertz (1973) called ‘thick description’. When presenting the perspectives of people
with very different cultural backgrounds to that of the researcher, it feels all the more
necessary that the reader can see how participants explained their motivations and
practice in their own words.

163
Chapter 5: Fieldwork Findings in the Philippines: The Field
of Social Work in Historical, Cultural and International
Context

5.1 Introduction

This chapter is the first of two presenting findings concerning social work in the
Philippines. It analyses perspectives on the history of, and forms of external
influence upon, social work in the Philippines and efforts made to indigenise practice
in this context. The chapter explores what social workers do, making connections to
consideration in Chapter 2 of typologies of social work orientation and purpose. Also
discussed are participants’ characterisations of service users and ‘Filipino traits’
more generally. Although it mostly draws upon data collected in the Philippines,
judicious use is made of reflections offered by Filipino workers living and working in
England. Substantial use is made of direct quotations in the ‘data chapters’, with the
intention that they are ‘data rich’ and that the voices of Filipino participants are given
appropriate space in the thesis. Whilst there is considerable interplay between the
themes developed through the thesis, this chapter focuses primarily upon Research
Question 1: How have historical and international processes shaped social work in
the Philippines?

All names attributed to participants are pseudonyms. Appendix 8 sets out and
explains the interview codes used throughout Chapters 5, 6 and 7.

It feels helpful at the outset to provide an example to illustrate practice in the

Philippines. Whilst forms of practice of course vary, the following quote (about
implementing the 4Ps programme) offers a good introductory picture of social work
as practiced on the ground. Interestingly, whilst conceived as community
development, the ‘way in’ is through families:

164
“Some you cannot reach if you don’t ride a helicopter… these are the most
depressed… the social worker… has to start mobilising volunteers in the
community… they have to train some of the current leaders and she will be the link
with the teachers and with the health centres because the condition is that we were
targeting poor families with children… they have to be in school 85% of the time…
the mother who is pregnant must have all the necessary protocol to give birth to a
healthy child and the child 0-5 must have all these vaccinations... So that was her
job… co-ordinating the health sector, the education sector and the different
organisations in the community. She is also expected to work very closely with the
local, with the municipal department of social welfare, because… we sign something
with the mayor so he supports the project…”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

The chapter now considers what participants said about historical factors affecting
the shape and nature of social work in the Philippines.

5.2 Historical Development of Social Work in the Philippines

Participants conveyed a sense of a received history of their country and of social

work, which offered insights into their individual and professional habitus and
resonated with the literature discussed in Chapter 3.

5.2.1 The US and Spanish Legacies

All research participants, though sometimes only when prompted, offered

perspectives on the legacies of Spanish and US rule, with many commenting on the
ongoing influence of external powers. With few exceptions (as was the case in most
of the indigenous social work literature) there was an absence of critical perspective
and, if anything, a perception of imperialist interventions as benign or, indeed,
positive for the country, for social welfare and social work:

“We are so blessed that Americans came… because, see, we are English speaking.”

165
 Marissa (FAC P 50-59 F RC)

One might, of course, question whether participants felt able to criticise ‘western’
influence when talking with an interviewer from the Global North (see Manilili below),
though the following person did offer a critical voice:

“And of course we do have a glorified vision of what the West is, you know. In fact, I
have to really explain to the people that not everything in the West is good…”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

Several participants suggested that the periods of Spanish and American domination
had made the Filipino people resilient:

“Yeah and then colonisation arrived … and Filipino basically developed a high level
of resilience… it’s only a portion of these people who are fighting for their own rights
because some of them developed that ‘no, I don’t want to get involved’ and basically,
in time… they don’t know their rights, whether they have rights… Filipinos… if they
could just basically sacrifice… they will just leave it like that, even though they are
being used, being oppressed.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

In other words, strength (but not necessarily resistance) in the face of oppression
was presented as a national trait. A social work academic offered a related
interpretation of ‘resilience’, in the context of describing Filipinos as tolerant people:

“Oh yes, resilient. Resiliency is such like poverty.”

Marissa (FAC P 50-59 F RC)

So, it seems, resilience means to keep going in the face of adversity, poverty and
oppression. In Bourdieusian terms, one might expect that internalised dispositions
such as those illustrated above must impact upon what social work students learn
and how qualified workers practise. The next section offers statements made about
faith typical of the many made.

166
5.2.2 International Influence and Faith

Faith (for most Roman Catholicism) was an unquestioned dimension of social

welfare and social work, with its roots in the long period of Spanish occupation:

“A lot of the beginnings of social work, like in most countries, has been faith based,
came out of the church… and it still is really largely motivated by faith. A lot of our
NGOs are really Catholic-based; we are a faith-based organisation ourselves.”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

As we have seen, Christianity came to the Philippines with the Spanish occupation.
Some interviewees reflected on the impact of this:

“We were under Spanish for three hundred years. They were bringing the religion,
converting the Filipinos to Christianity because history was that Philippines is a
Muslim country. It is the only Christian in Asia.”
Aisha (FAC P 50-59 F Muslim)

This participant explained the roots of Philippine social work from her perspective
and experience:

“Saint Vincent and Saint Louise, they are French but he was really, he started the,
it’s charity work… he organised the Ladies of Charity and the Daughters of Charity…
which is considered the forerunners of social workers… my School is run by the
Daughters of Charity and Saint Vincent’s teachings… love for the poor, respecting
the dignity and welfare of the person, you know, humility, compassionate service,
etcetera…”
Marissa (FAC P 50-59 F RC)

Arlene made connections with the roots of social work in the Global North:

“Well, historically it’s really church based, isn’t it? In a lot of ways it was faith based.
A lot of the beginnings of social work, like in most countries, has been faith based,

167
came out of the church. Umm… and it still is, really, largely motivated by faith. A lot
of our NGOs are really Catholic based; we are a faith based organization ourselves.”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

Arlene was one of the few who expressed concerns about the imposed form of
Christianity:

“We are being defined by our history… for over 300 years under the Spanish, and
that kind of Christianity wasn’t a fair Christianity… it was… oppressive and the…
corruption that happened then is still really being pursued now… Our politicians, for
instance, they come from dynasties… and a lot of the poor also still look at
themselves as serfs… and so the helping profession is still very impeded by that as
well; because when you help, they think you’ve got it all and all they have to do is
receive… it’s always externalized rather than internalised and blame is always
projected rather than accepted and owned… Really, there’s no need for projects like
ours if the rich really did redistribute their wealth quite well… It seems like spirituality
is contained in a salt shaker and never shaken out of it… they belong to the Church
and the four walls of that and never shaken out of that and really if they sprinkled a
little bit more wealth, we should not be in this predicament, really.”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

Grace, who continues to practise as a Roman Catholic in England, added further

critical comment (though did not feel that her opinions were typical):

“I am a devoted… I graduated from a Catholic School but we don’t like the system of
Catholicism in the Philippines… it’s wrong the way the Church is managing the
people… I really appreciate more the Catholic, you know, the Catholic here. You
know, you can talk to the priest… they’re like a normal, ordinary person but back
home, what is the priest? You know, they are like a God and they are the
oppressive, they are abusers… Yeah and sometimes it’s not good because that can
be the cause of this problem with the poverty, you know the reproductive health and
all the issues in the Philippines… the faith and, you know, how powerful it is, people
just follow without thinking. It’s so sad, really sad.”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

168
Once again, structure shapes practice, here in terms of service user expectation.
Many qualifying courses are delivered by ‘Catholic Schools’ and some saw benefits
to this:

“We have many schools of social work now who are run by religious orders… almost
all of them, who are enrolled in this school are on a scholarship. They belong to the
poor family, they stayed in the university or the college. They work and at the same
time they get the scholarship.”
Teresa (FAC P 60+ F RC)

For this person, Catholicism was not emphasised within her social work learning:

“… my university is a, is a missionary… but our religion subjects is just separate from

the teaching of social work. It’s just we have Religion 1, 2, 3, 4 and we just basically
cover everything: Islam, Christianity but it isn’t ever had any impact or any
connection with… but I suppose it just give the understanding that, if you go in the
community, like in the South it’s a Muslim community…”
Tessa (FSW UK Retraining as Nurse 30-39 F RC)

The above quote suggests that the central tenets and teachings of the Catholic
Church were not taught within the social work specific aspects of training, although
there were a number of ‘separate’ modules which focused on religion, perhaps
emphasising the need for cultural competence and awareness of different faiths.
However, the following comment (made by a relatively young social worker about his
social work training) offers a different perspective:

“My school is run by nuns, no? So they’re very strict… You have to do this, you
have to do that, you have to follow your [pauses]… you always have to look the
hierarchy… and then before, I think, my last semester in social work I think I was not
attending my class anymore because I was rebelling… I did not attend the dawn
rosary, I did not attend masses...”
Michael (FSW P NGO 30-39 M C)

169
While differing attitudes towards religion were, therefore, evident in the data, the
predominant view among people within the field of Philippine social work was largely
uncritical, seeing faith as a key motivation (or vocation) and aspect of social work
identity. The thesis will return to the place of religion but the above responses leave
one in no doubt that the historical process of conversion to a (mostly) Christian
country had profound and ongoing implications for social work.

5.2.3 Did Charity Begin at Home?

Social welfare generally and social work in particular have a number of close
relationships with charity in the Philippines. As the literature indicated, even national
government relies on ‘handouts’, however large scale and formalised those might be:

“… most of the NGOs, even the Government… rely with foreign donors, ok, so that’s
very limited and because of that reason we cannot really provide a better service.”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Even within private hospitals, charitable sources are tapped to fund care for poor
patients:

“Yeah, the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office… that’s an agency who are really,
is very generous in helping out people who have medical needs…”
Joan (FSW P PRIV 30-39 F RC)

The same participant discussed a previous social work job within a NGO:

“I worked, based primarily with the street children. All the money comes from the
devotees, from donations and the church.”
Joan (FSW P PRIV 30-39 F RC)

Not only do social workers engage with processes of charitable donation to meet
need but some donors call themselves social workers:

170
“We have what we call pseudo social workers. These are the charity, the rich, erm,
wives of… they’re not really volunteers but they are really more charitable working.
But when you say religion and how does the practice, let’s put it this way and I’m
talking in the now, this is one area where we, it’s very much involved.”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

Hence, religion and charity are intertwined and powerful. It is, however, a fact of life
and in many instances a matter of life or death. Arguably, charity in much of the
Global North is now de-personalised: donors give money to an organisation which
then decides how best to spend that money, not usually on an individual basis. The
act of giving is less direct than it would appear to be in the Philippines. Nonetheless,
a key skill for many workers in the Philippines is the ability to persuade donors and
advocate for service users in charitable contexts, as the following exchange between
two academics suggests:

“In a poverty situation, the social worker should be good enough to be able to deal
with the rich because, first, you’ll have to use them as a resource in terms of
community work and all this and that’s the reason I think why many social workers,
they’re very good in working with the elite and they also end up marrying doctors
(laughs).”
Hope (FAC P 60+ F RC)

So, even in a ‘community work’ context, dependence on the ‘upper classes’ is real
and direct. Skills in tapping the resources of those with greater capital resources are
essential:

“… the role of social worker as resource mobiliser and resource developer is really
working with the rich, working with those economically blessed.”
Fiona (FAC P 50-59 F C)

“I have a student, she works in a Chinese school, which is really all the rich Chinese
kids and parents and the parents decided that they will have a social outreach but…
Chinese is a closed culture… so the social worker says like ‘well if you want to go

171
ahead then you go ahead but I’m not going to work with you’… If you want a
community then I will find a community… and you’re not going there to just dole out,
you have to let them propose, to let them participate…”
Hope (FAC P 60+ F RC)

As in all contexts, social workers operate in imperfect situations. The above

example is of social work practice seeking to assert its values in terms of social
justice and empowerment whilst endeavouring to ‘keep funders happy’, a familiar
tension for social workers internationally. The realities of operating between
maintenance and social change, resulting perhaps in a ‘collectivist-reformist’ form of
practice, are very evident.

5.2.4 Historical Processes and Language

The Philippine national language, Filipino, is based upon Tagalog, which grew in
usage in the post-war period. Marcos encouraged the development of a national
language and debates ensued about the extent to which words of Spanish and
English origin (in common usage) should form part of this language. The
Constitution allows areas to retain their first languages but expects that Filipino is
taught in schools as the national language. Many participants commented upon the
dominance of the English language within social work education and practice (an
issue discussed also in this thesis in relation to research methods). Qualifying
learning was delivered predominantly in English and texts were mostly (though not
exclusively) of American/European origin or written by Filipino academics in English:

“If I work with community, with my clients, with my groups, I obviously speak to them
with the Tagalog. Umm… with your colleagues it’s more on a professional level, it’s
more like English. And I think there’s some good books about community organising
authored by Filipinos, so we use that language as well, which is obviously more
appropriate… Most of the books, definitely the books are in English …”
Tessa (FSW UK Retraining as Nurse 30-39 F RC)

172
Tessa, reflecting on her practice in the Philippines, identified a process of ‘cultural
translation’ when working with service users:

“I would try and translate it in the regional language but it is difficult… You have
English in your mind but the way to explain is, the way to deliver and interpret is you
have to make sure that it’s understood by the people.”
Tessa (FSW UK Retraining as Nurse 30-39 F RC)

A social work academic acknowledged that the process of recording (a key social
work skill) presented difficulties for some social workers, due to expectations that
recording is in English:

“Because you do the interview in Filipino but then we require our students and our
workers to record in English.”
Teresa (FAC P 60+ F RC)

One might question the reasons for such policies and the underlying power relations
and assumptions but it seems very possible that the accuracy and meaning of
recording could be affected. The interviewee did, however, state that some NGOs
were now accepting recording in the national language.

Having begun to consider some issues raised in the data about the macro and micro
determinants of what social workers do, the thesis turns next to look at findings
related to the role played by international aid and international NGOs.

5.3 International Aid and the Role of NGOs

As we saw in the literature review, much Philippine welfare is funded by overseas

aid, whether through agencies like the WHO and UNICEF, international charities or
private sector donors. This was a given for many participants, with the concomitant
implication that funding agendas are significantly driven from the Global North. In
relation to government programmes, for example, this participant was unsure
whether the kind of social work they wished to practice would be funded:

173
“Yeah, most of our partners are UN agencies, World Food Programme… in fact we
are scheduling a forum… we hope we can sell what we have now, especially our
social protection programme on conditional cash transfer and community-driven
development…”
Yvonne (FPOL P 50-59 F RC)

Similarly, in the non-governmental sector, workers spoke of being funded by

business:

“Yes, it’s an international NGO and our funding agencies are corporations, FedEx.”
Evelyn (FSW P NGO 30-39 F RC)

A social worker in England made the following observation when asked about
frustrations when working for government and NGOs in the Philippines:

“I should say lack of resources… So, every year… we call it, umm, planning,
programme review and planning because we need to evidence that we are spending
the money on what it should be…”
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

She went on to discuss how the limited availability of funds required social workers
to be resourceful (“tapping different agencies”) suggesting that this was a skill much
less called upon in England. There was a matter-of-factness when a worker talked
about having worked for a foundation set up by the American Chamber of
Commerce to provide “financial support to street children” (an organisation whose
mission is, “to serve the interests of U.S. businesses through the participation of
members in promoting their long-term objectives, while contributing to the civic and
economic development of the Philippines” http://www.amchamphilippines.com). The
participant is not named here to further protect confidentiality.

One participant working for an NGO talked about the pressure applied by funding
agencies like the UN:

174
“If you want the funding… you suit your proposal according to their values, not
necessarily our values, and then we just try and make the join with our values when
you implement it.”
Janice (FSW P NGO 30-39 F RC)

However, a participant based within an international NGO was very clear that they
would negotiate with donor partners before accepting money:

“I think sometimes it’s… some donor partners come with language, processes,
procedures, standards from abroad or from the international arena, many of which fit,
some of which don’t fit… If there’s strings attached that we don’t, will compromise
how we are able to work, we just don’t take those funds.”
Bill (USSW P NGO 50-59 M C)

Though responses differed, therefore, what came across strongly was the ever-
present need to engage with the structural realities of international aid requirements,
again suggesting layers of ‘fields within fields’.

5.4 Indigenisation or Reconceptualisation

The data offered various perspectives on attempts to make imported models relevant
and develop home-grown theories and approaches. Some questioned this process,
suggesting the Philippines had much to learn from adopting ‘western’ approaches.
However, this participant was typical of many responses:

“What we found was that the imported Philippine model, which is mature, I haven’t
heard anybody say ‘oh that’s too American for us’. Philippines have developed their
own way of working as social workers and it’s culturally quite comfortable…
Teresa (FAC P 60+ F RC)

The above quote is indicative of how participants mostly described the implanting of
US social work in the Philippines: that it has evolved over time, drawing heavily on
American models but also influenced by distinctly Philippine social formations and

175
‘ways of being’ (as well as the demands and expectations of international aid). The
ways in which this happened were often, as Nimmagadda and Cowger (1999) found
elsewhere, pragmatic. Indeed, most participants struggled to provide examples of
how they adapted models to local contexts, often referring to sensitivity to traits
attributed to Filipino people:

“Maybe not change but maybe to, to enhance… for example doing family
casework… it’s not stated directly in the book on how you will relate to a family given
that you’re in this country… That’s why one of the subjects that we have is the
Philippine communities and… the Filipino psychology, wherein we discuss all the
Filipino traits, how a Filipino thinks, how Filipino acts.”
Hope (FAC P 60+ F RC)

So, for Hope, indigenisation entailed the adaptation of practice methods to perceived
Filipino behaviours and cultural expectations. Indeed, many participants in the
Philippines and England suggested that Filipino people possess common traits. For
the researcher, the acceptance of such ‘traits’ raised questions (discussed further in
Chapter 6) about the operation of cultural stereotypes, assumptions of homogeneity
and the potential implications for anti-oppressive social work practice.

One indicator of indigenisation and, as Weiss & Welbourne (2007) suggest, of

professionalisation, would be the growth of a Philippine knowledge base. Social
work everywhere draws on social work-specific theory and research and an applied
knowledge base. One participant, discussing the national curriculum for qualifying
courses, commented as follows:

“Yes, there were certain subjects that we really focused… we had to consider the
Filipino family. Our sociology is almost all Filipino, okay… we do a lot of rural
sociology.”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

Karen, a Filipino social work academic, highlighted what she saw as indigenous
contributions to knowledge in the area of sociology and community organisation,
referencing the work of Canadian writer Murray Ross (Ross, M. & Lappin, B, 1967)

176
and American Saul Alinsky (1971). She cited Manalili (1990), a Filipino writer on
community organising, whom she saw as critiquing the perceived limited
understandings of American social anthropologist and sociologist Frank Lynch
(2004), who lived and worked in Philippine academia and was, indeed, also a priest:

“… there is this American Jesuit priest, Father Lynch… a foreigner writing about
Filipino values on pakikisama… although he has been here for a long time in the
Philippines…when you enter a community or any interpersonal relationship, you are
first an outsider and the highest point that you can reach is pakikisama, so that’s
what he experienced… he entitled it smooth interpersonal relationship… he was
saying that Filipinos have the tendency to always adjust so that there will be no
conflict… Filipino social scientists are saying, no, he saw that because he is a
foreigner, he was not able to enter the next part, so I use that because I’m teaching
community organisation I’m saying that if you are only in the pakikisama level you
are at the superficial level… so that is an indigenous, you know, principle. So
Manalili was able to come up with the steps in organizing, uhm, which is a different,
different way from, from Ross, from Alinsky, so uhm I think so far we are able to
come up with indigenous, you know, literature…”
Karen (FAC P 60+ F RC)

Manalili was, therefore, presented as a Philippine academic challenging the

observations of others from a Philippine and broadly critical perspective.
Indigenisation is conceptualised as cultural adaptation rather than, say, wholesale
development of Philippine social work. It also points to the potential, within the
research for this thesis, for misunderstanding (discussed in Chapter 4). Another
social work academic commented as follows:

“So we have to test out everything that the text book is saying, we have to be always
aware what is the implication of these theories in our setting… and we want to come
up with case studies that are Filipinised… Before, the cases are all about New York,
San Francisco (laughs)… so we are trying to come up with… resource books that
are local.”
Karen (FAC P 60+ F RC)

177
Here, a social worker recalls the process of learning, pointing out the difficulty in
cultural translation:

“You can teach it theoretically but there’s no reality to it… They’ve read about it but
then again case studies can be very deceiving too, you know, and the terminologies
that we use… some of it is contextualised use of terms that cannot be understood by
Filipinos not really travelled…and let alone the students who have never stepped
outside the provinces that they come from… sometimes they just get mesmerised
with words…”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

Whilst specific examples of indigenisation at the practice level proved somewhat

elusive, there was acknowledgement of a process of moving away from a ‘western’
model in terms of overall orientation to social work. As a senior policy maker put it:

“… it was very distinct in terms of policy for all the schools of social work to break the
casework-group work-community organising kind of thinking, which was very, erm,
very western, okay? And what we were looking to was a generic, we wanted social
workers who could practice in a generic way.”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

Camile went on to describe a process of change within national government from the
1990s and developments attributed to a Secretary of the DSWD, named Corazon
"Dinky" Juliano-Soliman, a social worker with a background in campaigning
organisations:

“”…she is a community organising person and she’s an activist, okay? And she
could see that we were all social workers…so she brought in two men who were not
social workers and that really shook… these two men really were more in
development, okay? Remember we are Department of Social Welfare and
Development, okay?”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

178
This link with development (economic and community) raises concerns and offers
insights for social work elsewhere. Might, for example, an engagement with broader
social development aims be a way forward for social work in England? We return to
such questions later in the thesis. However, in the Philippines as (though in very
different circumstances) in England, welfare and development can be uneasy
partners, where the ‘right’ to support comes with conditions and human growth is
calculated in terms of economic contribution and self-sufficiency, independence
rather than weakness. In the Philippines, the main focus has been on the Pantawid
Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) Programme, which (as seen in Chapter 3) is
described as poverty alleviation but seeks to achieve this by training ‘beneficiaries’
for sustainable livelihoods. The above participant went on to acknowledge a growing
diversity of professional perspectives within DSWD:

“… it’s not just social workers anymore in the DSWD. We started to get people who
were graduates of other professions… Community Development, Agriculture,
anybody especially involved in development work in rural areas… because this
programme was practically all, we targeted the poorest provinces in the poorest
municipalities, okay? It’s a big, big programme from World Bank.”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

Another participant working in policy development within DSWD was very clear that
international donors/providers of loans were interested only in development aims:

“The donor agencies, the international donor organisations, the projects they would
like to engage with the DSWD are community based programmes. So, seldom do
you find these organisations engaging in interfamily programmes…”
Bea (FPOL P 40-49 F RC)

Thus, just as welfare benefits (or ‘dole out’) come with conditions, so the
international funding which underpins the system comes with strings attached and
‘indigenous’ generic/community approaches to social work are not free from such
strings. Indigenous social work in the Philippines, to the extent that it exists, appears
to involve contextualising external theories and models and a shift away from
received North American approaches to a generalist and community focused

179
practice. The latter was not generated within the Philippines, however, but rather
through a process where one-to-one forms of social work were considered
unachievable in contexts of extreme and broad-based poverty and where the
‘development’ goals of the international community held sway.

One participant was especially committed to using approaches and methods from
overseas, which he conceptualised in terms of a necessary shift away from generic
social work towards more specialised services and openness to best practice from
abroad:

“… you need to get some specialisations from other countries. For example, the
issue of dementia is… a worldwide concern… for me we, the social work profession,
is not basically on the western side… but it’s a universal model… you would adopt
the best programmes or services or teaching or models that would supply the needs
of your clients here…”
Joel (FPOL P 30-39 M RC)

An academic picked up on a similar theme, placing it in historical context:

“That’s one of the topics… in some of the conferences… the children, the abused
neglected children, persons with disabilities and, of course, the mental health related
problems… I would really want a change in the curriculum to address that… because
clinical social work is really something that is, I think UP (University of the
Philippines) had it before but then when they revisited the curriculum… they wanted
to focus more on social policies.”
Joel (FPOL P 30-39 M RC)

As discussed within the literature, the development of more specialised or clinical

forms of knowledge and practice may be seen as evidence of ‘professionalisation’,
typically in more ‘developed’ countries. The above participants appeared to consider
that such skills and understandings, indigenous or otherwise, represent progress.

When asked to offer examples of indigenisation, some participants drew attention to

issues of cultural sensitivity. For example:

180
“Ok, if the client is a Muslim [woman] and you are, a social worker is a guy, you’re
not allowed to interview.”
Aisha (FAC P 50-59 F Muslim)

Whilst important to be alert to such dimensions, it is suggested that such areas of

awareness and competence should be part of practice whether or not in a context of
seeking to indigenise ‘foreign’ approaches. ‘Cultural competence’ or ‘Anti-
Oppressive Practice’ is arguably conflated, here, with notions of indigenisation. In
re-fashioning ideas developed in the Global North, adaptation for cultural difference
was discussed by several participants. The following participant saw the use of
proverbs as one such approach. Thus, although introduced in the context of working
with Muslim service users, it was suggested that proverbs were a culturally accepted
way of engaging also with persons of the Roman Catholic faith:

“We use them because… sometimes there are teachings which we cannot say
directly, so we use proverbs…because of shame, you know.”
Aisha (FAC P 50-59 F Muslim)

Indigenisation is, clearly, a more nuanced, pragmatic and imperfect process than the
term might suggest.

5.5 The Social Work Profession in the Philippines

Within the literature review chapters, attention was drawn to insights gained from the
sociology of the professions. Indeed, professionalisation is one process associated
commonly with the development of collective and individual capital, both cultural and
symbolic (Bourdieu, 1989). Some participants, including this social worker now in a
senior policy role, spoke from personal experience of the development of the
profession:

“I was in the second group of social workers who took the board exams… that was
the time when they were really professionalising social work… we were upgrading

181
the education of social workers and local governments were starting to put up their
own social work department… and UNICEF was offering a lot of scholarships…
because many of those doing social work in many of those positions were not
professional social workers, okay?”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

Another social worker, again now in a senior policy role, spoke of a further time of
development of the profession in the 1990s:

“I was involved with… drafting the Magna Carta for social workers… the first draft
that hopefully would cover all social workers, be it in government or private or NGOs
but… now, yes, covers only the public one because it’s difficult really to, erm, for the
non-government organisations and private organisations to comply with the
requirements.”
Yvonne (FPOL P 50-59 F RC)

This participant also described a process of seeking to prescribe environments in

which the presence of registered social workers should be required:

“And that’s one regulation that… the DSWD is implementing. A non-government

organisation should have a licensed social worker… so that’s how the standard is
regularised… and the Magna Carta of social work also states that the LGU [Local
Government Unit] should have the person who has the social welfare office should
be a registered social worker.”
Yvonne (FPOL P 50-59 F RC)

The fact that there were social workers holding senior policy positions within national
government is telling of the breadth of roles considered ‘social work’ in the
Philippines. For many, the statutory basis of the title of ‘social worker’ and the early
establishment of key bodies were important foundations for professional recognition
and for relative academic rigour. As one academic put it:

“Our predecessors were mostly trained abroad and… as early as 1966 the social
work profession had already a licensure... we are grateful to the first social workers

182
because they ensured that we have the association, we have the standards… they
saw to it that we have the necessary structure to ensure that the profession will really
be a profession…”
Teresa (FAC P 60+ F RC)

The collective professional habitus, a sense of historical continuity and pride in the
profession, came across strongly when gathering data in the Philippines. Another
worker suggested that decentralisation and the shift to community-focused practice
had a positive impact on the profession:

“They were all struggling. They were selling pies on the side… and they were very
demoralised. Well, since then there’s been an almost complete turnaround. Yeah, I
think there were two reasons for it. One was the Local Government Code, which
decentralised things… and their focus over the last ten years, maybe twelve, has
been poverty alleviation. And that has changed them dramatically because the
approach is community driven development.”
Wendy (USSW P NGO 60+ F C)

Many participants spoke of the aforementioned breadth of social work roles and
locations in the Philippines. One worker in England said:

“It’s more of the variety, it’s not a monotonous kind of job like here, alright. If you get
cases you know what you’re expected to do. To complete the initial assessment
within the timescale… but in the Philippines… we don’t only work with a child, we
work with a whole family, we work with extended family members…”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

The picture which emerged, therefore, was one of a profession forged in the image
of social work promulgated by the US but also one which continues to seek further
professional recognition and to embrace practice across a broad range of sectors
and approaches (as with the most recent attempts to define social work
internationally).

183
5.6 Faith and Professional Identity

When asked if Christian values underlie social work in the Philippines, Marissa
commented as follows:

“… not just Christian teaching but it’s universal values about human life and like…
our colleague in social work, she is Muslim and in their own context, the situation in
Mindanao, they are also human beings. They have the concept of whose
responsibility is welfare and I would like to respect them and I think that what is good
about Filipino social workers… we understand that culture as well…”
Marissa (FAC P 50-59 F RC)

This response does suggest a desire to deliver social work which is appropriate to all
groups within society but also raises concerns. The notion of pakikisama, of
respecting everyone, could serve to veil the complexities of human interaction and
even leave processes such as racism or faith-based discrimination unstated or
under-acknowledged. At best, the response to such issues felt simplistic and
superficial:

“It’s not an issue for us, not really, not much. We have, umm, for example a Muslim
social worker in Mindanao who, who works with even the Christians in Mindanao and
it’s not a problem with her and she works with… those people in the communities
who are caught in armed conflict...”
Fiona (FAC P 50-59 F C)

The following comment, however, throws more light on the reality of social work in
conflict zones in the Philippines and, perhaps, the space social workers occupy in
relation to faith groups:

“… you are safe because people will really just, whether they are Christians,
Muslims, rebels or civilians, they recognize that you are doing something for the
community and, therefore, they will respect you… So, I would think that is also

184
indicative of practice because, if a social worker is biased towards a certain religion,
towards a certain group, then she will not be perceived that way.”
Hope (FAC P 60+ F RC)

There appears to be a limited conceptualisation of processes of oppression in the

Philippines, among social workers and social work academics, at least. One might
hypothesise that critical perspectives on power and anti-oppressive practice are not
well-established. This Muslim social worker and academic interviewed as part of the
study was less sanguine:

“Sometimes our Christian brothers and sisters are not culture sensitive to the
Muslims and so most NGOs would demand for, you know, a social worker who is a
Muslim and we have a lot of them now who… the feeling of mistrust to one another
is still, you know, the feeling of being discriminated…”
Aisha (FAC P 50-59 F Muslim)

Aisha stated that Muslims seeking employment faced discrimination and this,
combined with poverty, created a form of multiple oppression which led to Muslims
joining the large number of Filipinos working overseas. One is struck also by the
gendered dimensions of oppression in what she says:

“In Islam you’re not supposed to go out of our house without a chaperone but,
because of the necessity, because of poverty, then our women… would go abroad
just to, as a domestic helper… Usually they go to Islamic countries like in Saudi, you
know, Qatar, Egypt… because no job here in the Philippines and Muslims are also
discriminated in terms of work.”

Aisha (FAC P 50-59 F Muslim)

Thus, a contradictory picture emerged of the relationship between Philippine social

work and the position of the two most significant faith groups in the country. The
social work identity, as expressed by workers themselves, conveyed little of what
might be called ‘Anti-Oppressive Practice’. Indeed, the propensity of Filipinos to

185
stereotype the national personality, discussed in the next section, offers further
indication of this.

5.7 Characterising the Filipino People

This thesis is, in part, concerned with the identity and (learnt) behaviours of a
particular professional sub-culture. However, as discussed in Chapter 2 (Bourdieu,
1977a, 1984) practice reflects individual and collective habitus which itself reflects
and interacts with cultural and structural ‘realities’. Though aware of the limitations
of asking participants to describe features of the ‘Philippine culture’, it was important
(not least as an ‘outsider’) to do this. This section presents some core messages
from the data which inform an understanding of how Philippine culture is perceived.
These include thoughts about dominant (and ‘minority’) values; social conventions;
religious practices and influence; and roles (including gender roles). What we see is
evidence of participants describing service user groups (and Filipinos in general) in
terms of perceived traits and constructing a picture of national culture.

5.7.1 Perceived Traits & Heterogeneity

While discussing a project to relocate disparate populations, this person highlighted

the complexity and heterogeneity of ‘culture’ in the country:

“The Philippines has 7107 islands. And then different cultures, dialects, different
ways and putting them in a one sort of place as well, it’s quite, you know, can be
chaos… there’s a group of Pilocanos, a group of Visayans, there’s a group of
Tagalogs… and Filipinos, when they are in my country, they can be quite clannish…
when, for example, the Pilocanos talk in their own language, that’s quite offending for
the Tagalogs.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

186
This participant, an American based in the Philippines for many years and working
for an International NGO also delivering training, suggested that Mindanao was
culturally different but not only because of its Muslim majority:

“There are some things that are very specific to being Muslim, for example the
process to reach a decision, the sure process of really sitting down and working and
working and working and working until we get a consensus… In the West… we try to
be the top of the class… In the Mindanao context, be they Muslim or Christian, the
idea is everybody is going to succeed and they work together day and night… to
make sure that everybody completes the course… it’s a very profound difference
and each of the professors have picked up on that and that transcends the faith.”
Bill (USSW P NGO 50-59 M C)

When asked about culture, participants often referred to traits commonly attributed to
the Filipino personality. Indeed, this forms part of the national curriculum for social
work qualifying programmes (CHED. 2010) and this worker had delivered teaching
on the subject:

“Actually, they gave me that, the Filipino Personality. Yeah, it’s about the culture, the
strengths and weaknesses of Filipinos.”
Mary (FSW P GOV 40-49 F RC)

From the perspective of a social work educator in England, it is surprising that

students are engage (apparently uncritically) with the notion of a national
‘personality’. This felt uncomfortable as social work should surely understand
difference and individuality as well as commonalities.

5.7.2 Being Caring

Nonetheless, one can identify from the data a number of consistently held
perspectives on the culture of the Philippines and ‘typical personality’ of its citizens

187
and service users. One seemingly accepted trait of the Filipino people was their
‘caring’ nature:

“Filipinos are natural… counselors and care givers. They know how to listen… very
important for them is good relationship… there is this respect for older persons which
is very cultural and we take care of children in general… We really care! That’s
genuine.”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

Mark made connections with social work values:

“Filipinos are caring people… we have the value of giving importance to every
person and that’s one of the values of social work….”
Mark (FPOL P 18-24 M RC)

There was little evidence of a critical consideration of the idea of ‘care’. It was
something to be proud of. Shakespeare (2000) is among those who have pointed to
processes of othering, dependency and infantilisation which paid and unpaid caring
can create. Preferring the word ‘help’, he says,

“At first sight, the imagery surrounding helpers in our society seems predominantly
positive, focusing on ideas about altruistic sacrifice and beneficent professionalism”
(Shakespeare, 2000, p21).

However, Shakespeare (2000) maintains that ‘care’ can lead to lack of voice and that
professional knowledge defines people and their needs, reducing these to individual
deficits without recognising broader structural determinants of the position of service
users. The characterisation of Filipino people as caring, therefore, raises issues for
social workers and their practice, in the Philippines and abroad.

188
5.7.3 Anti-Oppressive Practice?

As stated in Chapter 4, questions were added to the Interview Schedule as emerging

themes arose. This included a concern that social work in the Philippines appeared
to have an under-developed awareness of the potential for society, social institutions
and for social work to contribute to the oppression experienced by groups
experiencing marginalisation or discrimination. The following excerpts from
interviews with Filipino academics exemplify the responses received. On being
asked whether the ‘caring nature’ of Filipino families and professionals could act to
the detriment of service users, this academic did acknowledge some risks:

“… it’s more of the compassion and sympathy that is involved... when you’re
patronising then, you know, you’re not empowering… Filipinos would be just
surprised, what I’m trying to be and being generous, you know, you’re thinking
differently. It’s like, I’m not being appreciated, you know, for being caring… yes, that
is something that may be part of that cultural orientation.”
Karen (FAC P 60+ F RC)

With regard to anti-discriminatory practice, this academic made the following

comments about racism in the Philippines:

“… it’s not a big thing about racism in the Philippines… sometimes umm Filipinos
would be afraid of, let’s say, the ones from Africa because they are so dark. That’s
the kind of thinking that if you are dark (laughs), oh this one looks like the criminal in
the movie… something like that has to be… dealt with… but not really in terms of the
racist kind… I think because parents would tell their children, if you go out… that
man who’s black, very dark is going to get you…”
Karen (FAC P 60+ F RC)

The above academic did, however, identify discrimination rather more than the
following participant, who reduced it to a need for cultural sensitivity:

189
“It’s not an issue for us, not really not much. We have, umm, for example, a Muslim
social worker in Mindanao who, who works with even the Christians in Mindanao and
it’s not a problem with her…”
Fiona (FAC P 50-59 F C)

Meanwhile, here the problem was presented as a rare slip in cultural competence on
the part of a particular worker:

“Once in a while there are problems… I had a case… the social worker insisted that
the mother contacted her family, and the mother was a Muslim, contacted her family
to help her decide on the adoption of her baby and this is… a no-no to the Muslim…
and the mother might be killed by her family should they discover that she is
unwed...”
Fiona (FAC P 50-59 F C)

Fiona’s seemingly ambivalent responses on this area of inquiry were difficult to

follow. At one point, saying:

“… talking about the general picture of the Filipinos, do I think that Filipinos are racist
or regionalistic, no.”
Fiona (FAC P 50-59 F C)

Then, just a few sentences later commenting as follows:

“… the blacks are not really seen as good people… They have a different…
perception of who the blacks are and what they are. So these are things that
generally may be present in the country but, again, social work is different…. I have
been with so many social workers in their different areas of the country and one of
the things that is highly, highly upheld principle is really respect for other ways,
religion and all these things.”
Fiona (FAC P 50-59 F C)

Few participants in the Philippines went beyond an analysis of poverty to discuss

other social divisions or aspects of identity, such as race, disability or sexuality. This

190
example, provided by another academic, reinforced the sense of a desire to be
sensitive and not treat people differently on the grounds of such ‘characteristics’ but
little conceptualisation of such issues in terms of power inequality or professional
role:

“… a mother who discovered her son was gay and she was really upset… the social
worker just tried to make her realise, like, look if you are the mother you get shocked,
that’s normal, but would you like to really totally let go of your son? … if you go over
social workers’ records and documentations… the more common words that you will
see or read in the records are ‘provided counseling’, ‘provided emotional support’.”
Hope (FAC P 60+ F RC)

There is no doubt that counseling could form part of an appropriate response to such
a scenario but the lack of any anti-oppressive framework was striking (at the time of
the interview and upon analysis).

5.7.4 How Filipinos Communicate

For many, Philippine culture is built upon direct, interpersonal communication rather
than written communication and this shapes the form social work takes:

“It’s an indication or a symptom of the Filipino culture that Filipino social workers are
not much into writing… Philippines is a very oral culture so, even social workers,
really have to push them to write reports... but… when you’re really out there
holding hands, touching, really talking to people, getting foot on the ground, it’s quite
natural for them. I think it’s part of the culture also because Filipinos are very
interpersonal so… in one way it’s taught but on the other hand it doesn’t have to be.”
Ryan (FStudentSW P NGO 25-29 M Irreligious)

One might make connections between this point and ideas of ‘use of self’,
maintaining boundaries, appropriate emotional distance and self-protection. This
participant raised an interesting point:

191
“… we rely a lot on our professional use of self… because there’s not so many
resources to distribute, you know? A Filipino social worker will have an advantage
because she has really, umm, enhanced maybe her professional use, that’s her only
tool, that is really fundamental.”
Hope (FAC P 60+ F RC)

So, being fundamentally ‘caring’ and possessing good inter-personal skills was
considered by Filipino people central to their culture. This was typically related to
social and family structures and relations.

5.7.5 Family

“That’s the good thing about the Filipino values, the culture, of people. The families
usually keep their disabled, their, their elderlies in their home.”
Mary (FSW P GOV 40-49 F RC)

As one social worker, drawing comparisons with an imagined UK, put it:

“… the very prominent value we have is how we are closely knitted as a family.
Yeah, so I believe you guys out there, after reaching the age of something like that,
you have to get out from the family, do your own thing… we live in one roof, up to the
great grandchildren.”
Grace (FSW P PRIV 25-29 F RC)

However, the following social worker saw the Philippine family as increasingly
unpredictable:

“Family is still very important, very much our anchor in terms of our definition of
ourselves… parents still really depend on their children for… that’s our welfare
system, really. Umm, it has moved away a lot from that… for instance … although
we go overseas for the family, we’ve killed our own family in some ways, too.”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

192
When asked if care within families might mean the ‘cared for’ are less able to meet
their potential or pursue their wishes, Mary commented as follows:

“People are not that exposed, their mentality is just, I want to stay there with my
family and that’s it… to live and die there.”
Mary (FSW P GOV 40-49 F RC)

Social work did not appear to play a significant role in challenging such expectations,
in terms of promoting individual rights and self-determination or eroding the
internalised oppression people might have developed due to cultural and familial
ways of thinking. Grace saw family as a source of mutual support and care:

“… your culture there, you have to be strong, you have to be independent, mum is
working so you have to… here, it’s a sign of care if our mum fixes our clothes, she
cooks food.”
Grace (FSW P PRIV 25-29 F RC)

On being prompted to consider if and how families might be abusive, Grace reflected
as follows:

“… parents feel that they have authority over their kids… unlike your kids there, that
they have, they have their rights, you shouldn’t because if you do that let me dial
something and then the police will come over…”
Grace (FSW P PRIV 25-29 F RC)

Overwhelmingly, family was described as a positive social structure, with few

references to power relations within family units. However, the following participant
deviated from this view of the family, albeit in somewhat deterministic tone:

“… each family has its own values and usually these values are passed on from
generation to generation. That’s why, when we make our genogram, those things
will appear, that’s why we started from your family of origin.”
Teresa (FAC P 60+ F RC)

193
A commonly-held and remarkably consistent ‘habitus’ in relation to the Philippine
‘personality’ was, therefore, identified, which (when combined with professional
training and identity development) surely had implications for how service users were
perceived and interventions implemented. Later in the thesis, we consider the
impact of moving to England upon this national-personal-professional identity.

5.7.6 Optimism, Resilience & Religion

Positivity, often in the face of extreme adversity, was also considered a trait of
Filipinos and something for social work to nurture, expressed by this participant as
follows:

“The strength, the positive view of Filipinos on dealing things, whatever problems
are…”
Mary (FSW P GOV 40-49 F RC)

The following quote begins by, again, referring to a perceived optimism:

“Filipino… even though they are hungry, they can smile… it’s already a problem, why
should we problem the problem? … we just laugh at it, move on with our life… when
you go to community they will just get the guitar, just play guitar and then they are
happy… the following morning, they will try their best to look for another chance… to
get food for their family, they are very optimistic that everything will change… all in
all Filipinos are very hard working. You cannot say that they are poor because they
are lazy, no. Imagine, you will sell cigarette for whole day… and then you will only
have one hundred, less than one hundred pesos income for a day… you will also get
your food with that one hundred pesos, you cannot save…”
Michael (FSW P NGO 30-39 M C)

Here, Michael also challenges the pathologising of the poor and describes a sense
of hope and positivity, raised by many participants as characteristic of Filipino people
and culture. Whilst gathering data in the Philippines, the apparent impact of the
Roman Catholic Church in particular, and faith more generally, was striking. Any

194
optimism despite very difficult life circumstances must surely be considered in the
context of prevailing religion. Such attitudes might demonstrate an impressive faith
or the oppressive power of organised belief systems to justify and perpetuate
inequality. Religion as a dominant social structure shapes lives and perceptions and
sets the context within which social work orientates itself to the impoverished
circumstances illustrated above.

To return to the centrality of family within the Philippines, this participant alluded to
the potential for families, in a context of poverty, to stifle ambition:

“… the cultural practices and customs of our region contributes to that, like the
principle of familyism where they most prefer to have and keep their children by way
of just forcing them to look for livelihood within their area… for social workers, they
encourage… a longer visioning of what life is…”
Cherry (FAC P 50-59 F C)

5.7.7 Utang na loob

‘Utang na loob’, is also considered, by Filipinos, to be an aspect of their national

‘personality’… embedded in cultural practices. Writers such as Hechanova,, Franco
& Reyes (2007) see ‘utang na loob’ as a reciprocal obligation to those who help us or
treat us well. It runs deeper than a debt in practical or financial terms. A further
behavior which Filipinos themselves commonly associate with their culture is
described as follows:

“The crab mentality… when you put the crab in the basket, when one of the crab
wants to go out, the other crabs will pull them down…”
Mary (FSW P GOV 40-49 F RC)

Jay described this ‘trait’ as being:

“… jealous of someone’s achievement, what you are going to do is you pull them
down… so, that’s one thing in a social work job, in a community organisation…”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

195
5.7.8 Faith & Fatalism

Several participants spoke of fatalism among Filipino people, sometimes connecting

to faith:

“… just a few, they just let everything… this is what God wants and I won’t do
anything.”
Mark (FPOL P 18-24 M RC)

Arlene expressed a similar view thus:

“Well, poverty in more a holistic sense… poverty of the mind, poverty of the soul,
poverty of the spirit… if you do believe in your God, who does provide and he has
given your hands, you will work, you will sweat, whereas a lot of people here tend to
just say ‘oh well, this is God’s will’ and they are fatalistic about it.”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

A similar tendency in some to ‘accept their lot’ was identified, in this case discussing
social work models and referring to some within the Muslim population:

“… the problem-solving model is applicable to any clientele system, Muslim,

Christian or Buddhist… but in terms of the crisis intervention model, you have to
modify… it’s like crisis in Islam is not a crisis… for a Muslim they say this is just a
test, this is just a test from the Lord, maybe because he just wants to teach me to be
faithful to him, that is why I am in crisis.”
Aisha (FAC P 50-59 F Muslim)

Karen, in a related point, suggested that Filipinos look to social workers for direction:

“What is self-determination… we want the client to identify the problem, you know?
So they would say… ‘if you were in my position, what would you do?’ And then the

196
farmers will say ‘look, what are you asking us really… why couldn’t you just tell us
what you want to know?’”
Karen (FAC P 60+ F RC)

5.7.9 Saving Face

As with all perceived cultural mores, there are inherent contradictions. Philippine
society and people are described as caring and optimistic and yet entrenched,
competitive, fatalistic and resenting the success of others. Filipinos also described
their culture as one in which people avoid public disagreement and value calm
interaction:

“… we are not confrontational or direct… We say yes when really we mean no…
keeping nice and friendly appearances even if it’s not true… we avoid tension, we
avoid conflicts. At work and in the family. Especially at work.”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

Pakikisama is a cultural expectation in the Philippines which means people should

be polite, try to get on well with others and avoid aggression or directness:

“… we have to say it in the manner that is acceptable… you have to beat around the
bush a little bit (laughs)… there are certain cultural protocols that you have to
observe.”
Karen (FAC P 60+ F RC)

Whilst calmness can be positive, it could lead to social workers or service users not
expressing their feelings or doing things to please others. The following participant,
speculating about working overseas on the basis of having worked in an international
NGO, raised a question that the data analysis also generated:

“For a Filipino who is trained in a culture of politeness… how do you handle clients
who are upfront, you know, blunt, frank?”
Ryan (FStudentSW P NGO 25-29 M Irreligious)

197
However, Evelyn suggested that Filipinos do speak their mind but in a polite and
respectful manner:

“We will always tell you that in a good manner… so that he will not get angry with
you and at least there will be a win-win solution.”
Evelyn (FSW P NGO 30-39 F RC)

Again, we return to this area when considering transition to England, in relation both
to service users and professional colleagues having a more direct and perhaps
assertive approach. For now, however, attention is drawn to the processes by which
culturally-acceptable ways of being are integrated with social work values and
methods, many of which emerged in the Global North. This suggests, again, that
indigenisation often happens through subtle shifts at the level of individual practice
(albeit in the context of dominant cultural expectations).

5.8 An Outsider’s Perspective

An interview was undertaken in the Philippines with two representatives of an

international NGO, both of whom were social work qualified and of North American
origin. The following exchange is included in some detail, as it offers thoughts on
Philippine culture’ through an experienced but, in some ways, detached lens:

“Resilience, hard work, capacity to overcome any kind of disaster, be it personal or

collective. Can-do spirit, enormous flexibility, tremendous creativity, throw anything
you can at them and they will stand up and rise up and overcome it…”
Bill (USSW P NGO 50-59 M C)

“And as a commodity, which the government is very cynical about, they are brave.
They take on new situations with courage and some flexibility and sensitivity and
manners…”
Wendy (USSW P NGO 60+ F C)

198
“Yeah, they will give you the last thing in their refrigerator or on their skillet, even if it
means they don’t eat… they go borrow from the neighbours even if they know they
can’t, it will take a while to pay it back… and they’re often asked to be the chair of
conferences… because they have an ability to make everybody feel welcome and
appreciated and they kind of smooth ruffled feathers”
Bill (USSW P NGO 50-59 M C)

5.9 Community & Collectivity

Workers in England spoke of missing the more collective culture of the Philippines
though were able to identify some drawbacks of this:

“I think that’s something that, you know, we miss… when you go out of your house,
everybody will say ‘Hello, Good Morning, How are you?’, just a short talk and, you
know, that connection is already there..”
Sheila (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

The same worker considered the Philippines a more ‘laid back’ place to live and
work:

“Laid back in terms of… for example, during working hours, we’re working but we
can still, you know, we have still fun... but here… if I’m working, I’m working. If I’m
doing my report, I don’t have time to, you know, chat…”
Sheila (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

However, this worker (also in England) questioned the benefits of a co-dependent

culture:

“… community help each other but the other side they’re not actually helping each
other… there’s no government that you can rely on, so you rely on the community…
so that becomes your family and… social worker would come to visit the house, old
ladies will come to… and they will butt in…”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

199
5.10 The Field of Social Work in the Philippines: Concluding
Comments

Analysis of what the data suggested about Filipino culture(s) yielded, unsurprisingly,
conflicting themes. There are expectations around behaviour and social interaction,
with institutions like family and religions taking on particular significance.
Interestingly, Filipinos saw themselves as flexible and accepting of difference,
although this is very much open to critique. This concluding section begins with
Filipinos describing themselves as culturally adaptable:

“There’s nothing strictly Filipino… we’ve a melting pot of different cultures.”

Cherry (FAC P 50-59 F C)

“… Filipinos are so, are good in acculturation… unlike Indians, you know, even in
foreign countries even, well they have all this, so they look different, turban etcetera
but Filipinos, you know, umm, we can easily adapt to different cultures. Why?
Because in the Philippines we have also indigenous subcultures, very many here… if
you can deal with the cultures, subcultures here, how much more dealing with the
global?”
Marissa (FAC P 50-59 F RC)

Another social work academic made similar suggestions:

“… maybe one reason why they can go to other countries and work… I mean, it’s
never an issue for me that people are talking different language because here, when
you take the jeepney… they speak different dialects, you know, so it’s no deal…”
Karen (FAC P 60+ F RC)

The chapter has identified themes from the data which shed light upon the field of
social work in the Philippines. As detected during the review of Philippine social
work literature, there was a tendency to see the imperial legacy as positive, though
some participants questioned this. Similarly, faith (which clearly also influences the
field of social work) was commonly seen to be a positive thing, with a minority of

200
voices questioning the potentially oppressive power of organised religion or the
related reliance upon charitable donation to fund much social welfare. As we saw,
several participants suggested that the struggle of life in the Philippines and of
supporting clients with their very difficult circumstances led to a kind of ‘professional
resilience’:

“… because of the resilience of poverty and hard work we are able to… be stronger
in terms of dealing with stress, in dealing with our employers, because there is
always a backbone there that’s supporting us.”
Marissa (FAC P 50-59 F RC)

Comments such as this leave one wondering what Philippine society and social work
think of the ‘weak’, of those unable or even unwilling to pull themselves up by their
bootstraps. The field of social work is also shaped significantly by the expectations
of the international development machinery. Though there is, in many ways, a
strong social work profession in the Philippines, it appeared mostly to have adapted
received approaches to local culture rather than developed indigenous models. The
shift to a social and community development approach did signify a shift away from
the imposed US orientation but for reasons driven significantly by the demands of aid
agencies.

Finally, the field of social work in the Philippines was also seen to reflect the culture
of the country and its people: phrases arose repeatedly which characterised Filipinos
as caring; compassionate; community-oriented; optimistic; and resilient. As we shall
see, some of these perceived traits were tested when Filipino social workers started
living and practising in England. Furthermore, whilst perceived as strengths, the
same list of characteristics and behaviours might be considered indicative of a
culture in which self-determination is sacrificed to family and community; in which
poverty reflects God’s Plan or a lack of moral fibre; and in which the poor feel the
need to be grateful for whatever support is dispensed in their direction. However
one interprets the ‘traits’ attributed by Filipino participants to themselves, what is
clear is that they shape the field of social work in the Philippines and also have a
bearing upon the habitus of individual workers. The next chapter, in looking at social

201
work motivation and identity in the Philippines, helps us to consider habitus in more
detail.

202
Chapter 6: Fieldwork Findings in the Philippines: Social
Work Motivation, Purpose and Identity

6.1 Introduction

The previous chapter identified themes shedding light on the field of social work in
the Philippines and upon practice situated within profession and international
context. This chapter concerns itself with what it is to be a social worker in the
Philippines, looking in particular at issues of motivation and identity and public
perception of the profession. It’s primary focus, therefore, is upon themes from the
data relating most directly to Research Question 2. The chapter seeks to consider
those ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ factors which impact upon professional habitus. In other
words, it asks how individual social work identities and motivations reflect social
structures, cultural expectations and understandings and the field of social work
more broadly.

6.2 Professional Identity, Status and Public Perception

This section considers messages from the data concerning the ‘macro’ identity of the
social work profession in the Philippines and factors that influence and shape this. It
addresses dominant and resistant discourses, which reflect and constitute the
interplay between the field of social welfare and the symbolic capital of various
stakeholders within that field. After this, the chapter will turn to consider social work
practice and motivation in the Philippines at the more micro or individual level, as
revealed in the data analysis. As a way into considering the ‘macro’ dimensions of
purpose and identity, the first section now looks at perspectives upon public
perception of social work in the Philippines.

203
6.2.1 Public Perception

Much was said by participants about the public image of the profession, a theme
revisited in the next chapter when considering the perspectives of Filipino workers in
England. For now, it is salient to highlight some key points raised in relation to the
popular perception and understanding of social work in the Philippines.

Several commented on the respect given more generally in the country to those who
had undergone education to gain qualifications. Thus,

“I think in Philippines education is very valuable… people, I think, respect every

profession. I mean lots of engineers, lots of nurses and social workers and it’s more
and more becoming popular.”
Tessa (FSW UK Retraining as Nurse)

One participant put a very particular interpretation on the respect accorded to

education in the Philippines:

“…the common belief is that education is at the very top and… a doorway out of
poverty. So, it’s important for parents and never mind that they get sick because
they do too much work but they have to put their kids through school, in the hope
that the children will get jobs and they will somehow pull the family up.”
Ryan (FStudentSW P NGO 25-29 M Irreligious)

However, a particular form of respect was identified with regard to those who had
qualified as social workers:

“In the Philippines, they see you as a saviour…”

Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)

“They thought you are just like a Good Samaritan or a nun…”

Ella (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

204
The following participant, also based in England, again drew religious comparisons
with the social work role but connected this to previously mentioned perceptions
about ‘dole out’. Social workers are viewed positively, even if the breadth and depth
of their roles are not fully understood:

“… we are I think in the same level as the philanthropists and the same level as the
priests… People say ‘oh, you’re a social worker, that means you’re a good man’.
So, basically, you’re helping people but when you say helping people, you’re giving
dole out. You’re not helping people because you’re doing care planning, they’re not
seeing that a social worker is based in the hospital doing assessments as well of
their needs… So, that’s basically the stigma but, you know, not a big part of what we
call, I would say, social change, that we are an agent of change…”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

So, this participant felt the public perhaps saw social workers as helping at times of
crisis but not seeking longer term change. It is notable, however, that social change
was defined in terms of individual growth rather than anything more societal or
collective. This social worker in a policy-planning role agreed that public
understanding remained narrow:

“I think there’s still a need… to inform people about social work, more intense
information dissemination… because social work is sometimes seen as helping, as
giving dole outs, just limited to that. And there are people who I talk to saying that
social work is related to cleaning canals.”
Mark (FPOL P 18-24 M RC)

So, there was unease about social work being seen as purely practical. This
suggests much about the desire for symbolic capital or professional recognition, for
an appreciation of the ‘added value’ a social worker can contribute. It is striking that
the very thing workers find almost professionally demeaning is that aspect of their
real or perceived practice that appears to make them popular. In some instances,
the reluctance to engage in ‘dole out’ might be interpreted as blaming the poor for
their circumstances or for their ‘unwillingness’ to claw their way out of poverty
(echoing debates about the deserving and undeserving poor):

205
“… social worker will teach you how to be socially functional… how to be productive,
how to learn, how to be the source of your family if you are the sole provider… We
want that way that people see us not professionals who give things and then get
out… If you need something, you go to the social worker. Now it’s different.”
Michael (FSW P NGO 30-39 M C)

As we saw earlier, social workers in the Philippines were increasingly involved in

implementing programmes offering financial benefits in return for behavioural change
(conditional cash transfer). The following participant expressed doubts about such
policies, though not because of their coercive or non-universal nature. She suggests
that the ‘respect’ given to social workers might only be offered in anticipation of
receiving something:

“… you introduce yourself as a social worker, they will always expect something to
be given to them… to me, I mean, maybe it’s not that good, no? Because you will
always be expecting that if you do something for somebody, you will have something
in return.”
Teresa (FAC P 60+ F RC)

This worker suggests ‘respect’ is grounded in professional power over access to

resources. Respect is undoubtedly a problematic dynamic in professional
relationships:

“… the majority of people here in the Philippines are poor and they look at social
workers as somebody who could help them, so that’s why they usually say thank you
and they appreciate those social workers.”
Grace (FSW P PRIV 25-29 F RC)

The connection between poverty and compliance was raised also by this academic:

“Because the clients are poor, they cannot demand… most of them are very
compliant really because of respect for persons in authority.”
Karen (FAC P 60+ F RC)

206
The following participant developed this notion of respect being closely linked to
power relations:

“Philippines is, it is more respectful like, you know, they say Ma’am or Sir… they’re
quite deferential, they would even feel that you’re doing them a favour when, in fact,
you know, if you’re a government social worker, it’s your job… or, if I work in an
NGO… a client would feel that ‘oh we’re so privileged, we’re so blessed that you are
here... we are very grateful. I would be embarrassed to ask of something but I am
desperate, so please this is what I need.’”
Ryan (FStudentSW P NGO 25-29 M Irreligious)

‘Michael’, whose arguably functionalist perspective was described earlier, went on,
however, to highlight another reason why the Filipino people valued and respected
social workers. This was their ordinariness and visibility within local communities:

“They really respect social workers here because they know [they] don’t have
enough salary… social workers are the one who fight for the rights, even though
overtime they were not paid… and usually social worker here they don’t wear classy
shirts… you will not be afraid to come near to the social worker because she was
wearing tuxedo…”
Michael (FSW P NGO 30-39 M C)

The majority of Filipino workers conveyed a sense of being valued and those based
in England talked about not being respected:

“That’s why it’s different there than here. They show respect to social workers, they
even call you Mum when you see them. It’s more fulfilling in the Philippines...”
Ella (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

The notion of feeling appreciated in one’s role troubled the researcher whilst in the
Philippines and appears in the research journal thus: ‘What is wrong with being
thanked or feeling valued by service users?’ In much of the Global North, the social
work habitus is one in which professionals are paid to provide a service and should

207
not expect service users to be grateful. It may be that such boundaries contribute to
dehumanised forms of practice.

This academic felt that public appreciation of the breadth of social work roles was
increasing:

“… because of this reporting in the media, about a child being abused, a raped child,
a victim of incest… they see the importance of the social work profession because
these are the people that we have to go to… When we are poor, they are the one
helping us. So it’s being promoted…”
Aisha (FAC P 50-59 F Muslim)

Though the above participant did, in common with most in the Philippines, portray
social work as supporting the poor, she suggests that its profile was improving as it
becomes more involved in one-to-one practice and even in those forms of social
work which might be described as safeguarding or protection. This may, of course,
be the area of practice on which the media are more likely to focus. Stories which, at
best, might be considered ‘human interest’ or, at worst, sensationalist, may be more
attractive to television and newspapers than, say, community organising or
groupwork. Alternatively, one could argue that such ‘specialist’ practice
demonstrates that social work is much more than a ‘dole out’ activity. It is also worth
noting that safeguarding and protection are often characterised in the UK, at least,
as those aspects of social work which most alienate service users and shape a poor
public image.

A Filipino worker in England drew interesting conclusions about the connections

between the nature of intervention and relationship with service users and the wider
public perception:

“In the Philippines, you deal with families… but here you don’t have that… if it’s a
mental health issue, then you have the… mental health social worker… it’s very, how
do you call it, compartmentalised… I like this model but then I find it difficult as well
because your role is not, is not seen as, as a helping person… your role is like
managing the case… in the Philippines it’s different because you are there, you help

208
them, you talk to them, you go to this, you take them there… here, you become, you
are managing the case and, umm, tapping all these resources… every time they ask
after we did assessment, did your social worker help you? And they said no
because they will not see your role clearly, because they don’t know that when I ask
somebody to help them, that’s my role, that I’m helping them…”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

Many spoke about the phenomenon of ‘Filipino Workers Overseas’ and the
associated ‘brain drain’. One worker in England spoke of the dangers of moving
away from home and, despite best intentions, not returning to share the things
learned overseas practice:

“They… will go blind, basically, and crippled of the opportunity here and that would
leave my country… brain dead because of, of not getting a new breed of well
experienced social workers who had explored the other elements of social work
outside the Philippines.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

The same worker felt, ironically, that public perception of the profession and the
esteem in which it was held in the Philippines grew if it was considered ‘marketable’
overseas:

“It will give the Filipino public, erm, the same impression that they have about the
nurses… engineers… young Filipino that will go to this profession as their first
choice, rather than, what happened to me, as an accident.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

The notion of public perception is discussed again in the next chapter, where
practice in England brought the matter into clearer focus. This section closes with a
Filipino worker making a more pragmatic point, equally applicable to social work
internationally, that it is a relatively ‘young’ profession and has not had time to
establish fuller understanding:

209
“Ok, can I add why we are not famous? Actually, we are not that old, compared to
their profession.”
Mary (FSW P GOV 40-49 F RC)

We have seen, therefore, that notions of respect and of being akin to a ‘saviour’ or
‘mother’ permeate public perceptions of social workers. This appears, in part at least,
to reflect both the dominance of faith within the Philippines and the reliance of an
often-compliant and dependent poor upon aid and practical relief. This is discussed
further in the next section.

6.2.2 On Belonging to a Profession

It is acknowledged that the snowball approach to sampling meant that those workers
accessed in the Philippines were probably especially active in their profession.
Nonetheless, there was evidence of a strong sense of professional community. A
participant in England said:

“Yes, yes, we celebrate it… we have conventions where… it’s the time for social
workers to really meet up. It’s like a socialisation opportunity for social workers.”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

The ‘dole out’ issue arose frequently in relation to the status of social work in the
Philippines:

“… it’s not a profession. It’s something that, you know, people who are nice and kind
who offer rice and sardines… in a calamity. That is social work in the Philippines, it
comes from, you know, humanitarian work.”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

Many spoke of the need to move beyond this perception in order to ‘be’ a profession:

“… they see social workers as just somebody who gives relief goods but now the
association is more aggressive in trying to tell the people that we are professionals…

210
we have a licence, we studied for it, we know what we’re doing… and we’re not just
basically like a philanthropist who gives out money.”
Mary (FSW P GOV 40-49 F RC)

It is interesting, in this context, that workers in the Philippines spoke often of feeling
‘valued’ and, again, attributed this to being a ‘gateway’ to resources:

“The public… give a high regard to social workers. They are like teachers, they are
like nurses … because they’re looking for a social worker when the patient are about
to discharge… they know that the social workers are in school because they are
looking for a scholarship programme… and they know that the social worker are
women who are offering assistance like in disaster…”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

Popular perception and expectations of social workers clearly, therefore, formed part
of a process of shaping professional sense of self. Social workers had considerable
power over access to resources and, in a context both of absolute poverty and
cultural expectations of calm interaction, this power appears to manifest itself in
relations interpreted as grateful and respectful but which could equally be
characterised as dependent and oppressive. Before examining some of the impact
that dominant social structures, such as family and religion, appeared to have upon
the motivations and identities of individual workers, we return to some of the debates
around the orientation and purpose of social work, as manifested in the data
gathered from Filipinos about practice in their country. In doing this, we look first at
the relationship of social work to direct ‘help’, returning initially to the debate about
‘dole out’.

6.3 Purpose and Orientation of Practice

It is, perhaps, unsurprising that social workers (in this case, a Filipino worker in
England) often saw their ‘mission’ as being to make a difference and acknowledged
the satisfaction this can bring to the social worker:

211
“Probably, for me personally, it’s a personal reward. You’re helping people, making
a difference, if I make a difference to their lives.”

Angel (FSW UK 40-49 F)

6.3.1 To Dole-Out or Not to Dole-Out?

A near-universal message when talking with social workers, policy makers and
academics in the Philippines was that of social work striving to be seen as more than
just ‘dole out’. This was motivated primarily by a wish to be taken more seriously as
a profession with specialist contributions to offer (but also, for some, a desire to
empower rather than perpetuate dependency). This – though in a context
sometimes of providing rice and blankets rather than ‘dole’ as this is now understood
in the UK – highlights the importance for social work identity of the “relationship
between the income maintenance system and the functions of social services
departments” or between ‘cash’ and ‘care’ (Dowling, 1999, p5). For Bourdieu, this
could be conceptualised as a drive to accumulate symbolic capital. A worker in the
Philippines said:

“… it’s more on trying to help other people in a very professional way and a more
systematic way and… empowering them… trying to let them recognise what skills
they have so they can utilise it with their day to day life and not just trying to, like,
spoon feeding them…”
Joan (FSW P PRIV 30-39 F RC)

Another social worker in the Philippines was typical of all participants there in
observing that:

“The primary premise of the work in a developing country is basically on poverty

reduction… DSWD and other social workers at the local government units and most
of the NGOs here are focused on poverty reduction.”
Joel (FPOL P 30-39 M RC)

212
However, this worker (who believed strongly in the need for specialist skills and
knowledge) saw the focus on poverty alone as problematic, suggesting it restricts the
vision of social work and leaves it unable to respond to specific need:

“… Are the social workers prepared to respond to the issue of increasing numbers of
degenerative diseases like dementia… are we ready enough to respond to the issue
of child abuse...? … if your thinking is quite limited, that your profession is just there
to provide this cash assistance… and provide this immediate assistance, we have
been conditioned that the services is basically to augment the needs of the clients
especially in working in anti-poverty…”
Joel (FPOL P 30-39 M RC)

So, the field of Philippine social work (and the professional habitus it generates) was
seen as restricted and unsophisticated. The international focus on development
underpins much of this field and habitus. Interviews with social workers in private
and state hospitals shed light upon this dilemma. Both of the following workers
described a typical day as involving counseling, support to other professionals
around patient issues and working with patients and their families/communities to
arrange financial and practical support. In many ways, these dimensions of practice
would be familiar to a hospital social worker in England. However, the directness of
the relationship with patients and families around financial support would be much
less familiar:

“… I usually do my rounds, visit them in their rooms and make a follow up on what
happened… if they were already able to talk with anybody who could possibly help
them out and then… I give out the referral letters, the letters that they need to ask for
assistance [from] the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office… And most of the time I
end up doing counseling… they’re asking for medical assistance to cover for the
hospital payment but at the same time they’re having emotional problems…”
Joan (FSW P PRIV 30-39 F RC)

Meanwhile, this participant (working for a foundation in a private hospital) also

acknowledged the significant role of seeking financial support but added that:

213
“It’s very usual for us to, if we have a problem, to go to our relatives who have more
income… The doctor would advise them to undergo such procedure and then the
patient would express that he has not enough resources… so the doctor then would
refer it to the foundation… they need assistance like how do they get there or how
they approach that NGO… and then at the same time among family members…”
Grace (FSW P PRIV 25-29 F RC)

Here, a worker in England commented on ‘going beyond dole-out’ as follows, making

links to perceived processes of empowerment:

“Social work is not just… giving dole-out. It’s like a scientific method of helping
people… you need to make a robust assessment and then from the assessment you
need to do a care plan… from there you need to look at what services…and then
how can you know… that you achieve the outcome, there are some changes within
the family… It’s more of also empowering the parent… you’re still aiming that you
can leave them on their own... that they would be able to survive as a family with
minimal support...”
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

There was evidence, therefore, of struggles within the field of Philippine social work
around orientation and approach, which relate directly to the discussions about a
typology for practice in Chapter 2 but which, importantly, shape the individual habitus
and professional sense of self. Despite understandable reservations about social
work being equated with ‘dole out’, having visible connections to tangible forms of
support can be a positive thing for social work. Though one might feel
uncomfortable with the reliance upon informal or charitable support, social work is
engaged in direct ‘anti-poverty’ strategies. Yet, as we have heard, the profession in
the Philippines wanted to be – and seen to be – much more than ‘dole out’
operatives. As Jordan and Drakeford (2012, p167) put it:

“Part of the answer seems to lie in social work’s quest for recognition as a
profession. It has been more anxious to establish its credentials as an exclusive
expertise in solving specific problems or ameliorating specific conflicts, rather than

214
allowing itself to become associated with movements for social change, or with
developments in society at large.”

In the Philippines, some social workers are very involved in macro forms of practice
and it may be that continued links with direct forms of welfare are part of a picture of
positive public recognition and a clearer anti-poverty stance.

6.3.2 Orientation and Approach to Practice

Participants revealed a good deal about their own orientations to practice (for
example, as community or individualised endeavours) and how this reflected or
clashed with the orientations of agencies for whom they worked. For this academic,
the emphasis on community as social work orientation was a pragmatic response to
the scale of difficulties and limited resources:

“The problem is so enormous and if we do it on a one-to-one, it’s very expensive, so

it is always community approach, and that’s the difference between the Philippines
and United States, because they are more clinical one-to-one and in the Philippines
it’s more on the, you know, bigger approach.”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

6.3.2.1 Power & Politics

One participant, who characterised himself as atypical, suggested that, in the

Philippines, social work had two streams:

“One stream is very much political taking into account, you know the history of a
colony… resistance to oppression… so that’s bred a kind of social work that is very
political and sometimes polemic… this is… most evident rather at the community
level… I think in the early seventies or eighties there was a split between the more
macro and community oriented social workers and the social workers who were
more, I guess clinical or, umm, you know, care oriented… Community development,

215
at its core, really is social work, you know, the kind of social work that works with
communities, with groups, you know not just individuals... all that advocacy, you
know, speaking to power… challenging the status quo and on the other hand there is
the mainstream social workers, largely like a mirror of American social work.”
Ryan (FStudentSW P NGO 25-29 M Irreligious)

This quote raises a number of points: the rare use of language of power and making
of critical connections with history; the linking of community with radical and
casework with the status quo (in turn, identified as part of the American legacy); and
the casting of advocacy not in terms of individualised support but as a process of
questioning the way things are and championing the rights of oppressed groups.

A social worker in England had worked for an NGO engaging with poor communities
(fishermen, farmers and squatters) in the Philippines whose aims and objectives he
described as overtly anti-oppressive, indeed radical, stating that the organisation:

“…promoted anti-oppressive… training I would say. We called it training for

information dissemination to marginalised people.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

However, for Jay, the tactics employed by the organisation (funded by international
development monies and overseas charitable donations) were uncomfortable:

“… it was quite sensational because they’re more a political base, they wanted
always to be on TV… I wasn’t happy because every now and then I think I felt like,
you know, these people are just being used… They were teaching these people to
rebel against the government rather than persuading them that this is what we need
to do to uplift your livelihood.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

So, Jay (who described himself as “politically inclined”) did not find his role in
facilitating activist mobilisation a meaningful one:

216
“My job was basically a secretary. We’re going to meet up, we’re doing this, we’re
doing that.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

The above example demonstrates where one orientation or approach within the
social work field ‘clashes’ with the value base and habitus of an individual worker.
Where social work efforts are directed to conscientisation and direct action,
dilemmas arise for workers (and service users) who do not see or agree with those
aims. Having said that, social work in all forms is inherently political: the nature of
possibilities (Payne, 2014) is shaped by those with greater access to economic,
cultural and symbolic capital. One worker in the Philippines led the researcher to
question a developing ‘rose-tinted’ impression of a politically engaged and critical
form of social work:

“I actually would like it to be a lot more progressive and a lot more aggressive. It’s
not quite like that, it’s very placid. A lot of our social workers… they can be vocal but
when they go to the practice they can be placid… because there’s a lot more threat
to us in terms of the politics of things, you can be removed from office by the mayor,
so you’re defined by who the mayor is, by their agenda…”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

It is certainly the case that, since devolution, there is a much more direct link
between social workers in the Philippines and local politicians, which places
particular pressures on workers and has serious implications for those they seek to
empower (Yu, 2013). This brings us to the notion of ‘empowerment’, a term which
can be interpreted in many ways and was cited many participants.

6.3.2.2 Empowerment as Individualised or Collective?

Participants in the Philippines tended to define empowerment in collective terms,

whereas those in England described it more as a one-to-one process. So, for Nina
(UK-based):

217
“I think what’s the purpose of social work, that’s the first thing that came into my mind
is empowerment… try to empower people to do something to make their life better or
to make the situation, to change their situation and what makes it difficult….”
Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)

Thus, to empower means to promote self-sufficiency, help people to help themselves

or create responsibility (things which are also valued and encouraged by some
manifestations of religious faith). Another worker in England commented that:

“It’s supposed to be helping an individual to become… self-protective? So they can

reach the level of their full potential with the help of the social work skills… I think
that’s what social worker is because when they, at the time, feel weak, maybe low
self-esteem, maybe in crisis financially, emotionally or whatever… I think a social
worker is there to help them.”
Ella (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

By contrast, participants in the Philippines, aligned empowerment more with

community:

“Considering the culture here in the Philippines, I think the principle of organising is,
will remain the, let the people decide and start where they are but don’t end where
they are.”
Janice (FSW P NGO 30-39 F RC)

Similarly, an academic commented as follows:

“Empowering strategies also like… not just focusing on addressing the material
needs but they have to ensure that… they will be able to articulate their needs...
what the social work students did was not just link them up to the resources, they
told them… the larger government, not just the Barangay has a resource but you
have to request for it and you have to do it, we’re not going to do it for you. So the
group of mothers, they went... really making people empowered to manage their
lives eventually when you leave…”
Hope (FAC P 60+ F RC)

218
This policy maker was clear what social work in her country was:

“It’s still focused on enhancing the social functioning of the individual in the family, in
the group, in the community. Empowering them, because we are dealing with, we
are dealing with poverty, we are dealing with hunger, for us in social work when you
look at what we are doing, it’s really empowering the poor.”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

Social workers may well, therefore, allude to transferable values and approaches,
notably ‘empowering practice’ but appear (Lee-Mendoza, 2008) to place significantly
different meanings upon such terms. National and professional cultures will, of
course, influence such interpretations and attempts to define social work
internationally (though it is important that they take place) can only hope to set some
sort of parameters. By considering the meanings attributed to a term such as
empowerment, we begin to see how habitus appears to be influenced by ‘space’
(Huegler, Lyons and Pawar, 2012).

6.3.2.3 Empowerment as Maintenance or Social Functioning

Although therefore seen in the Philippines as operating at the community level, there
was only occasional evidence of critical notions of empowerment, with most
participants seeing it as the promotion of better functioning – individually or
collectively - in society. This participant made a connection to Biblical teaching:

“In a way, we can teach you how to do it but we will not teach you how to get
something from us, like, umm, like in the Bible says teach the people how to fish,
don’t give them fish, right?”
Michael (FSW P NGO 30-39 M C)

As has been seen, Philippine social work shifted predominantly towards a social
development mode over time and yet workers often used the language of ‘social

219
functioning’, or what Davies (1994) refers to as ‘maintenance’. A worker in England
said:

“I believe the social work’s role is to restore the social functioning of an individual,
family and the community.”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

6.3.2.4 Promoting Dignity

Many participants saw social work as valuing human dignity and bringing this belief
into practice. This academic said:

“… we believe that people, persons have worth and dignity … I tell my students, if
you cannot believe that, you cannot be a social worker, you can, you can, pack your
things and say goodbye to social work because that’s where we’re coming from and
it’s a lifetime struggle. It is very difficult, you just have to see that this person you do
not like has worth and dignity…”
Karen (FAC P 60+ F RC)

Similarly, for this participant in the Philippines,

“It’s a person and when I start off with that statement it allows me to explain to other
people that this is why social work is a contribution to society… you know, you can
have progress, you can have wealth or prosperity, but not at the cost of human
dignity.”
Ryan (FStudentSW P NGO 25-29 M Irreligious)

6.3.2.5 On Being Critical

This section concludes with the thoughts of a social work student (also working with
and international NGO) in the Philippines:

220
“… I’m becoming more of a generalist but I tend to be more on the political side… I
think the core mission of social work is really to change the status quo… A status
quo could be an individual status quo for a person, a person experiencing a
particular problem, or a family or a group or a community but ultimately there’s the
status quo that has to be changed… If people are hungry, feed them, but again the
bigger question is why did they get hungry in the first place?”
Ryan (FStudentSW P NGO 25-29 M Irreligious)

When asked what was common to different modes of intervention, Ryan said:

“You help them to turn their situation around but it’s them that actually do it. We’re
just facilitating that change… social workers, we can’t all be the same. We can’t all
be doing casework, we can’t all be doing macro advocacy or, you know, we can’t all
be radical social workers but I think, you know, really down that continuum… it
depends on where you are as a person, what your strengths are, your competencies,
so there are social workers who are really excellent at doing casework and they
should continue to do that. They make a difference in the lives of people on an
individual basis and that’s important… the beauty of the profession is this diversity,
different points of intervention…”
Ryan (FStudentSW P NGO 25-29 M Irreligious)

Of course, qualitative research such as this is ultimately working with the

perspectives of different people. In any country, one could interview individuals who
identify more with Payne’s (2014) ‘social change’ orientation and others who might
be defined as ‘problem-solving’. The above section has included such disparate
voices, which, for this thesis, represent struggles for credence (or for symbolic
power) within the field of social work in the Philippines and within international
debates around defining social work purpose.

6.3.3 Dilemmas in Practice

It became apparent during data analysis that perceived ethical dilemmas can tell us
a good deal about orientation and approach to practice. Social workers in the

221
Philippines discussed the omnipresent issue of achieving a balance between self-
determination and protection or care. This participant gives an example that
illustrates also the impact of faith upon a profession seeking to empower and be non-
judgmental:

“I think respecting the rights even to the detriment of that person sometimes is a real
dilemma… especially when we are faith based… You know it’s detrimental but it is
their right to decide for themselves. Umm, a woman getting pregnant out of wedlock,
you know it’s not going to be good and you know that the child can be better off
maybe adopted but can you force her to adopt? That’s a dilemma in a lot of ways.”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

The notion of working within and against systems, and of using professional
authority, was raised by several participants:

“… the bureaucracy of going to this person, to this person, to this person kind of has
an impact, as well as how you are working as an advocate… you have to fight the
system… the doctor would rather probably recognise to meet with you as a social
worker… rather than someone who is from the community. So obviously your
profession has a value in that point… so, if I go and make a consultation with the
mayor, I also need more support from my office, more people, more pressure…that’s
our strategy… the more we pressure them and the more they get embarrassed… a
lot of street demonstration which is a lot in the news.”
Tessa (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

This worker, therefore, conceptualised her authority individually and in terms of

collective strength. The power of local politicians, within the context of devolution of
DSWD responsibilities to local units, was acknowledged at a high level in the
Department:

“… it all depends now on what kind of relationship the mayor has established with
the social workers and also because the head of that unit, the law doesn’t say that

222
this person must be a social worker until recently, some mayors have designated a
non-social worker in that position.”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

Importantly, therefore, direct political influence plays an important part in Philippine

social work. Another person engaged in policy planning put it as follows:

“some of the social workers that we, whom we talked to, said that they have to…
advocate and explain the necessity of giving these social services to the people but
sometimes local chief executives have other priorities.”
Mark (FPOL P 18-24 M RC)

Part of the discussion above related to location within government or non-

governmental settings, both of which were seen to offer potentials and limitations.
The following two quotations concern NGOs:

“… you can do things faster when you are working with an NGO. Okay? The scope
was small… very focused, okay, but you can go deep and you can do things fast.”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

“The main concern is the sustainability of the organisation, the sustainability of the
leaders, the sustainability of the volunteers.”
Janice (FSW P NGO 30-39 F RC)

Though this was partly attributed to the fact that the ‘leaders’ and ‘volunteers’ were
older people, where frailty and illness could become an issue, this participant was
also talking about the need, as a key part of her social work role, to motivate and
support others. The relationship of social work to leadership is an interesting one. In
the Philippines, social workers are typically employed to lead projects within NGOs,
sometimes collaboratively with service users themselves. Meanwhile, in the
statutory sector, social workers often supervise and oversee the implementation of
staff by ‘para professionals’:

223
“… you’ve got your day carers under you, you’ve got your youth workers… how to
make policy activated at the client level is always a challenge on the public sector.
So, as a social worker, I think you are the key person…”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

The demarcation between statutory and non-statutory provision would appear less
clear in the Philippines than in, say, the UK. Notes in the research journal from a
visit to a state hospital record my shock at the day-to-day realities and practices
within the social work team (SWT) in meeting the needs of individual patients:

“Donors included private individuals and agencies. Some donors provided an

amount of money which SWT could allocate without consulting them… Other donors
would come regularly to the hospital and meet with the team, to hear about cases
and decide whether to fund. Where funds were made available, this was often for
medicines, which would be purchased and usually presented directly by the donor to
the patient/family. The SWT as a whole receives some government funding but
relies also on charity, such as the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and also on
individual donations from politicians, senators’ wives and so on. Certain items might
be sponsored by individual politicians, such as ambulances bearing the name and
picture of a particular politician.”
Notes from Visit to State Hospital (Research Journal)

The chapter so far has considered ‘macro’ factors such as public perception and
competing perspectives on social work orientation (within the international and local
fields of welfare, social development and social work), as revealed in comments of
individual workers upon their own identity and purpose and that of the agencies for
whom they worked. This draws our attention to the interplay between the field of
social work and habitus, collective and individual. The chapter now turns to look at
findings on motivation for social work which, again, speaks of habitus and the
influences upon it.

224
6.4 Individual Motivation for Social Work

Participants were asked about their decision to train as a social worker and also their
ongoing motivation for the role. For many, social work was not something they
chose actively: participants spoke of not knowing what social work entailed and
‘falling into it by accident’, of social work being one of few options available. Some
qualified as social workers because of family expectation or tradition, whilst others
did so despite the resistance of family. Personal exposure to positive (and negative)
practice was also cited as a reason for entering the profession. One can also
identify participants for whom social work was (or rapidly became) a positive choice,
in many cases linked to faith or ‘calling’. This section considers responses made by
Filipino workers about their initial and developing motivation, which resonate with the
previously-mentioned work of Fargion (2001) around, for some, pragmatic motivation
evolving into a ‘love’ for the profession and, for others, faith as prime motivator
(Gilligan and Furness, 2006).

6.4.1 Entering the Profession ‘by Accident’

A common theme in the Philippines was a sense that, for many, entering the field
was not an ambition or even a considered choice. Subsequent analysis uncovered a
more complex range of motivating factors, as we shall see. However, this section
begins with examples of those expressing ambivalence about entering the
profession:

“… by accident really… I’m taking a Bachelor Degree in Management. So when we

were… on our second year, they offered a hybrid course which they called Bachelor
of Science in Management and Social Work.”
Angel (FSW UK 40-49 F)

“I wanted to study computer science… it was quite difficult for me… I went to social
work and I found out that most people in the class are also from other courses… I
did hear that it’s kind of a dumping course…”
Tessa (FSW Re-Training as Nurse in UK]

225
“I said, I’ll try social work because, if I don’t like it, I can try something else.”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

“Actually, I have no idea on what course I am going to enrol… I took up the course
without knowing what’s this all about…”
Mary (FSW P GOV 40-49 F RC)

Moving on to consider further dimensions of motivation, there was a very noticeable

connection to dominant social structures (in particular, economic factors, family and
community and religion). This first section considers economic or financial
motivators.

6.4.2 Economy

Thus, for a good number of participants, there was no burning desire to become
social workers. As one would expect, the hope of gaining paid employment was a
motivation for some:

“… in the Philippines, if you’re going to take a course you need to think that you’re
going to have a job… Although by nature already I am people oriented.”
Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)

For this participant, who was set on a medical career, the decision to enter social
work was pragmatic and based upon an intention to gain a scholarship and then
switch courses after one year:

“… I just said, you know, even to the Chairperson, can I just have a stepping stone…
It’s a full scholarship… so, it’s really an opportunity to get into that university… it’s
going to be a big help for my family.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

226
However, financial remuneration (or ‘economic capital’) was not mostly cited as the
primary reason for entering the social work profession:

“We are probably one of the lowest paid professionals in the country… together with
teachers… but some people are just in love with the profession, you see.”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

A second social structure cited as part of the patchwork of motivations for social
work identified by participants was that of family, which is considered in the next
section.

6.4.3 Family & Community

Here, participants indicate a positive orientation towards social work, beginning with
the one person who simply felt that social work was ‘right for them’:

“I was already active… getting involved with community development… as a

teenager I already started offering advice or listening… and eventually, when I went
to college, honestly I don’t know that there’s a social work course… but… when I
read the curriculum and everything and that’s how, you know.”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

For some, the decision to become social workers was in part due to positive role
models:

“… we have a neighbour who is a social worker and she’s working in the court and
… because I would often see her with some young people … so, I said oh I want a
job, you know, helping young people.”
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

“I am a student of social work… in addition, I’m… working in a social welfare agency,

specifically a humanitarian organisation… many of our key management people and
key staff who are working with clients and users are social workers. So there are

227
lots of social workers in the agency and honestly most of them convinced me to take
up social work.”
Ryan (FStudentSW P NGO 25-29 M Irreligious)

This participant saw the social and political circumstances around her as a primary
motivation:

“I was inspired to take up social work because of the social problems during the time.
There was war… I graduated in 1972. This was the birth of martial law… on my
second year… there was armed conflict… so we were sent there… this was our
deciding factor… for us to make some decisions whether to take social work… I went
there and then it’s just one week after the bombing of the island, of the place where
a lot of Muslims were victims, some died, properties lost, you know… so I stayed
there for a month as a practicum...”
Aisha (FAC P 50-59 F Muslim)

For this participant, a key motivation was to ‘do better’ than some of those social
workers of whom he had personal experience as a service user when younger:

“…I realised that when I was a child… the first social worker I met sent me back to
my uncle, I told myself… that when I grow up I want to be a social worker and I will
not send the children to go back to hell.”
Michael (FSW P NGO 30-39 M C)

For others, studying social work was something their parents wanted, either for
financial reasons or because they considered it a worthwhile and ethical profession:

“I want to be a lawyer but my parents told me, no, we don’t have enough money…”
Janice (FSW P NGO 30-39 F RC)

In some cases, parents urged their children to become social workers:

“I grew up with my grandmother, so she chose that course for me to take. I wanted
to take another, a computer programmer. At that time I just said ok I’ll do this and,

228
after I finish, I’ll do another course of my choice. I don’t want her to be heartbroken…
because in my family we have generations of social workers.”
Ella (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

Here, a participant speaks of her mother’s own struggle against poverty and her
father’s work in the area of social justice as influencing her decision to train:

“… my mother was the inspiration. She was grade five and my father was very well
educated but then… because he became disabled we lost our business and so we
became poor… My dad was a defender of the tenants of the land so… it’s not a new
thing to actually help because I’ve grown up seeing tenants come to our house to get
free legal advice from my dad and that sort of thing and my mum comes from a very
poor background, she was orphaned at three.”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

Likewise, this person was very influenced by a parent, despite wanting to go into
nursing:

“It’s my mother’s idea. She’s one of the… members of a women’s organisation in

our locality, an organisation helping women, those who have low income. So I am
accompanying with my mother… and then my mother asked ‘what do you want in
college?’ and I said ‘Mother, I want to take nursing’. ‘Oh, you should not take that,
you should take social work...”
Leah (FSW P GOV 30-39 F RC)

Here, a parent wanted their child to become a social worker to ‘give something back’:

“… my dad died when I was young and… every time I asked my mum ‘What do I
want to do? … my mum had a very significant experience with a social worker at the
hospital when my dad has a cancer… she said it would be good to just give it back,
because my dad died, to give it back to people who need some, some help.”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

229
Here, the worldview and activities of parents were influential, although they did not
want her to become a social worker:

“… my father is a lawyer and then my mother is a midwife, rural midwife… the

community people approach them and seek for assistance… I wanted… a
profession that only helps… At first, my parent doesn’t want me to become a social
worker… because it’s too risky. They see that social workers go to the slum areas,
yes, and… they go to rallies… so they said…we don’t want to finance your
education… I enrolled and I took up a scholarship…”
Grace (FSW P PRIV 25-29 F RC)

The extent to which ‘family’ arose when discussing motivation for social work is
telling in itself, in a culture where families have such significant influence. It is
suggested that this is not only about the influence of individual families but also
about the emphasis placed upon family within Philippine culture and by governments
dependent on family and community to meet social needs. The place of family
cannot be understood, of course, in isolation from the doctrines promoted by
dominant religions in the Philippines.

6.4.4 Religion and Faith

A final theme around becoming a social worker was that of faith. Given the extent to
which this arose as a dominant theme in the data, this section will explore the area,
beginning with faith as motivation. Faith was, for this worker, a core dimension of
practice and of the NGO she set up. She linked faith to a strengths-based model for
social work:

“… because we’re faith based I’m developing a redemptive model of helping people
and that’s starting from seeing them as victorious people rather than defeated people
and that’s a bit of a different thing sometimes as seeing them as clients.”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

Here, social work was an alternative route to follow a religious calling:

230
“I’d been wanting to go to… a religious organisation, so I said I can still serve without
going to that road… so probably that’s my ultimate purpose…”
Angel (FSW UK 40-49 F)

Jay also spoke of vocation:

“… I started using the word ‘God’s Plan’ every time I was asked why you were in the
social work field because it is my calling … I don’t know what was my course on the
first day… it’s like something that came into my life that I’ve learnt to love…”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

This participant had a similar motivation:

“Personally, I enrolled in social work because of my faith.”

Mark (FPOL P 18-24 M RC)

There was no doubt that faith was a key motivating factor for most participants. The
section now considers what the data said around faith and religion more generally.
The majority of Filipinos identify as Christian and most as Roman Catholic. There
are significant numbers of Muslims, particularly in the southern islands. All
participants said they were Christian (predominantly Roman Catholic), apart from
one who was Muslim and one who described himself as ‘irreligious’. As we have
seen, religion is a core aspect of Philippine culture and many saw their faith as an
ongoing motivation for practice:

“… the fact that… I have this religious upbringing, is there and you cannot set aside
about fate, about God’s plan… So I was growing up thinking that sometimes you are
not the one who is manoeuvring your life. There is always someone up there, a
supreme being or a God basically leading your way.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

This worker explained how faith was central to her practice:

231
“In helping you are walking, going to paradise, in God… our priests, so they teach us
or they are helping me to be more effective and be more responsive to people. So it
guides me to do what God wants me to do… in the Bible there are lots of readings
that where God helped different… the blind, the poor, the disabled...”
Leah (FSW P GOV 30-39 F RC)

When asked if most of her colleagues would respond similarly, however, Leah said:

“Oh no, they’re not… I don’t know because of their religion or their training but… they
help people maybe in different ways.”
Leah (FSW P GOV 30-39 F RC)

Finally, this participant reflected on the importance of faith to service users:

“… in doing our helping process the spiritual aspect is also included like what we did
in our youth, in our street children. We basically teach them the values, they’re…
learning how to call God in times of crisis, so that they may know the right and
wrong… how to follow their parents, how to follow the rule of God so that they may
be a good person. Yes and also that in crisis, one of our, maybe many of our clients
are losing their faith because of their problem and we try to let them back the faith…”
Leah (FSW P GOV 30-39 F RC)

This academic questioned the meaning of faith in a society that inflicts and condones
such inequality and the role played by faith-based colleges:

“… how many Catholic and Christian schools are there? And we teach, you know,
about being fair, about loving our… if all those rich people would just, you know, get
rid of their 5 extra houses… These are excesses, you know… most of the
businesses here… what they do is… hire so for five months only and then you cut…
and so they don’t pay… what is required by law… why don’t they pay these people
fairly so that we lessen poverty and the, who are the managers, the exec, the CEOs
there, they’re graduates of Ateneo, that is the Jesuits, no? The Society of Jesus, the

232
priests, La Salle, the La Salle brothers… there are so many schools but where are
the values of the people?”
Karen (FAC P 60+ F RC)

A worker tellingly based in England reflected upon the acceptability of ‘overt’

reference to religious practice within social work:

“In my country, if they have a problem, why don’t you pray? … You can’t do it
here… it’s a no-no… although I did it once when a person was really, really down
and she had no hopes at all this mum and I said maybe it’s time for you to pray? I
did it once but I was scared to do that at the time.”
Ella (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

The data analysis pointed, therefore, to intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for entering
social work, which included pragmatic and economic reasons along with vocation in
its truest sense. The influence of dominant social structures, such as economy,
family and religion, was a core theme identified within participants’ accounts of
motivation.

6.5 Social Work Motivation, Purpose and Identity in the Philippines:

Concluding Comments

This chapter has begun to consider professional purpose and sense of self in Filipino
social workers. Importantly, the research process can be seen as having
encouraged workers to reflect upon their own habitus and those factors which have
impacted upon it, at structural, cultural and more personal levels. Though some
dimensions of individual habitus appeared to have commonalities, one can also
identify significant differences among participants. The ability or desire to look
beyond social maintenance and aim for some form of social change certainly varied,
though satisfaction was undoubtedly derived from practice whatever its orientation.

The chapter highlighted those ‘external’ factors (such as public perception and
professional pride) impacting upon professional identity among social workers in the

233
Philippines and also the particular motivations which people cited as reasons for
entering, staying in and learning to love the profession. These often could be traced
back to dominant social structures and institutions such as religion and family. Also
evident were some factors contributing to the accumulation of cultural and symbolic
capital, not least public recognition and professional connections and identity. The
chapter also acknowledged some of the ways in which struggles within the field of
social work (such as those relating to professional mission beyond dole-out,
genericism versus specialism and the empowerment of individuals or communities)
filtered down into individual sense of self.

Something very evident was the evolving nature of professional habitus, albeit in
response to varying triggers and influences. Thus, childhood and family experiences
were cited, along with the influence of social work educators, socialisation into the
profession (and the importance of professional identity) and the process of coming to
love that profession. The next chapter considers how personal and professional
sense of self might be seen to both develop and retain some characteristics when
Filipino workers relocated to practise in England.

234
Chapter 7: Fieldwork Findings: Filipino Social Workers’
Perceptions of Society & Social Work in England

7.1 Introduction

This third ‘data chapter’ seeks to address Research Question 3: What do Filipino
social workers’ accounts of moving to and practising in England contribute to an
understanding of the purpose and transferability of social work in an international
context? In doing this, it very much builds upon the discussion of field and habitus
within social work in the Philippines. The first part of this chapter returns to the
notion of motivation, looking at reasons for travelling overseas and discussing initial
reactions to England. It goes on, echoing themes discussed in relation to the
Philippines, to consider what it means to be a social worker and to do social work but
this time in a different country. Consideration is given to whether participants are
describing a different field or a variant or iteration of a core, international field of
social work? The impact of transition upon professional identity and habitus is also
discussed. In other words, the chapter examines the construction of social work and
identity by Filipino workers in England and offers thoughts on the cultural and
structural contexts in which this happens. The aim is to begin to identify findings
from data gathered in England, where these relate to themes already developed in
the thesis. To address this question, in-depth interviews were conducted with 10
Filipino social workers in England. They were asked first to reflect upon their entry
into the profession and then to discuss their reactions to England and to social work
in England. Finally, participants discussed their feelings about social work in both
countries and described what they now saw as the purpose of social work.

It should be acknowledged at the outset that the UK-based Social Care Workforce
Research Unit have published a series of reports and articles discussing the findings
of research into international social care workers in England (Hussein, Manthorpe
and Stevens, 2009 and 2010; Hussein, Stevens and Manthorpe, 2010; Manthorpe,
et al 2010). The reports provide rich data though, significantly, looked at the
experiences of care workers rather than just social workers and at people from many

235
countries in the world. It is, therefore, difficult to make detailed comparisons with the
findings of this smaller scale study. However, as will be shown, many of the
messages from the Social Care Workforce Research Unit (SCWRU) studies felt very
familiar. Thus, international workers had been surprised by the poor image and
status of care work in the UK; had needed to adapt to cultural differences; and,
disappointingly, said they had experienced racism from service users and
colleagues. The Final Report of the project stated (Hussein, Stevens and
Manthorpe, 2009, p96) that, “… financial motives remained a top influence for those
from the Philippines…” which, again, echoed the findings of this study. This thesis
sought to focus on social work identity and purpose in the Philippines and the impact
of moving to England, which are very different aims from those of the SCWRU but it
is important to note the apparent comparability of findings.

7.2 Views from Outside

Some participants in the Philippines speculated as to those aspects of British culture

to which Filipinos would need to adjust. This senior policy maker wondered how the
work setting and orientation might impact on Filipino workers:

“If you give them training, good training for clinical work, sure they can do that… but
they may not want to do it because they are used to being in the community… most
social workers here feel, umm, cooped-up when they stay in, they have to go out.”
Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)

The following exchange makes a similar point, linking it to notions of individualism:

“Surmountable but difficult would be the individualism. The fact that a lot happens
indoor rather than outdoor in the community… The privacy, the confidentiality, that’s
difficult because there’s not much of either here.”
Bill (USSW P NGO 50-59 M C)

“British formality and insularity… but they can surmount these things, very quick
cultural learners… And never present themselves as threatening or superior...”

236
 Wendy (USSW P NGO 60+ F C)

The chapter now reflects upon findings derived from the comments of those who had
taken the step of moving to England.

7.3 Reasons for Going Overseas

As has been seen, motivation (initial and ongoing) was a significant theme within the
accounts given in the Philippines. We now consider what motivated Filipino workers
to move to England. Most of the data reflects the perspectives of social workers who
had made this journey but, where pertinent, the comments of participants in the
Philippines are incorporated. This social worker says why he hoped to work
oversees in the future:

“For all my life, I haven’t had a house… my dream is to have my own house, a
simple, very simple house that I can live with my family… I don’t want them to be one
of the client of the social workers asking for a bag of rice… I want also to at least five
or seven years work abroad, make sure that when I go back here I have my own
house, and then I will go back to the community, fight for their rights… I’m, umm,
practicing my profession for almost eight years… I only have one thousand pesos in
my pocket.”
Michael (FSW P NGO 30-39 M C)
[Note: at the time of writing, 1000 pesos equates to less than £15]

This participant had not worked overseas but was clear about his reason for doing
this and about his determination to return to the Philippines. We will look at both of
these things but, firstly, consider what the data suggested about financial motivation.

7.3.1 Economic Migration

Above all other factors, Filipino social workers went abroad to support their (often
extended) families. Some brought their immediate family with them to England,

237
others came alone but the drivers of relative poverty and unemployment in the
Philippines were very evident.

“I think a lot of social workers want to work elsewhere anyway because, I mean, in
Philippines there’s lots of unemployment…”
Tessa (FSW UK Retraining as Nurse 30-39 F RC)

“For a year, I don’t have a job… there are social workers who end up working in call
centres.”
Joan (FSW P PRIV 30-39 F RC)

The following participant in the Philippines provided a vivid account of the reasons
she hoped to work abroad:

“… our salary is not that enough to pay our house, to pay our children expenses and
to provide our food… the Filipinos are very much, what’s this, close family ties.
We’re looking for our parents… and we are helping their needs, his niece and
nephew to study… so, that’s the reason why sometimes I say maybe I can work in
overseas…”
Leah (FSW P GOV 30-39 F RC)

Whereas economic considerations (or the accumulation of economic capital) were

not often cited as reasons for becoming a social worker, they were the most
commonly identified motivation for working overseas. The following person made an
additional observation:

“… I think there’s a certain stage in my life where… I just think… maybe I can, you
know, I can retire early and then do, you know, other things.”
Sheila (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

For some, the dream (expressed above by Michael) had not become a reality:

“… we thought, the pound signs, we will get richer in one year (laughs). But … we
didn’t anticipate you know we have to pay all the bills… all the taxes...”

238
 Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Another worker in England commented as follows on her motivation and future

hopes:

“So, the first thing is about the money and… well, probably financial security would
be good and then go back to the Philippines and do the same work that we love to
do…”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

She, too, expected to be substantially better-off but had found this not to be the
case. Several conveyed a sense of being financially trapped in another country:

“If they offer me, say, £20,000 a year, then you convert it immediately. Wow, that’s a
big money… you have to pay this and this and this and that at the end sometimes
you only have this much.”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

So, again, for Grace the cost of living in England was problematic:

“You know, you earn a lot but you spend it here, as well. The kind of life there is
difficult but you’re happy there…”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

So, the accumulation of ‘economic capital’ was a core driver, though present in most
accounts was an intention – but for some a difficulty – to return home. As Hussein,
Manthorpe and Stevens (2010, p1005) point out:

“Social work remains a comparatively privileged occupation when compared to the

wider social care workforce. There is no evidence that international social workers in
the UK receive lower pay or worse conditions.”

The situation is not so positive for Filipinos in the UK (and many other parts of the
Global North), typically women, who work as caregivers and nannies.

239
7.3.2 Status and Professional Development

Motivations were rarely purely financial. Something about gaining cultural capital
within the field of social work internationally appealed to many participants. The
following worker in the Philippines echoed the financial reasons but suggested the
following additional motivating factor:

“And also it’s because of pride, you know… if you’re qualified to other country, to
most developed country, as a social worker you will gain a lot of respect for yourself,
confidence as a social worker.”
Evelyn (FSW P NGO 30-39 F RC)

So, Evelyn introduced the idea of status, personal worth and growth as reasons for
travelling abroad. The following participant was persuaded to move to England
partly for new challenges:

“I was saying this is a new opportunity for me, a new adventure… I was thinking oh
since I’m still young so I can still go and explore.”
Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)

Elements of a search for personal development are evident here, too:

“I said to myself… I need to get out of the shadows of my parents, basically, because
I don’t even know myself… and I will tell you honestly, my purpose was not to be a
social worker when I went abroad. Any Filipino would say that, though… They
probably prefer professional but they will go on different things.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

A key difference, here, was that the participant was a single male. The majority of
participants in England (female, with children and partners) only wanted to work in
the country when clear that their families could join them:

240
“I said, can I bring my family and they said ‘yes’… They said ‘you don’t have to
spend money but you will be given, umm, initial relocation they call it’.”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

Sheila was adamant she would not be separated from her immediate family:

“I would not apply here if I know that I am going to leave my family there.”
Sheila (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

This interviewee gave personal reasons for not wanting to be separated from her
family:

“I grew up in a situation like that. That’s why I don’t want it to happen to my kids…
That’s why my grandmother looking after me because my parents work abroad and I
don’t like it.”
Ella (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

It seemed, therefore, that participants were able to identify motivating factors beyond
the understandable financial drivers. These resonate with notions from the sociology
of work (introduced in Chapter 2) of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and of work as
a source of meaning, identity and symbolic capital. However, these motivations to
leave the Philippines would not, it seems, have over-ridden the importance of being
with one’s immediate family. This may not, however, appear to be an option to
Filipinos from the poorest sections of society (Aguilaret al., 2009; Castles & Miller,
2008; Parrenas, 2001b).

7.4 Adjusting to England

The field of social work (both in terms of roles and broader sense of purpose) was
‘felt’ to be different from the Philippines in many ways. Given how interviewees in
the Philippines conceptualised national traits and culture, it is important to consider
initial reactions to English culture and ‘traits’. Interestingly, participants focused on
cultural and behavioural factors raised in the Philippines: family; respect; community;

241
being grateful; aversion to directness. Here, we explore observations about culture
(Thompson, 2012) and their relevance to social work.

7.4.1 Initial Impressions

In line with the model of the ‘professional journey’ proposed in Chapter 2 (Figure 2,
p33), we look first at the initial process of adjustment to a new country and
professional field, before reflecting on implications for professional habitus and
sense of identity.

7.4.2 Poverty

The following is typical of the reactions participants recalled on arrival in England,

namely a feeling that they had left poverty behind. Given the overwhelming
emphasis on working with people in poverty in the Philippines, this meant their sense
of professional self – their habitus - was already being challenged:

“… I struggle when I came here. They were saying, ‘oh we needed this or we don’t
have…’ and I could not believe it because they have this TV… on the first instance I
could not see any poverty. Like, when I visit the family… they could access the
same food maybe just different brand… we come and visit the family as well, like for
example state of the flat they are saying ‘oh it’s chaotic’… and when we arrive there
if you’re a Filipino social worker at first… no, it’s alright... You need to learn, you
need to adjust yourself what is the standard, what is acceptable...”
Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)

Grace conveyed a sense of amazement at perceived wealth:

“I think there’s no poor in this country because you cannot see slums and… every
house is big and I knew that one house, one family… I was really amazed…”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

242
This interviewee also remembered feeling that poverty did not exist in England but
now had a different perspective:

“I felt like everybody’s rich…. it’s totally different now… in terms of this country,
instead of progressing it is regressing, especially in terms of economy, in terms of
the high inflation rate, unemployment and in terms of people’s attitude as well…
dependent to the social system… I could not comprehend whether it’s cultural or
whether it’s about the economy or whether it’s about people just being lazy.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

Jay names an unease with welfare benefits that was raised by many participants.
Indeed, most of those interviewed in England had mixed feelings about the impact of
welfare upon aspiration, which at times fell uncomfortably close to “blaming and
stigmatising the poor…” (Dowling, 1999, p8). The chapter now looks at a further
theme around initial reactions to England.

7.4.3 Feeling Deskilled

A common thread in the data was that of feeling deskilled, despite typically having a
good deal of social work experience, and also of needing to do more than indigenous
social workers to demonstrate professional ‘worth’:

“My supervisor was really good… I did say to her ‘do you know what, I just feel
deskilled here’…. I’m a social worker back home but it’s a different setting legislation
wise, you know, procedures, being employed by a local authority. It was really,
really like I know nothing… So, you know, that feeling of ‘I need to prove something
here’, you know, not only for myself but also for my colleagues because I know they
will be looking… what can you bring with yourself here?”
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

A number of workers were anxious about acknowledging how they were feeling or
things they did not understand, as this person acknowledged:

243
“I’m not afraid to ask my manager… and even cried during my supervision… but my
colleagues, because they, they felt that if they will do that it, the manager would say
‘oh you are this and that’… so they keep it for themselves…”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

The process of adjustment was, therefore, by no means smooth. Participants ‘felt’

hysteresis ‘in action’ and its impact in terms of loss of cultural capital at the practice
level. Language (a consistent theme in this thesis) understandably also emerged in
the context of ‘culture shock’.

7.4.4 Language

Many identified language as problematic. They knew they could speak and read
English well and yet struggled with accents and British rather than American usage:

“Language is the first problem… we thought that we can speak the language but
when we came here we don’t understand the language (laughs).”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

The following person was in a team with colleagues from other countries but
detected a difference:

“”…I’m the only one who was American accent and American background education.
The rest are Pakistan, India, they are all Commonwealth countries. Malaysia. So
they have the English, umm, culture with them.”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Those who arrived in England as part of recruitment drives had more organised
induction programmes, including English classes:

“We had, like an orientation, one month orientation. We went to English class as
well… because of the accent, the colloquial words that we need to know… and
swear words…”

244
 Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)

Whilst difficulties with language are unsurprising when moving to a different country,
one might ask how they impact upon perception of professional self and roles (and of
service users and their needs) in such circumstances. Language, after all, conveys
and constructs meaning, in ways discussed earlier in relation to the interviews
undertaken for this research project. This theme is explored further in the next
session, looking at orientation to social work in England.

7.4.5 Orientation

Participants acknowledged that language was a struggle and was very conscious of
not being a ‘burden’ on colleagues but of needing to gain capital within a new social
work culture. As Jay puts it:

“I read… every single thing on the wall. Sometimes people were asking ‘what are
you doing there?’ and I said ‘I’m just… familiarising, you know, the working
environment. There are symbols, like… when I see a folder… and there’s a label of
triangle… that’s a child in need case… I don’t want to, umm, for people to think that I
will be a burden to them… I struggled with communication as well… they have a very
strong accent…”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

Jay saw the orientation sessions as valuable, though conceptualised them as part of
a process of professional adjustment rather than wholesale change:

“We talked about… social work history in the UK… we went back all the way to
Elizabethan period and dole-out and, umm, we use apparently the same curriculum
in the Philippines… I think what I gained there is… about the statutory
responsibilities of social workers and our power and accountability, umm, but that
hasn’t changed my whole professional and personal view… the way I am practicing
now is still as a Filipino.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

245
Thus, Jay remains committed to practicing ‘as a Filipino’, whilst recognising and
operating within a field which has different expectations and processes. This social
worker spoke powerfully about her feelings as she tried to orientate quickly to life
and work in England:

“… you can see how the social workers do the visit, how it is done in this country…
but… will they accept me because I’m from a different country? That’s all the things
that’s going into your mind… I had an incident with… she’s a doctor and she was
reporting something and… I don’t know how to spell that name. ‘Can you spell it for
me please?’ ‘Is there anybody that I can talk to?’ ‘Why?’ ‘Because you don’t seem to
understand…’ ‘Can you spell the name, so that I can look at it on the internet?’ ‘Oh,
never mind’. They just hang up the phone… even professionals, they don’t seem to
have patience and understanding…”
Ella (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

Most participants in England spoke of ‘culture shock’ around directness of

communication, making implicit connections to the Filipino ‘trait’ of pakikisama. This
worker has not adopted more confrontational or direct approaches but sees
strengths in ‘Philippine’ ways of communicating:

“I cannot be like my British colleagues who say ‘that is crap’… I would not say that
but I know how to do it in another way… my manager knows that… if we have a
case with a really difficult family… she can give that to me so I can use the other way
and it’s more warm and supportive, listening…”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

Recollections of the process of making fresh sense of social work in a different

place, therefore, picked up on previously identified arguments around Philippine
culture, with participants trying to identify commonalities and transferable skills and
understandings in very different (and sometimes, as we shall see again later, hostile)
situations.

246
7.4.6 An Individualised Society

Many participants spoke of a culture which felt less sociable and, perhaps, less
sharing or collaborative than the Philippines:

“When we arrived in the airport, we were collected by the contact person… and then
he went to stop in a petrol station… and then he came back with chocolate and
drinks. He didn’t offer us, if we were hungry… he started eating without asking
us…and then you, when you first came into the office you can still see that because
everybody just started to eat without asking ‘Do you want some?’”
Angel (FSW UK 40-49 F)

This worker in the Philippines, who had lived and work in ‘western’ countries, offered
the following suggestions for welcoming a Filipino person into a workplace in another
country:

“I think it would be great if, you know, like within an agency, if they can invite those
Filipinos in their homes… and they can ask them to bring food, the Filipino food, and
talk about those things… it’s great to encourage the Filipinos to open up their homes
to invite others to go in… westerners anywhere are very individualised and when I
met my husband… I slowly pushed salt shakers, pepper shakers, everything towards
his side. I was wanting to find out how much personal space would he allow me to
invade…”
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)

Though it is easy to idealise a sense of community within the Philippines, the data
indicated clearly that this was felt very real among (and missed by) participants on
moving to England. An area that arose significantly in interviews with Filipino
workers in England was that of racist reactions. Some examples are set out in the
next section.

247
7.4.7 Facing Discrimination

Racism in England was raised, though not always named, by many of the workers.
This first quote is from someone unsure how service users saw her:

“The only thing that I can’t really guarantee is that how they look at me as being, you
know, coming from another country… how they look at us as overseas workers.”
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Angel found discrimination from other professionals more upsetting than that from
service users:

“Some professionals they, I think there is some kind of discrimination… they cannot
tell you it verbally but you can feel it and see it… it’s ok with service users but, with
professionals… One professional… requested me to write a letter. So I wrote a
letter and asked my senior practitioner to correct my letter and … my senior
practitioner umm made some comments on the letter… and then she came back to
my senior practitioner and changed the letter.”
Angel (FSW UK 40-49 F)

Angel went on to discuss racist behaviour from a service user:

“… she’s very, very racist… ‘you have an accent, how come you can work with me?’
… I already reported to my team manager so… if I encounter again tomorrow a
problem with her… I request that I need to take off the case… I don’t usually visit her
with, on my own… and then I had another service user, he said… ‘oh why all the
foreigners come here, they get a house?... It’s like telling me ‘you’re foreigners, why
are you getting council houses here? I’m not having a council house here so I just
didn’t… and sometimes during training… or… in the meeting, they don’t look at you,
their eyes just focus on the other people in the meeting. So you can feel it.”
Angel (FSW UK 40-49 F)

This person recounted a story from her Filipino friend:

248
“… she had a home visit and they just told her off. I mean, what are you doing in my
country? You go back to your own country, why are you working here? You know,
and she said her tyre, her car tyre was attacked by youths… those are the fears…
how would you protect yourself professionally and personally as well?”
Tessa (FSW UK Retraining as Nurse 30-39 F RC)

Ella was very clear about the impact of racism:

“… sometimes… I feel the racist, if I feel this cultural barrier, sometimes I feel, oh no,
I just feel hopeless, I just feel I can’t do anything, it’s just like sinking in a boat.”
Ella (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

One is left angered if not surprised by such stories. The extent to which agencies
challenged such behaviour was unclear and one cannot help but question those in
the Philippines who suggested it would be easy for Filipinos to integrate. As we
have seen, however, some workers were able to raise concerns with their managers
about racist behaviour. Given these experiences of discrimination, along with the
desire for ‘sociability’ and perceived pressure to create a good impression in different
work cultures, one might anticipate that sources of support were important to
Filipinos arriving in England. The following section looks at themes from the data in
this regard.

7.5 The Importance of Support

Unsurprisingly, support networks, within and outside of the work context, had
particular significance in the early stages of moving to England. This could be
divided into support from colleagues in the employing agency and workplace; from
fellow Filipino Workers Overseas; from other migrant workers with some
commonality of experience; and from the Filipino community in England. Support in
all these forms helped maintain motivation for social work and for living in England
and to promote a sense of identity in a context of change.

249
Most UK-based participants spoke of camaraderie with other Filipinos moving at the
same or a similar time, usually as part of specific recruitment drives:

“… there was moral support… I think it was really, really very difficult because it was
my first time to be away from the family and my children… so I think it was really
good that we were together… we live in the same place…”
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

The same worker had a largely positive experience in terms of the team she started
work in:

“The good thing with my team is that it’s a multicultural team… I have a colleague
who came from Romania… from Tanzania and then from the Caribbean although
they’ve been here for ages but at least it helps that they are not all white… I tend
to… spend more time talking to them… maybe because I just felt they would share
my, you know, the same kind of feeling.”
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Emily added that her manager and some English colleagues had also been
supportive. Indeed, most participants were positive about how they were ‘received’
in their new workplaces:

“So, they have been very kind of, umm, accommodating to us… yes, they were very
welcoming, yeah.”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Nina spoke of similar experiences:

“I’m lucky because I was seated next to one of the senior social workers and… she
was saying ‘… you can always ask me if you need some help because I know it’s
difficult for you coming from another country’.”
Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)

250
By contrast, Angel did not feel well supported by her manager but felt the team could
be supportive:

“Initially, I tried to speak to my manager but because I didn’t get the kind of answer
or response from her so I just decided… yeah, just to accept… Unfortunately,
because of the nature of the work… you hardly see each other… But I quite liked my
team because they’re quite supportive... If you need help they will, or even if you
don’t ask for it, they will offer you help.”
Angel (FSW UK 40-49 F)

One worker stated that, collectively, the newly recruited Filipino workers did not rule
out returning to the Philippines in the early months of employment in England. The
practical implications of a return, however, were considerable:

“… we just said… let’s see after six months. If we feel that we can’t really, you know,
we can’t really cope then we have to be honest, open and honest to them and say
we want to go home. Although, on the contract it says that we need to pay back
whatever expenses we had… so I was thinking how will we pay that back?”
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Most of the workers also spoke of support from the wider Filipino community:

“There’s a Filipino shop… we set up supportive networks as well there because

they’re the one who is facilitating like Filipino group, association… they are older
than us so they gave us some tips…”
Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)

Most participants in England considered supervision to be a positive system. Some

saw it as a source of emotional support, which is often thought to be a more
neglected aspect of supervision in England. Supervision was certainly seen to be
better in England than in the Philippines:

251
“… one good thing that I should say, supervision is regular here… [In the Philippines]
I don’t have any one to one supervision. It’s more of like… weekly we do case
presentation…”
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Ella made a similar contrast between the two countries:

“… supervision is very good here, very supportive. You really have at least…
monthly supervision… and it’s also written… recorded… I don’t think we do it in the
Philippines…”
Ella (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

This participant, who arrived alone in England, felt lonely and unhappy but unable to
say this to his parents:

“I start to feel homesick… I don’t want to say it to my parents… all I’m giving them is
the story of what good things happen here, so it’s a façade…”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

Ella did not consider the culture in England welcoming:

“Of course, we have enquiries with colleagues but they say ‘ok, you can look in the
Yellow Pages’… in the Philippines, ‘oh this is the best company… come on, let’s go
and we’ll take you there and you can get a phone… I recommend you to this
garage… and this ASDA is open 24 hours so you can buy your food there’.”
Ella (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

Though participants, therefore, valued formally-offered types of support (especially

supervision) as part of the process of adaptation to a ‘new’ social work field, they
also needed support from those who understood Philippine culture or at least
identified with their feelings as migrant workers. This was, again, situated within a
society which they perceived as unhelpful or, at best, expecting them to be
independent.

252
7.6 Community and Orientation to Practice

The theme of community, identified also in the Philippines, arose among workers in
England:

“… maybe people here are more reserved… they don’t smile back at you (laughs).
You try to invite them… like, in the Philippines if your neighbour is being helpful or
nosy, you take that… they’re your community, it’s your family. Here, it’s like your
community… it’s against you… it’s like, here you always call the police, even if it is a
simple argument… it’s like you cannot settle things amicably…”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

It should be acknowledged that social workers typically see the most troubled of
social contexts, which will affect how they see society. However, they also live in
communities, which makes the above observations valid and powerful. This worker
commented on closeness within communities and a perceived work-centred culture
that distracts people from thinking about the wider community. Thus, in discussing
culture shock, she reveals also something about alternative approaches to social
work:

“… maybe because of the high standard of living or the high cost of living, the people
here need to work, work and work… and like in the Philippines… maybe because
we’re all in the economic level of the people… they have one goal in life which is to
help one another… and here because you need to try… to meet your needs every
day… you will not think… what do I do for my community.”
Sheila (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

Tessa offers her own reflections on this oft-cited area of difference:

“I think in Philippines… there’s attachments to each other… I know my neighbours…

twenty families… but here I don’t even know my neighbour… there’s so much
seclusion… bayanihan is… the culture of helping each other but the resource is
within you, within the community… we are poor but you get the satisfaction out of,

253
you know, you are not alone… the kind of warmth of being with each other, of
supporting each other…”
Tessa (FSW UK Retraining as Nurse 30-39 F RC)

Participants in England repeatedly commented on this perceived fundamental

difference:

“It is the community that you need to develop and empower… I’ll just give you an
example. There was a child raped basically and the child died opposite my
apartment and I don’t even know what happened… I don’t know who is the family.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

Jay went on to make connections to social work approaches in the Philippines and
speculated about their appropriateness in England:

“… this model that was basically developed in the Philippines, which is what we call
cluster or Barangay, is basically empowering the people to… get involved with the
problem… what is the strength of their community… and progress that strength…
But again there’s always this dilemma about English culture… That’s your business.
I don’t mind because that’s basically your own business.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

The above comments allude to individualisation and independence within ‘English’

culture. The following quote develops this idea:

“I was surprised here that any young people at the age of sixteen could leave
home… I don’t know if I could allow my eldest son to leave on his own when he
turned sixteen… how can he manage his own life? … I could see that it could be a
way of introducing independence to them… so I was thinking it might be good but in
terms of… you know, the foundation, umm, you know, the respect. Respect with
elderly, with parents… I don’t see it here. The way they talk to their parents… just
like speaking to their mates...”
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

254
This participant did acknowledge that reliance upon family may not always be a good
thing, hinting at tensions between independence and inter-dependence in relation to
empowerment and choice:

“In the Philippines… like, in one house you could find that there’s cousins and
aunts… but here, no… Just the immediate family… although in a way it’s negative,
as well, because the dependency among the family…”
Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)

Participants in England linked comments on community and co-dependence to

thoughts on professional boundaries and confidentiality, thus commenting upon
different orientations to practice. As Bridget put it:

“… even if I remove the child, the sibling, if I see them on the street they still talk to
me. So they would tell me what’s happening inside the house. I just ‘yes, yes’… I
cannot offer any advices because they can quote me… I’ve learnt that I have to be
cautious.”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Grace also picked up on this area of difference:

“Social work in the Philippines is always personal… Here it’s very defined role and
relationship… you can just do this and this is your limit and you know you cannot go
beyond that because that is not a good practice. But back home I don’t think you
have a, really, a boundaries of your profession and become so personal and… the
client/social worker role is blurred… Because it becomes a personal one, then you
become so committed… but then I can see that as well as a negative… that means
even if there’s abuses… you don’t see that or you don’t take it as an abuse…”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

For Bridget, the form of social work reflects the type of community:

“… in the Philippines, you can do collateral interviews… because, like, they know
each other, like, if I go to one parent and she is not there, I can ask the neighbour…

255
Here, you cannot do that without client’s permission… probably we can do that
because of cultural… our clients, they don’t take that against you… they will be upset
‘oh my neighbour said de, de, de’ but they don’t take that very seriously as kind of
something that would damage their reputation… because, anyway, they live in a very
clustered community… you cannot really hide something and they support each
other. It’s like, your problem is the community’s problem.”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

The above quotations are illustrative of the many which made connections, explicit or
otherwise, between social structures, cultural expectations and orientation to social
work practice. Family and community reappeared strongly, as they had in data
gathered in the Philippines, suggesting that participants gauged their world and
understood their practice in terms of a habitus forged in the Philippines but at a point
where some certainties and assumptions (as people and professionals) were being
shaken.

7.7 Public Perception of and Attitude to Social Work in England

As we saw, those interviewed in the Philippines spoke often and at length about
public perception and feeling valued but also about wanting to move away from their
‘dole out’ image. It was interesting to analyse responses from those in England
touching upon similar themes.

7.7.1 Relationship with Service Users

Below, a worker in England discusses client gratefulness and positivity towards

social work:

“Here… they take it seriously instead of being grateful. They’re rude, they make
complaints against you… In the Philippines, if they know that social worker is coming
you are most welcome.”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

256
Emily, discussing challenges in England, pulls together a number of issues already
identified:

“So now I’m more… careful with… not putting in my own belief in working with
families…. in the Philippines… maybe because they’re all Filipinos… I can speak
straight to them… like a mum… but here… I just don’t feel too confident to be, you
know, saying those things… they would say you’re… going beyond your boundary…
I remember a family saying ‘You don’t tell me what to do with my family because it’s
my family’ and I was thinking but you’re asking for some help and I’m… just trying to
give you the bigger picture… it’s like giving them one of your arm and then they
would still want more.”
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

So, participants felt less able to be directive with service users and more constrained
by boundaries and complaint processes, echoing some of the findings of
Nimmagadda and Cowger (1999). She connected these observations to comments
on client expectations and, for her, lack of gratefulness. Bridget picks up on the
issue of boundaries:

“If you see the clients outside your office, if you have a chat with them, that’s kind of
unprofessional… In the Philippines… it’s alright if they ring you any time…”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Again, a process of struggling with professional identity and practice expectations is

conveyed which, in Bourdieusian terms might be conceptualised as the evolution of
habitus (retaining what one can but absorbing new expectations) within a field of
social work which appears to have few familiar dimensions and where, in particular,
symbolic capital appeared to be derived far less from compliance or respect. It may,
indeed, be the case that this professional culture shock forced workers to reflect
upon the internalised dispositions which had, perhaps, previously been a ‘natural’
part of how they ‘did’ social work.

257
7.7.2 Poverty and Practice

Several participants spoke of a poverty of aspiration or ambition in England. They

linked this, in part, to welfare benefits and implied that poverty in the Philippines
acted as a motivator and source of resilience. Here, Angel sees ‘vices’ and absence
of faith as part of the ‘problem’:

“There is some families who are in the bottom of the economic, economic status but
they’re still managing… they can still afford to buy alcohol… with the benefits that
they are receiving… Poverty probably in terms of… I don’t know, faith in… I cannot
say because they do not believe in the divine intervention… They don’t have any
target in life because they all, they already have what they wanted… they don’t want
to aspire more...”
Angel (FSW UK 40-49 F)

There was certainly evidence, therefore, of the ‘moral evaluation’ of service users
manifesting itself, perhaps, as a form of poverty discrimination (Dowling, 1999, p24).
Such judgments were evident but less so in the Philippines. Angel regrets the lack
of resources (such as respite) available for disabled children in the Philippines but,
then, presents this as in some ways positive in comparison to England:

“… the parents as well as the children… they have become more resilient to stresses
in life… if we don’t have these kinds of resources, umm, the parents would try to find
other ways and means and then the individual himself will, more often than not, they
try to excel in what they are capable of… and I think that’s positive, isn’t it? That
they can still manage in spite of the difficulty of coping or with having an autistic child
or with learning difficulties.”
Angel (FSW UK 40-49 F)

The above comments resonate with those made by some participants in the
Philippines about poverty and adversity leading to strength and determination, again
indicating interplay between the familiar or taken-for-granted and the new.

258
7.7.3 Acculturation

This worker spoke of a gradual process of understanding English culture. Though

no other participants expressed this process quite so clearly, it was implicit in what
other interviewees said:

“… now being here for nearly six years… my working relationship with the family has
come to the next stage… it’s more of a better understanding of what the family is…
before, I was thinking… you’re having these things… why do you still need some
help? But I think… it’s given to you in, like, golden spoon, so you don’t have to really
sweat out to get that, you know, that support… I would always still look at the family
with the way that I look at the family back home… it’s hard for them to be called
clients and… pick up the phone and say we need help… no-one would want a social
worker to be in their family home asking questions…”
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC

7.8 Managerialism and Bureaucracy in England

The following quote encapsulates points made by many about bureaucracy and also
working in contexts where your input may not be valued and you are seen as ‘other’:

“Yes, it’s more paperworks… less time spent with the family, which I really miss…
I’m just one of those people that they met, there’s nothing about the connection…
the recognition of the work that I would be doing with them… I just felt that, you
know, when you introduce yourself as a social worker, ‘oh god, this is your work,
you’re removing children, you’re just a pain in the arse, you’re just coming to be
nosy’. Unlike, in the Philippines… they thought they are lucky to… to have a social
worker in their life…”
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Nina reiterates the point about less positive reactions from service users:

259
“In the Philippines, because we are dealing with children in conflict with the law, with
street children, and they see you as this angel… or saviour… you could see their
smile when they see you in the street, they were running after you…”
Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)

To return to the idea of social work in England being more rule bound and
bureaucratic, this comment is typical:

“… oh my God, different forms, you have to do the initial assessment, court

assessment, different forms that can be collapsed then… they review and although
the same form you have to rewrite…”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Nina identified paperwork (and consequent limited client contact) as the biggest
difference between England and the Philippines:

“The one that I felt that is more, most different is the statutory requirements. The
paperworks, that you need to do that by this time… most of the time you’re in the
office… and in the Philippines… we are in the street; we are in the jails…if we felt
that this clientele need, like, seminar about reproductive health, we do it as well.
Unlike here, you need to do a referral for somebody to do it. Like, if you felt that this
family needed, like, parenting skills and everything, you need to refer it… you’re, like,
broker… We’re more direct work in the Philippines.”
Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)

So, within a discussion of statutory timescales and paperwork, Nina referred to a

preference for direct work with clients; the degree of specialisation and flexibility to
respond creatively or holistically to needs; and the notion of arranging for others to
meet needs rather than social workers carrying out the work themselves. She was,
therefore, highlighting the scope of the role and professional discretion in deciding
how best to meet needs. One might also question whether ‘direct practice’ in the
Philippines offers satisfaction in part because of the mostly non-confrontational and
grateful nature of interactions with service users, which were less common in

260
England. Thus, the impact of ‘public image’ discussed in the previous chapter
reappears as significant for professional habitus and motivation.

One worker in England highlighted, importantly, the need to distinguish between

bureaucracy and paperwork. She felt that the Philippines is a very bureaucratic
place, in terms of process, but that there was less emphasis on recording and report
writing:

“Yes, it’s more bureaucratic, actually… Every time you do something, you need to go
to Barangay first… if you have a plan, you go to the Barangay, he will not approve it
because there’s no budget… the court paperwork we are doing is just basic, as well,
like case situation and case summary…”
Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)

We now turn to look at broader attempts to challenge ‘the way things are done’ in
social work.

7.9 Professional Discretion: Doing Social Work in Less Flexible

Ways

The data provided evidence of Filipino workers seeking to practice in ways with
which they felt more comfortable. Bridget provided the following example of her
preferred approach and difficulties encountered:

“Yes, like my first child protection… my manager said… ‘when do you think we are
going to remove this child?’ … she has a chaotic substance misuse, lifestyle and
everything… and I said ‘But mum now is engaging… why don’t we give her a
chance?’ I can work with them… enhancing the social functioning of mum… yes this
baby needs protection… so focus on mum… My manager said… ‘Alright but you
need to have a timeframe’… It goes initially alright but she started undoing
everything… so I just then have to say ‘No I am not happy with what you are

261
doing’… To the point where I said, alright, if she doesn’t meet this one then I would
agree that we… remove the child.”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Bridget’s manager was clearly alert to statutory responsibilities and deadlines, which
meant responses could not be as fluid as the social worker wanted:

“… I was telling my senior practitioner… we normally do this like this… and she, she
acknowledged that… It’s different because it is very statutory… You don’t have that
flexibility as a worker… we are binded with what is statutory and what needs to be
done…”
Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)

Angel talked of having greater freedom to make decisions in the Philippines:

“… more freedom in terms of decision-making and that makes you more creative… if
you have limited resources, it makes you more creative…”
Angel (FSW UK 40-49 F)

So, for Angel, creativity is stifled by a regulated and proceduralised approach to

practice. Meanwhile, looking for scarce resources in the Philippines also meant
workers must seek more creative solutions. She saw this as absent in England, as
suggested in this example of challenging ‘normal’ practice, based on her belief that
‘dole out’ was not always a positive thing:

“… the allowance that we are giving to the young people are so much (laughs) and
then I’d raise my concern to the service manager… the young person… I suggested
that we should not be giving this to him because it’s no longer helping him… they
have so much money and discouraging from getting to work… it’s ok if they want to
attend education… but they don’t want to do anything and just engaging with
trouble…”
Angel (FSW UK 40-49 F)

262
Again, we see examples of social workers having their sureties around what social
work is challenged, leading them to reflect upon ‘better’ ways of practising. It is
suggested that social work internationally has much to learn from this form of
reflection.

7.10 Use of Self in New Contexts

Participants struggled to identify examples of drawing on approaches or values from

the Philippines to suggest alternative ways of working in England. However, the
tone of responses suggested a subtler integration of Philippine approaches into
practice overseas. So, what did Filipino social workers think they were able to bring
from the Philippines to social work in England? The following quotes offer a flavour
of typical responses in this regard.

“I think, in terms of the code of ethics that we have, you know, it’s similar to here
and, umm, I think just the commitment… giving your best in every task.”
Sheila (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

“I don’t think there’s a lot of things that we can bring… Aside from myself and myself
is enough… my social work experience back home… it’s totally different… it’s very
difficult to say ‘Back home we can do this and I think we can try to do this’ but I
remember going back to my manager and having that conversation and she said…
it’s you as an international social worker… you’re exposed to different cultures and
you can work well with people who… are in a different culture, and also share to
other British service users… my manager said ‘Look, you know, I don’t expect you to
be like a British social worker because you’re not… I want you to be a different one,
who can bring a different culture to others and I did…”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

So, Filipino workers spoke of bringing themselves as a resource, as people

committed to similar values but with different ways of looking at issues grounded in
different cultural backgrounds. In response to a question about how being Filipino
affected his practice, Jay responded as follows:

263
“I am very much more sensitive… of a child’s needs… of the impact of, for the family
… as long as it will not jeopardise the whole investigation, will not put the child in a
significant risk, I will negotiate with the families… I remove children, don’t get me
wrong… but sometimes, umm, others, I would say, not all, they tend to exaggerate
the situation, rather than… give the family a chance... At the end of the day, the end
result is basically returning this child a couple of days after. You know, you’ve
already made the damage for the children… I would say, umm, poverty is rampant in
the Philippines. and we go to families… they’re not seeing the needs of their own
children and… you can see that in some of the families here, as well… parents are
losing those kinds of priorities sometimes and then you are there as an agent,
basically of, of, of telling them what they need to do...”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

So, for this participant, his cultural background made him alert to the human impact
of decisions and helped him understand why people might not prioritise their
children, all of which led him to a position of always seeking to engage in dialogue.

7.11 Doing Social Work in England: Stress

The data gathered in the Philippines contained few references to ‘stress’ or feelings
associated with stress. This is one of the few examples raising the emotional impact
of practice:

“… I sometimes just cry at night, just to let it out, all of those negative energies,
hearing all their problems and how they cope.”
Leah (FSW P GOV 30-39 F RC)

Participants in England discussed stress much more. For Bridget, stress was work-
related but also had to do with life outside of work:

264
“Sometimes there are times when I feel so stressed and everything, sometimes what
are we doing here? … it’s like you work and work and the stress, you just have to
learn how to enjoy your life in the UK.”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

This worker had to take time off work in England due to stress:

“I was one of the experienced ones and I’m getting all the difficult cases… the
amount of responsibility is a lot… I thought I was just managing it. I’m struggling but,
you know how Filipinos are… we don’t say ‘Oh, I’m struggling’ but I did say to my
manager ‘I can’t sleep now, I’m just thinking about all my cases’ and my manager
said ‘I think you are stressed, I think you need to have a break’…”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

The sensitivity and response of Grace’s manager is to be commended. Later in the

interview, Grace discussed work in the Philippines:

“… we don’t have TOIL [Time Off In Lieu] there, we don’t have work-life balance
there. We work from Monday to Saturday, from eight o’clock to seven o’clock in the
evening… but it’s, it’s fun, it’s really nice to work with people, umm, and you look
forward to go to do work but here, if you can get away…”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

Thus, for Grace, stress levels did not relate to long hours but to the nature of work
and working relationships. For the following participant, this has to do with
timescales and paperwork:

“I think I’m much pressured… it’s different in the Philippines… you don’t have time to
do all the recordings and the paperworks… if that person needs to be referred to the
hospital, yes you need to do the referral form or the case study… but we could not
do all those things because of, you know, maybe for one social worker you will
handle maybe 300 cases… I have fifteen foster carers at the moment and I’m
doing… assessments but I just feel, you know, pressured… because you need to,

265
you know, to complete your recordings… telephone calls, responding to the emails
…”
Sheila (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

Stress levels appeared to relate again to externally imposed requirements and the
importance accorded managerially or organisationally to particular tasks. It would
appear that the balance between office-based work and being available for service
users is very different and that it is harder for workers in England to resist
bureaucratic tasks in favour of direct work.

7.12 Positive Aspects of Work in England

All Filipino workers in England identified things that provided a sense of job fulfilment
or professional worth:

“I think the things that keep me going… probably there’s a lot… there are times
when, because I live locally as well… you come across your clients and you know,
they tell you thank you very much for helping us… once that, umm, you’ve learnt
that, umm, your biggest piece of work is to protect the child… that’s a relief, that’s a
reward. Third… money. You know, I’m able to support my family back home, umm,
I manage to assist my brother who basically graduated from a very prestigious
university… I managed to build a house for my family.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

Sheila was motivated to support people in thinking and talking through their
difficulties:

“I just feel that, at the end of the week when… for example I have a… single foster
carer who needs to support her grandson because her daughter has been
sectioned… so just liaising with the social worker, you know, talking about what is
the problem, how can we support this… create good outcome… I think those kind of

266
… simple things… how they appreciate your work, you know, your effort in terms of
helping them…”
Sheila (FSW UK 40-49 F C)

Sheila, therefore conveyed satisfaction at using skills of engagement to achieve

positive outcomes for people with whom she had developed a relatively trusting
relationship. However, also present was a desire to be appreciated and valued. The
following worker saw strengths in the approach to child protection in England and
had shifted towards a position of deriving satisfaction from small outcomes:

“…I can see my role now… appreciate my role… you don’t expect a big results but
you just appreciate what you can do at that time…”
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)

Grace appeared, therefore, to have found value in work at a micro level, seeking
small changes in behaviour. The following quote also indicates a growing
understanding and appreciation of the often one-to-one and ‘personalised’ form of
social work in England:

“… if a child or a person has disability, they give a lot of attention, which is another
difference… Here, I see, social workers they are committed to their work… I really
admire their commitment and the other difference is… each child has different needs
and they try to fit in and identify what kind of appropriate service you could offer
them… an individual plan, which is really very good. In the Philippines, you know,
we cannot… if we have children with severe disability and the parents cannot cope,
we have an institution for that… That’s why, when they say we lack resources, I
cannot… oh my god, I cannot accept that.”
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)

Bridget, therefore, saw real positives in services tailored to individual need but
suggested this simply could not be afforded in the Philippines, where families were
forced either to ‘manage’ or ‘abandon’ their children.

267
7.13 Filipino Social Workers’ Perceptions of Society & Social Work
in England: Concluding Comments

Filipino social workers conveyed a strong sense of work as their mission and as a
core aspect of their identity in the world. Such indications were, it has to be said,
more evident in the data collected in the Philippines than in England. Nonetheless,
the following quote from a worker in child protection in England, conveys some of the
attachment felt by Filipino social workers to their profession:

“Social work is everyday life and we are privileged… It is a profession that, I would
say, that taught me basically what is life.”
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)

Filipino workers in England appeared to miss (and tried to continue to incorporate

within their practice) those cultural behaviours described previously as
‘kagandahang-loob’, pakikisama and bayanihan. They mostly saw individualism and
directness as problematic but retained what they saw as common professional
values and a commitment to social work as a good thing (and a central part of their
identity). They also found that adjustment and acculturation were more difficult than
anticipated in the Philippines, reflecting Bourdieu’s use of the term hysteresis (in this
context, a kind of professional culture shock and adaptation).

This chapter has considered how the field(s) of social work (internationally, in the
Philippines and in England) interact with and develop the habitus of individual
workers. In many ways, Filipino social workers in England saw themselves as doing
a very different job, suggesting that social work is much more a situated activity than
a universal one. The data pointed to the realities of hysteresis, as workers looked for
the familiar within their practice. What, for example, constitutes (or replaces, as a
core professional motivation) poverty in England? How does one engage with
service users perceived to have a sense of entitlement and little respect for one’s
title or education? And how does one adjust to a society in which family and
community are less dependable and which, at times, feels openly hostile? Workers
spoke of feeling deskilled, of having to learn very different ways of being and of

268
bringing only themselves (their values and ways of ‘doing’ social work) from the
Philippines. One could argue that they faced a deficit of social and cultural capital (in
England generally and in the workplace more specifically) and of symbolic capital in
social work practice until they came to identify and use the different sources of such
power within statutory social work in England. Nonetheless, for most of those
interviewed, this evolving personal and professional sense of self (or habitus) was
seen to offer both positive and negative outcomes. Many missed what was seen to
be a more flexible, hands on and creative role in the Philippines but also appreciated
the value of targeted and well-resourced support for individuals, of supervision and
of structured processes for the protection of vulnerable individuals.

269
Chapter 8: Further Discussion & Conclusions

“The most striking feature of social work’s current identity is the fragmentation of the
profession and discipline, not just in an international context, where it presents a
bewildering variety of professional titles and intellectual discourses, but also at
national level, where in every country several professional profiles exist in parallel,
sometimes contesting each other’s territories.”
(Lorenz, 2004, p145)

8.1 The Scope of the Thesis

This thesis has explored the historical and ongoing development of the field of social
work in the Philippines, focusing on the interplay between a range of structures and
processes. The extent to which dimensions or manifestations of social work habitus
could be identified, particularly from the perspectives of workers, educators and
policy makers, was considered, leading into a discussion of perceived motivations
and sense of purpose or identity. Elements of individual habitus, reflecting personal,
cultural and structural factors and also the embracing of a professional habitus, were
identified in the case of participants in the Philippines and England. All of this was
considered in the light of broader insights into why and how people work. Whether
at the level of individual practice or international social work definition and mission,
one could identify struggles and tensions. These were highlighted further for social
workers who travelled to England and sought to make sense of themselves and their
practice in a different professional field and society.

At the outset, the impact of Nimmagadda and Cowger’s (1999) article was
acknowledged. The tentative hypothesis was one of a process of socialisation or co-
option into a profession called social work and of layered processes of adaptation
through a professional journey. The stories of social workers in the Philippines and
England revealed this to be a helpful and realistic model. Social work education is
influenced considerably by imported models and approaches but (partial) attempts
had been made within the field of Philippine social work to indigenise or re-

270
conceptualise social work purpose and methods. However, significant dependence
on the demands and expectations of international NGOs and aid-providers (and
ultimately upon international capitalism) continues to shape the nature of possibilities
(Payne, 2014), in contexts of poverty. This makes it all the more important that
social workers and social work reflect on their sense of purpose:

“Bourdieu’s work emphasises how neoliberalism is more than an abstract

consideration because on a daily basis it bites into social work practice… it is
particularly important for social workers to defend the autonomy of the field… one of
Bourdieu’s main concerns was that a number of previously autonomous or quasi-
autonomous fields may be corroded by rampant neoliberalism.”
(Garrett, 2013. P146).

Data revealed that agency is, indeed, restricted by structure, as well as cultural and
personal factors (Thompson, 2012). Participants gave examples of attempts to
make sense of received ideas and adapt them to local needs or culture, which can
be conceptualised as the conscious and unconscious shaping of professional
habitus. However, the influence of other countries on the orientation of practice was
seen to be considerable, even where this involved a redirection towards a more
macro, or community-based social development approach. Participants provided
very clear illustrations of the struggle within Philippine social work between those
seeking more specialised and individual-oriented forms of practice and those who
valued community approaches. A significant difference between the social work field
in the Philippines and England is that both of those orientations were commonly
perceived to be valid forms of social work in the Philippines. Payne (2014)
questions, as did the data analysis for this thesis, whether the aims (and outcomes)
of macro, social development forms of practice are social change or social order
(see Chapter 2). He suggests (2014, p216) that:

“… theories focused on the social… have a broader perspective than individual

change or therapeutic and clinical theories. However, macro and community work
practice, social development and social pedagogy lean more towards an acceptance
and maintenance of the existing social orders…”

271
The implication, as research for this thesis found, is that ‘macro practice’ may be no
more committed to social transformation than that operating at the ‘personal’ level.

To return to the notion of ‘professional journey’, participants in the research

described an on-going process of identity formation. The interplay of dimensions of
agency, motivation and structure were considered in this regard. The thesis went on
to engage with the perspectives of workers who had moved overseas to pursue their
career. Their motivations for doing this and expectations of social work in England
were introduced. Workers spoke of negotiating culture shock (linking to Bourdieu’s
notion of hysteresis) at a social and professional level. There was an initial process
of reorientation, of elements of re-education and induction into ‘new’ ways of doing
social work. This involved further evolution of workers’ professional habitus, raising
a number of questions around whether social work has a transferable ‘essence’
internationally and the degree to which it is seen to be situated practice. This, in
turn, has implications for attempts to define and develop a field of social work
internationally (both academically and in practice).

The thesis identified and offered critical comments upon all of the above features of
professional journeys. The literature review and primary data informed a discussion
of how historical and international processes have shaped social work in the
Philippines (Research Question 1). Dimensions of imperialism (including
professional imperialism) were articulated in the literature and within the primary
data, not least in the accounts of those older participants who were part of the early
process of North American influence. There was, again in much of the literature and
in the accounts of many interviewees, an ambivalence or even positivity towards both
Spanish and US interference. Participants struggled to articulate how they
indigenised the social work curriculum (beyond using local case material with
overseas methods) or social work practice, though examples were given of the
pragmatic ‘bending’ of imported social work terms and approaches to ‘fit’ local culture
and expectations. The influence of overseas powers on social welfare and social
work, not least through the social development focus of international aid, was
identified and discussed. Where social work developed ‘local’ approaches, this was
not necessarily for reasons initiated in the Philippines. The interviews undertaken in
the Philippines did allow people to reflect upon the nature of, and factors (historical,

272
personal and structural) influencing their individual habitus. This in part reflected
their own motivations – many of which were shaped by social structures such as
family, economy and religion – and also suggested a collective professional habitus.
Differences of orientation were identified among social workers, in terms of sense of
purpose, echoing broader debates and struggles within the field internationally.

Given the quantity and richness of data gathered in the Philippines and a growing
appreciation of the usefulness of Bourdieu’s conceptual framework for analysis, the
decision was taken to focus more than initially envisaged upon the field of social
work and nature of professional habitus there. Thus, attention is paid to the
development and characteristics of the profession (informed by an understanding of
political and professional imperialism, attempts to resist through indigenisation and
the forms such processes may continue to take), social work practice/practices,
approaches and constructions of the traits of Filipino people. Dimensions of habitus
explored included initial and on-going motivation and multiple forms of identity
(including – to varying degrees - national, occupational, professional, personal,
religious and gender-related dimensions). Through this process, attention was paid
to structure and agency in Philippine social work.

A significant focus, therefore, is upon what it is to be a social worker and to ‘do’

social work in the Philippines, or with social work as practice. It was essential to
explore practice in the Philippines thoroughly before considering the impact of
practising in a different country. Thus, Research Question 2 (How do social work
practitioners, academics and policy makers describe social work purpose, motivation
and identity in the Philippines?) took on increasing significance, as a prerequisite for
further understanding. Chapters 5 and 6 addressed those Research Objectives
relating to the perspectives of social work practitioners, academics and policy
makers in the Philippines on the purpose and practice of social work and to
understanding motivation for social work and the dimensions of social work identity
in the Philippines. The legacies of imperialism (including religious beliefs) and the
ongoing interplay between received and homegrown approaches to welfare and
social work were evident, explicitly and implicitly, in accounts of purpose and
practice. Participants in the Philippines all identified an anti-poverty approach,
though this (with a few exceptions) was typically seen to require personal growth or,

273
in macro form, social and economic development (rather than social transformation).
Nonetheless, social work was seen to embrace practice which included social action,
policy development and advocacy beyond the individual level. Descriptions of
motivation and purpose introduced ideas such as optimism, resilience, care and faith
into the emerging picture of social work in the Philippines. Debates around the
desirability of specialisms and relative value of one-to-one or community based
intervention were highlighted. These very much reflected the process identified by
Olson (2007) whereby the drive towards professionalism has often involved a
preference of micro theories and approaches (Hugman, 2009) and a distancing of
social work from its social justice aims. This is not entirely the experience of the
Philippines but some evidence of such tensions was identified. By contrast, it is
important to acknowledge the potential of a profession to protect a commitment to a
more critical macro vision (Briskman, 2013, p61):

“Although there is some criticism of the professionalisation of social work,

professional associations can be steered into taking a moral lead and there are
examples of this occurring.”

In short, individual and collective social work identity is complex and contested,
comprising international, historical and personal dimensions.

Chapter 7 set out findings from social workers whose ‘professional journey’ had
brought them to England, focusing therefore upon Research Question 3. The data
provided rich illustrations of the felt experience of adapting to a different cultural
context, within which the field of social work was seen also to be very different.
Whilst notions of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor were evident in the
Philippines, they were stated more commonly and more strongly by Filipino workers
in England. Workers spoke of trying to identify what they could ‘hold on to’ from their
previous practice. Their sense of professional self was destabilised and the process
of adjustment – along with the process of participating in this research project –
required that workers acknowledged and reflected upon their existing and shifting
professional habitus.

274
It would be inappropriate, in drawing the thesis to a conclusion, not to return to the
ethical dilemmas associated with ‘brain drain’ and the pull of capital. As we saw,
many research participants felt uneasy, for these reasons, about leaving the
Philippines behind and most intended to return. Hussein, Manthorpe and Stevens
(2010, p1009) quote the following manager of a recruitment agency employing
international workers in the UK, who has reservations also about ‘brain drain’ from
countries in the Global South, including the Philippines:

“I try and avoid recruiting from India, Pakistan and one or two other developing
countries. Not because I have anything against those countries but it’s a UN thing
and a Government thing. These countries are getting money (the Philippines is
another one) to try and improve their living conditions and social conditions…”

So, for this manager it would appear that there was a particular ethical dilemma
around employing people from countries whose internal social and economic
development s/he perceived as being supported through international aid. The
complex and inequitable nature of relations between Global North and South has
(though not a core focus) been ever present whilst researching and writing this
thesis. Indeed, one could interpret the above quotation as using the term
‘developing’ in the sense which has led many to prefer the term ‘Global South’: in
other words, because ‘developing’ implies an ‘ideal’ capitalist mode of development
to which all countries should aspire (see comments on Terminology within Chapter
1). This is not something we could begin to hope to resolve or even address in any
detail within this thesis but there is no doubt that financial pull factors (from the
Philippines to England) were very evident.

Beyond those Research Questions and Objectives relating to the structural, cultural
and personal influences upon the profession and individual professional journeys
within and beyond the Philippines, two more overarching Research Objectives were
set for the study. These were to consider:

 how the Bourdieusian concepts of field, habitus and capital might inform
an understanding of what it is to be a social worker and to do social work

275
  the implications of this study for the field of international social work and, in
particular, the definition and purpose of social work internationally

Overall, Bourdieu’s work offered theoretical constructs through which one could
understand connections and sources of dissonance between macro and micro
dimensions of social work and consider the place of both structure and agency, as a
critical realist approach to research requires. There was seen to be an appropriate
and purposeful ‘fit’ between Bourdieu’s notions (of field, habitus and capital) and the
concern of social work theorists with the tensions and possibilities for professional
practice. We saw, on the one hand, structural determinants of social work and the
lives of service users and, on the other hand, the potential for (individual and
collective) professional discretion and influence. This was found to reflect social
work identity and sense of purpose at the micro level but forged within the academic
and professional field(s) of social work at national and international levels. As
suggested in Chapter 2 (Figure 6, p43) social work fields and habitus are developed
and shape practice at the personal, cultural and structural levels (Thompson, 2012)
and in forms that might be characterised as empowering, problem-solving and
seeking social change (Payne, 2014). Bourdieusian understandings of capital
(including symbolic capital, which relates to professional status in this context) were
seen to operate in relation both to social work field and habitus. Though Bourdieu’s
notion of hysteresis spoke to that area of the thesis concerned with transition, it is
suggested that his work offers less to a consideration of the process of professional
journeys.

The thesis does not seek to underplay (as, for example, some social constructionism
might) the potentially oppressive nature of structure, whether in the interrelated
forms of neo-liberalism and North-South aid or the lived experience of absolute
poverty on a Filipino farmer. Critical social work must expose and respond to such
structural factors. However, the thesis also concerns itself with the place of identity,
the individual orientation of the social worker and the significance of what writers in
social work (Brookfield, 2009) term ‘critical reflection’. For this thesis, this means the
reflection of individual social workers and of social work internationally upon its
professional habitus. The identity of a worker in the Philippines reflects multi-layered
identities and processes (international, national, historical, professional and
276
personal) but is not an identity set in stone or which cannot be interpreted or
operationalised in different ways.

The question of whether social work has some internationally transferable ‘essence’
is not one a thesis such as this could hope to answer in any comprehensive way but
rather to offer glimpses into parts of an answer. Social workers in England spoke of
doing a ‘different job’, suggesting that the situated nature of social work practice
predominates (shaped by cultural and structural factors and more by the field of
social work as local than global). Areas of professional commonality between
countries were described in value base (though, as we saw, there was not always a
shared understanding of values, with terms like ‘empowerment’ often attributed
different meanings) and skills (such as communication and engagement). However,
though Filipinos described transferable approaches in terms of being ‘caring’ and
‘culturally adaptable’, these did not always prove to be appreciated or realistic in
England. Participants spoke mostly of adopting the professional traits and practices
of the ‘host’ country: some aspects of the new social work field were seen to be
positive (for example, professional supervision) but others (typically, the
individualised, boundaried and inflexible nature of practice) were not. Many sought
to retain something of what it is to be a Filipino social worker, to retain agency and
identity in the face of institutional imperatives and cultural expectations. Just as in
the Philippines (where the legacies of imperialism and the realities of poverty and
dependence on aid set the parameters for practice), workers in England experienced
a different but equally restricted field. Nonetheless, being a social worker was a
significant aspect of participants’ identities and they retained pride in their profession
and commitment to perceived ‘shared’ objectives and values. Just as pragmatic
efforts are made to indigenise methods from the Global North, so individual workers
continue to see themselves as members of an international field and, it seems, adapt
their professional habitus in conscious and unconscious ways. To some degree, the
findings of this study support Webb’s (2003) assertion that the contextualised nature
of social work make it difficult to speak of an international profession. However, in
the face of neoliberal and global forces, this is perhaps all the more reason why the
profession should seek areas of commonality and unity.

So, what might be the implications of this study for the field of international social

277
work and the definition and purpose of international social work? Within the field of
social work, in the Philippines as internationally, there are struggles between those
with differing ‘amounts’ and forms of capital and different beliefs as to what social
work should see as its mission. For Payne (2014), one might ‘categorise’
orientations to social work in three ways: the field of social work, groupings within that
field and individual workers may advocate a practice which, for Payne, is broadly
empowering, oriented to the maintenance of social order or transformational in tone
and method. Something that became more evident in the Philippines was that forms
of social work do not necessarily fit the ideal types Payne proposes. In particular,
Payne distinguishes between the ‘Problem-Solving’ orientation (typically operating at
the individualistic level and seeking to maintain social order) and the ‘Social Change’
orientation which sits within a socialist or more collectivist tradition. In the
Philippines, where much of social work takes a social development form, community-
based and collectivist approaches may serve equally to promote social order and
may offer no more than one-to-one casework in terms of emancipatory outcomes or
conscientisation. One might, therefore, add ‘Collectivist-Reformist’ orientations to a
typology of social work, particularly when considering much social development
practice in the Global South. To be fair, Payne (2014) acknowledges these
complexities, which Mantle and Backwith (2010, p2382) report as follows:

“Payne… examines the broad notions and expressions of social and community
development and their connections with social work [and] concludes that while these
perspectives offer a wider social focus for intervention with oppressed people than
systems theory… they both serve to reproduce the existing social order.”

Whilst collective approaches are by no means automatically critical (and one

participant struggled with the approach of a particular agency to social action), it
remains more likely that consciousness of structural inequality will be engendered
and acted upon collectively:

“Collective action involves a recognition that individual needs are mainly met by
transformed social relations undertaken through joint action with others (Leonard,
1984).” (Collins, 2009).

278
The focus in the Philippines upon alleviating broad-based and absolute poverty (and
the internationally-driven imperative of economic development) would appear to
render ‘community’ responses the only affordable response. Just as the more
individualist nature of society in many parts of the Global North seems to go hand-in-
hand with more individualised forms of social work (with associated ‘versions’ of
empowerment, interpretations of rights and notions of independence and choice), so
it would appear that in the Philippines, where community remains a real (if
sometimes idealised) way of characterising social structure, community-oriented
social work retains a significant presence. In fact, the pressing demand for
economic and social development underpinned a shift from casework to community
development approaches, resulting in the poverty-focused orientation. However, it
would seem that, in the Philippines, dimensions of oppression related to factors
others than (or in tandem with) poverty, such as sexuality, gender, disability and
‘race’, may not be afforded the attention they otherwise might. Many social
development schemes in the Philippines (such as the conditional cash transfer
programme), though superficially appealing in terms of community rather than
individual focus, have the potential to pathologise and offer little more than a ‘sticking
plaster’. Service users may feel they are being held responsible for their
circumstances and for getting out of those circumstances, whether experiencing
casework or community approaches. Having said this, social work in the Philippines
(perhaps because it operates across statutory and non-statutory contexts) is more
able – in some forms, at least – to promote purposeful alliances with those it
supports, to be associated with tangible welfare (though many disliked the dole-out
tag), to be involved in forms of political action and to see itself as having a role in
challenging policy. The thesis has demonstrated ways in which the shape of social
work (and experiences of service users) reflect actual and symbolic location,
dominant and emerging forms of welfare and social work over time and perspectives
and practice relating to difference and diversity within society (Huegler, Lyons and
Pawar, 2012).

279
8.2 The Research Process, Core Contributions and Future Work

8.2.1 Core Contributions

In many ways, the search for ‘international social work’ is more important than
reaching an end point. The process of reflecting upon purpose and contribution and
gaining strength and inspiration from the international field is vital to a critically
reflective practice. The in-depth study of social work in the Philippines and of Filipino
workers in England suggested that social work is, mostly, situated practice. That
practice, however, cannot be understood without an understanding of processes
(notably imperialism and indigenisation) and structures (such as family and religion)
and is increasingly shaped by global influences. Any attempt to acknowledge the
structural must engage with the international. Furthermore, by considering social
work as an international phenomenon, we stand a better chance of avoiding situated
practice becoming ‘blinkered’ or stagnant.

This thesis has given voice to social workers in an oft-overlooked part of East Asia.
It is one of the first attempts to use a Bourdieusian conceptual framework to look at
the layered nature of social work identity and the journeys which professional fields
and individuals within those fields undertake. The focus also upon experiences of
transition suggests that there are multiple fields of social work and that habitus
adjusts to different fields. There is, as I have suggested, much potential in urging
social work students and practitioners to map out the fields in which they are situated
and to identify those structural, collective and individual influences upon their own
professional habitus. As Dunk-West and Verity suggest (2013, p49):

Social work’s relatively recent inclusion of Bourdieu’s work [provides] an excellent

framework to better understand and question the relationship of the social worker in
her/his organisational setting – and the subsequent identity created through the
symbiosis of the social worker’s habitus within their field.”

It is hoped, in the face of an apparent march towards specialist training and practice
in England, that the thesis has reiterated the importance of defining social work

280
broadly (with all its orientations and in all settings and sectors) and the potential
strengths offered by generic forms of practice. This brings us back to the notion of
struggles within and between fields and the need to consider the role played by
capital in this context. In the Philippines, social work operates in personal, cultural,
structural and spiritual domains (Moss, 2005; Thompson, 2012); it takes forms which
may be empowering, problem-solving and some which seek social change through
alliances with community and user organisations (Payne, 2014). Orientations
towards practice reflect setting but also individual habitus, professional culture and
the relative power of competing fields. What became clear was that an anti-poverty
mission did not, in itself, translate into critical practice (Mullaly, 2007) and, indeed,
there was a limited interpretation of the ‘western’ term ‘Anti Oppressive Practice’.
Those Filipino workers who had moved to the Global North were able to reflect upon
their shifting habitus and mostly missed more collective and, arguably, creative forms
of intervention. However, though they experienced struggles around identity and
purpose, they mostly adapted to a different field with considerable success. They
identified continuing intrinsic motivations for practice and all continued to see the
profession as a positive one. However, with very few exceptions, among participants
in the Philippines and in England, there was little evidence of a critical orientation to
practice seeking to expose structural oppression (Ferguson and Woodward, 2009).
Where this was seen to exist, it was predominantly in voluntary agencies in the
Philippines with a campaigning focus. Such organisations of course exist in England
and may even employ social workers but would not typically be seen as doing social
work, something the profession in the UK needs to address.

8.2.2 Reflections on the Research and Impact on and of Self

Towards the start of the thesis, I stated that my prime motivation had been a desire
to ‘know more’ about social work internationally. The process has undoubtedly
achieved this aim and this has, in turn, informed my work with qualifying social work
students in the UK. In particular, I have found that a commitment to developing
international awareness is one way of fostering critically reflective practice. Qualified
social workers returning for continuing professional development have valued the
opportunity to reflect upon their agencies and practice through an international lens.

281
For this researcher, the study led to a questioning of assumptions about the relative
potential of individualised and collective or community-oriented forms of practice to
deliver social change and an interest in pursuing this area of inquiry.

I have learnt much also from the research process itself: transcribing recorded
interviews of sometimes over two hours in length made me think again about the
need to balance a desire to provide an open platform for Filipino participants with the
pragmatic need to manipulate and analyse data. Interviewees were always
reminded of the time and asked if they wished to draw sessions to a close but there
was something about really wanting to share their perspectives for which I was
grateful. In a sense, therefore, the data collection, transcription and analysis
processes led me to reflect upon the meaning of ‘semi’ in semi-structured!

Another area for reflection has been around my own identity (professional and
personal) and, in turn, upon the extent to which such factors were explored at
interview and in the data analysis. I wonder if I could have done more to bring social
divisions or aspects of identity to the surface. The small-scale nature of the study
coupled with the range of participants in terms of gender, age, sexuality and religion
meant that it was difficult to identify significant themes in this regard. As has been
seen, poverty was the central stated focus of Filipino workers in the Philippines, with
much less attention apparently paid to other potential areas of inequality. There was
little evidence of this changing for workers in England, although they clearly saw their
professional habitus shaken in a country where poverty takes a very different form.
Overall, I think it must be acknowledged that anti-oppressive practice was not
something discussed voluntarily by most participants. Given that notions of social
class do not exist in the same ways as they might be applied in the UK, participants
were not asked to identify in this way. Some gave an indication of their income but
this was not found to yield any significant correlations. In the context of ‘care’,
gender is perhaps the main area which, given more space, merits further attention
and this may, indeed, form a future area of interest. As a male researcher, I am
conscious that this will have impacted upon the process.

In forming a view on the quality of this research project, Gould’s standards for
evaluating qualitative research (in Lovelock, Lyons and Powell, 2004, p140) were

282
found to be helpful. It is suggested that the semi-structured and evolving nature of
the interview process (discussed elsewhere) meant it was responsive and sensitive
to social context. The questions of ‘adequate representation’ within the sample and
of ‘typicality’ are (as discussed above) interesting ones: it is considered that a good
range of participants was accessed both in the Philippines and England, including
representation by gender and faith which broadly reflects that in the field. However,
the scope of the research was such that, for example, it is not possible to make
claims about, for example, the particular experiences of Muslim social workers in the
Philippines or, indeed, to identify comparative themes around, say, areas of practice
(such as with children or in non-statutory settings). Similarly, it has not proved
possible to identify any meaningful findings relating to ethnicities within the
Philippines.

The shift in focus towards social work in the Philippines might be considered a
strength or a weakness. The thesis presents much more than was anticipated in
terms of the field of Philippine social work in international context and the practice
and identity of social workers there. However, the decision to focus more upon
these areas of data means that less is offered in relation to professional transition to
England. I have, however, attempted to be transparent about the evolution of my
own interests as the research process developed. A further limitation of the work
(but in this case one that was evident from the outset) was the diverse nature of
social work roles and settings in which participants were located. This was probably
unavoidable, given relatively small numbers in England and the combination of a
desire to understand the scope of social work in the Philippines and the snowball
sampling there. It means, however, that the thesis does not ‘compare like with like’.
So, for example, it cannot compare the perspectives of hospital social workers in
both countries. From the outset, it was acknowledged that this is not a comparative
study in this sense. Indeed, one could argue that the range of variables
internationally (for example, cultural, economic, policy-based) makes true
comparative studies very difficult indeed.

To consider further ‘measures’ suggested by Gould (in Lovelock, Lyons and Powell,
2004), it is hoped that sufficient description of individual participants is included,
whilst protecting anonymity, and that the ‘data chapters’ give due voice to the

283
subjective perceptions of participants. Furthermore, every effort has been made to
offer clarity around how the data and the theoretical dimensions of the thesis (in
particular, those provided by Bourdieu and Payne) speak to each other. Finally, it is
suggested that the role of policy, and the consideration of all stakeholders especially
in the Philippines, is a central feature of the thesis. Whilst one can, of course,
evaluate research methods and findings against many criteria, Gould offered a
productive reflective tool. I found, as suggested by Orme & Karvinen-Niinikoski
(2012, p191) that,

“Developing research approaches that are participatory and inclusive is challenging

in an international context.”

On a positive note, connections with the Philippine Association of Social Workers

and the University of the Philippines prior to and during the study visit to the country
(and staying there for 5 weeks) meant that it was possible to seek views on potential
areas of inquiry and to cross-validate findings as they began to arise. For ethical
reasons and to limit the scope of the research, no interviews were undertaken with
service users. Whilst this was appropriate to the study at hand, it does mean that
the potentially very different perspectives of those who use the services of Filipino
social workers are absent from the primary data used in this thesis. Indeed, the
voices of service users were often not evident in the Philippine social work literature.

8.2.3 Thoughts on Future Developments

At this point, there are a number of areas for possible development of the work
presented in this thesis. Firstly, there is potential for further interrogation of the data
gathered from Filipino workers in England. Themes which have begun to emerge
include use of self and of faith in social work; perspectives on professional conduct
and ‘distance’; and factors which support or inhibit positive professional identity and
public perception. Another area for further research would concern perspectives of
international and indigenous workers on the potential for community-oriented forms
of social work (Mantle & Backwith, 2010) in the UK. The reflections of Filipino

284
workers upon perceived strengths and weaknesses of practice in both countries said
much more than it has been possible to include in this thesis.

In terms of future research projects, it would be interesting also to apply some of the
ideas and methods used for this research to look at professional transitions more
generally (perhaps, for example, between local authorities or when promoted to a
management position). However, the proposal which most appeals currently to the
researcher is that of a longitudinal study, again looking at international transition of
social work practitioners, but which engages with specific workers prior to departure
and then tracks the experiences of those same workers through the process of
migration and professional adaptation. Whilst the research for this thesis yielded rich
data, an acknowledged limitation was its engagement with different people in the
Philippines and England, which meant there was no possibility to analyse
consistency or difference in individual narratives.

8.3 The International as Real

In November 2013, Typhoon Yolanda devastated parts of the Philippines and

caused the deaths of around 10,000 people. An international aid effort, coordinated
by the United Nations and World Health Organisation, brought together Filipinos and
people from around the world in responding to the most basic of needs. In many
ways, the power of international effort and cooperation was demonstrated. Filipino
social workers (themselves survivors of the tragedy) played a significant part in relief
efforts. Representatives of the IFSW visited, to offer their support and highlight the
part social work was playing (Truell, 2014):

“The social workers of Tacloban told our visiting delegation that their resilience and
ability to continue practicing came from their cultural experience and their social work
training.”

Therefore, the theme of resilience through adversity, bolstered by professional

training, again came across. Social work was, again, engaging in the essential task
of dole-out, though also assessing damage, liaising with other professionals and

285
offering counselling. This may not have constituted critical practice. Social work
was not, in the moment, rejecting, “… practice that accepts conservative, liberal,
neo-liberal or social democratic political philosophies based on social policy” (Payne,
2014, p319) but it was doing its very best alongside fellow human beings in hugely
difficult circumstances. An email to members of the IFSW on 31st January 2014
(copy held by researcher) explained some of the ‘added value’ provided by social
workers in the country:

“The social workers attend to the social dynamics: the trauma; the grief; and another
issue that potentially could victimize the survivors further for the rest of their lives –
trafficking.”

The email went on to explain that the typhoon had left people more vulnerable to
those wishing to force them into domestic work or prostitution in Europe or
elsewhere. What further evidence might one need that all our lives, and especially
the lives of those in poor countries, are affected by environmental and global factors
and that social work must situate itself as both a local and international activity?

286
References

Abbott, P. & Meerabeau, L. 1998. The Sociology of the Caring Professions. 2nd Ed.
London: UCL Press.

Aguilar, F. et al. 2009. Maalwang Buhay. Family, Overseas Migration, And Cultures
of Relatedness in Barangay Paraiso. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University
Press.

Ahmad, B. 1990. Black Perspectives in Social Work. Birmingham: Venture.

Akimoto, T. & Sungkawan, D. 2012. ‘Social Work, Economic Conditions and

Livelihood’ in Lyons, K., Hokenstad, T., Pawar, M., Huegler, N. & Hall, N. (Eds.).
2012. The SAGE Handbook of International Social Work. London: Sage.

Alexander, C., Edwards, R. & Temple, B. with Usha Kanani, Liu Zhuang, Mohib Miah
& Anita Sam. 2004. Access to services with interpreters: User views. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.

Alinsky, S. 1971. Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. New
York: Random House.

Allan, K. 2006. Contemporary Social and Sociological Theory. Visualizing Social

Worlds. London: Sage.

Almanzor, A. 1966. The Profession of Social Work in the Philippines: Historical

Background. International Social Work. 9: 27-34.

Amelina, A. & Faist, T. 2012. De-naturalizing the national in research methodologies:

key concepts of transnational studies in migration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35
(10): 1707-1724.

287
Andres, T. 1988. Community Development: A Manual. Quezon City: New Day
Publishers.

Aquino, R. 2005. The Legal Protection of Vulnerable Sectors: A guide to RA9208,

“The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act” and RA9262, “The Violence Against Women
and their Children Act” and Implementing Rules and Regulations. Quezon City:
Central Book Supply, Inc.

Artaraz, K. 2006. The wrong person for the job? Professional habitus and working
cultures in Connexions. Critical social policy, 26 (4). pp. 910-931.

Askeland, G. & Payne, M. 2006. ‘Social Work Education’s Cultural Hegemony’.

International Social Work, 49; 731.

Aspis, S. 1997. Self-advocacy for People with Learning Difficulties; does it have a
future?, Disability & Society, 12 (4), 647-654.

AusAID. 2011. Australia’s Aid Programme. Philippines. Available from:

http://www.ausaid.gov.au/country/country.cfm?CountryID=31 [accessed 22.6.11].

Azanza, P. 2001. Human Behavior and Society. An Introduction to Social Sciences.

Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.

Bailey, R. & Brake, M. (eds). 1980. Radical Social Work and Practice. London:
Edward Arnold.

Baldwin, M. 2011. Resisting the EasyCare model: building a more radical,

community-based, anti-authoritarian social work for the future. In Lavalette, M. (Ed.).
2011. Radical Social Work Today. Social work at the crossroads. Bristol: Policy
Press.

Balloch, S., Andrew, T., Ginn, J., McLean, J., Pahl, J. & Williams, J. 1995. Working
for Social Services. London: National Institute for Social Work.

288
Balloch, S., McLean, J. & Fisher, M. 1999. Social Services: Working under Pressure.
Bristol: Policy Press.

Banks, S. 2011. ‘Re-gilding the ghetto: community work and community

development in 21st-century Britain’. In Lavalette, M. (ed). Radical Social Work
Today. Social Work at the Crossroads. Bristol: Policy Press.

Barclay, P. 1982. Social workers: their role and tasks (the Barclay Report). London:
Bedford Square Press.

Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. 2006. Independent Futures: Creating user-led disability

services in a disabling society. Bristol: BASW/Policy Press.

Barnes, M. 2012. Care in Everyday Life. An Ethic of Care in Practice. Bristol: Policy
Press.

Baron, S., Field, J. & Schuller, T. (eds) 2000. Social Capital. Critical Perspectives.
Oxford: OU Press.

BASW. 2002. The Code of Ethics for Social Work. Birmingham: BASW.

BASW. 2012. The Code of Ethics for Social Work. Birmingham: BASW.

Bawagan, A., Hernando, M. & Awid, M. 2009. Rooted to Land. Strengthening

Indigenous Peoples’ Community Processes. Quezon City: University of the
Philippines.

BBC. 2011. President Aquino says tackling corruption key to growth. Available from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12708841 [Accessed 8.4.11].

Becker, H., Geer, B., Hughes, E. & Strauss, A. 1961. Boys in white: A study of
Student Culture in Medical School. Chicago: Transaction.

289
Becvar, D. 1998. The Family, Spirituality, and Social Work. New York: Haworth
Press.

Beddoe, L. 2013. ‘Continuing education, registration and professional identity in New

Zealand social work’. International Social Work. Published online before print June 5,
2013, doi:10.1177/0020872812473139.

Benjamin, A. 2005. Out in the lead. The Guardian, Available from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/jan/05/mentalhealth.guardiansocietysupplem
ent [Accessed 5.1.05].

Beresford, P. 2007. The Changing Roles and Tasks Of Social Work From Service
Users’ Perspectives: A literature informed discussion paper. London: Shaping Our
Lives.

Beresford, P. and Croft, S. 2004. Service Users And Practitioners Reunited: The key
component for social work reform, British Journal of Social Work, Vol 34, 53-68.

Beveridge, W. 1942. Social Insurance and Allied Services: Report by Sir William
Beveridge. London: HMSO.

Bhaskar, R. 2008. A Realist Theory of Science. 4th Ed. London: Routledge.

Bhaskar, R. et al. 2008. The formation of critical realism. A personal perspective.

London: Routledge.

Biestek, F. 1961. The Casework Relationship. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Birkenmaier, J., Berg-Weger, M. & Dewees, M. 2014. The Practice of Generalist

Social Work 3rd Ed. Abingdon: Routledge.

Blaikie, N. 2007. Approaches to Social Enquiry. Advancing Knowledge. Cambridge:

Polity Press.

290
Blewett, J., Lewis, J. & Tunstill, J. 2007. The Changing Roles and Tasks of Social
Work. A Literature Informed Discussion Paper. London: GSCC.

Bourdieu, P. 1977a. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1977b. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1977c. The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London:

Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. 1986. ‘Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the
Sociology of Education’, edited by Richardson, J. New York: Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P. 1987. ‘The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field.’ The
Hastings Law Journal 38:805–854.

Bourdieu, P. 1989. ‘Social Space and Symbolic Power.’ Sociological Theory 7(1):14–
25.

Bourdieu, P. 1991. Trans. J. Burnside, C. Calhoun and L. Florence. Genesis and

structure of the religious field. Comparative Social Research, 13: 1-44.

Bourdieu, P. 1993. Sociology in Question. London: Sage.

Bourdieu, P. 1996. The state nobility: elite schools in the field of power. Cambridge: Polity
Press, xxiv, p475.

Bourdieu, P. 1998. Acts of Resistance: Against the New Myths of our Time.
Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1999. The Weight of the World. Social Suffering in Contemporary

Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

291
Bourdieu, P & Wacquant, L. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

Bourgeault, I. Dingwall, R. & de Vries, R (eds). 2010. The Sage Handbook of

Qualitative Methods in Health Research. London: Sage.

Boyatzis, R. 2008. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and

Code Development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bradley, H. 1989. Men’s Work, Women’s Work. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bradley, H. 2000. Myths at Work. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Brake, M. & Bailey, R. (eds). 1980. Radical social work and practice. London:
Edward Arnold.

Brandt, W. 1980, North–South: A Program for Survival. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Briskman, L. 2013. Courageous ethnographers or agents of the state: challenges for

social work. Critical and Radical Social Work, 1(1), 51-66.

Brookfield, S. 2009. The concept of critical reflection: promises and contradictions.

European Journal of Social Work.12 (3).

Brown, K., Bates, N. & Keen, S. 2007. Supporting the Continuing Professional
Development Needs of Internationally Qualified Social Workers Project. Final report
for Skills for Care. Bournemouth: Bournemouth University.

Brubaker, R. 2003. ‘Social Theory as Habitus’, in C. Calhoun, E. LiPuma and M.

Postone (eds) Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods. 4th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

292
Butler, A., Ford, D. & Tregaskis, C. 2007. Who Do We Think We Are?: Self and
Reflexivity in Social Work Practice. Qualitative Social Work. 6: 281-299.

Butler, A., Elliott, T. & Stopard, N. 2003. Living up to the standards we set: a critical
account of the development of anti-racist standards. Social Work Education, 22(3),
June 2003, pp.271-282.

Callinicos, A. 2007. Social Theory. A Historical Introduction. 2nd Ed. Cambridge:

Polity Press.

Carroll, J. 2006. Engaging Society. The Sociologist in a War Zone. Quezon City:
Ateneo De Manila University Press.

Carr-Saunders, A. & Wilson, P. 1933. The Professions. Oxford: Basil and Blackwell.

Castles, S. 2006. Guestworkers in Europe: A Resurrection? International Migration

Review 40(4): 741-66.

Castles, S. and Miller, M. 2008. The Age of Migration: International Population

Movements in the Modern World, 4th Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.

CCETSW. 1991. Rules and Regulations for the Diploma in Social Work. Paper 30,
Second Ed. London: CCETSW.

Chahal, K. 1999. Researching Ethnicity: experiences and concerns. In Broad, B.

(Ed.) 1999. The Politics of Social Work Research and Evaluation. Birmingham:
Venture Press.

Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through

qualitative analysis. London: Sage.

Charnley, H. & Langley, J. 2007. Developing cultural competence as a framework for

anti-heterosexist social work practice: reflections from the UK. Journal of Social
Work 7(3): 307-321.

293
CHED. 2010. Policies and Standards for Bachelor of Science in Social Work
Program. Quezon City: CHED.

Christie, A. 2006. Negotiating the uncomfortable intersections between gender and

professional identities in social work. Critical Social Policy 26(2): 390-411.

Chu, W., Tsui, M. & Yan, M. 2009. Social work as a moral and political practice.
International Social Work. May 2009, 52(3), 287-298.

CIA World Factbook. 2007. Available from:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html [Accessed
22.6.11].

Clarke, S. 2000. Social Work as Community Development. A management model for

social change. 2nd Ed. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Clarke J. & Newman J. 1997. The Managerial State. London: Sage.

Cohen, R. & Kennedy, P. 2007. Global Sociology. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Coleman, H. & Unrau, Y. 2008. Qualitative Data Analysis. In Grinnell, R. & Unrau, Y.
2008. Social Work Research and Evaluation. Foundations of Evidence-Based
Practice. 8th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Collier, A. 1994. Critical Realism. An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy.

London: Verso.

Collins, S. 2009. Some Critical Perspectives on Social Work and Collectives. British
Journal of Social Work, 39, 334-352.

Constantino, R. & Constantino, L. 1978. The Philippines: A Continuing Past. Quezon

City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies.

294
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. 1986. Manila: AVB Press.

Coquia, J. 2000. Human Rights. An Introductory Course. Quezon City: Central Book
Supply, Inc.

Cordero, E., Pangalangan, E. & Fondevilla, R. (eds). 2000. Philippine Encyclopedia

of Social Work (2000 Edition, Volumes 1 & 2). Quezon City: Megabooks Company/
National Association of Social Work Education Inc.

Corrigan & Leonard. 1978. Social Work Practice Under Capitalism: A Marxist
Approach. London: Macmillan.

Cox, D. 1997. ‘Asia and the Pacific’, in Mayadas, N. et al (eds). International

Handbook on Social Work Theory and Practice, p369-82. Westport CT: Greenwood
Press.

Cree, V. & Myers, S. 2008. Social Work: Making a Difference. Bristol: Policy Press.

Cree, V. 2011. ‘Introduction. Reading social work’, in Cree, V. (Ed.) Social Work. A
Reader. London: Routledge.

Crosby, N. and Duffy, S. 2008. A Whole Life Approach to personalisation for

Children and Families. London: In Control.

Crotty, M. 1998. The Foundations of Social Research. Meaning and Perspectives in

the Research Process. London: Sage.

Cudd, A. 2006. Analyzing Oppression. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cuff, E., Sharrock, W. & Francis, D. 2006. Perspectives in Sociology. 5th Ed.
Abingdon: Routledge.

295
CWDC. 2009. Newly qualified social workers. A report on consultations with newly
qualified social workers, employers and those in higher education. London:
Children’s Workforce Development Council.

Dalrymple, J. & Burke, B. 2006. Anti-Oppressive Practice. Social Care and the Law.
2nd Ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

David, R. 2001. Reflections on Sociology & Philippine Society. Quezon City: The
University of the Philippines Press.

David, R. 2004. Nation, Self and Citizenship. An Invitation to Philippine Sociology.

Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc.

Davies, M. 1994. The Essential Social Worker. 3rd Ed. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Davies, L. & Leonard, P. 2004. Social Work in a Corporate Era. Practices of Power
and Resistance. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Davis, A. 2008. Celebrating 100 Years of Social Work - University of Birmingham.

Available from: http://www.iass.bham.ac.uk/documents/100-years-of-social-work.pdf
[Accessed 4.3.14].

D’Cruz, H. & Jones, M. 2004. Social Work Research. Ethical and Political Contexts.
London: Sage.

Deepak, A. 2012. ‘Globalization, power and resistance: Postcolonial and

transnational feminist perspectives for social work practice’. International Social
Work, 55: 779-79.

De Guzman, L. (ed). 1971. Philippine Encyclopedia of Social Work. First Issue.

Manila: Philippine Association of Social Workers.

De Guzman, L. 1992. Introduction to Social Work. Quezon City: New Day

Publishers.

296
Delos Reyes, E. 1976. ‘Country Paper: The Role of Social Work Education in Rural
Development in the Philippines’ in Proceedings of the Group Training Course on the
Role of Social Work Education in Rural Development, Jointly sponsored by UN
Economic and Social Commission for Asia & the Pacific and The University of the
Philippines Institute of Social Work and Community Development. Quezon City:
University of the Philippines.

Denscombe, M. 2010. The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research,
4th ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Department of Health. 1998. Modernising Social Services. Promoting independence,

improving protection, raising standards. London: DH.

Department of Health. 2002. Requirements for Social Work Training. London: DH.

Department of Health, Philippines. 2005. National Objectives for Health Philippines

2005-2010. Accessed 20.4.11 at: http://www.doh.gov.ph/files/pop_pyramid.pdf

Department of the Interior and Local Government . 1995. A Primer on The Philippine
Minimum Basic Needs (MBN) Approach. 2nd Ed. Quezon City: Local Government
Academy – Department of the Interior and Local Government.

Destremau, B., Parpaillon E., Rollet, C. & Schaefer, G. 2010. Social Welfare in a
Globalised World. Leon-Bernard: Presses de l’EHESP.

Dineros-Pineda, J. 1992. Beyond Nutrition: empowerment in the Philippines.

International Social Work. 35: 203-215.

Doel, M. 2006. Using Groupwork. London: Routledge.

Dominelli, L. 1988. Anti-Racist Social Work. London: Macmillan.

Dominelli, L. & McLeod, E. 1989. Feminist Social Work. London: Macmillan.

297
Dominelli, L. 1995. Deprofessionalizing Social Work: Anti-Oppressive Practice,
Competencies and Postmodernism. British Journal of Social Work, 26 (2), 153-175.

Dominelli, L. 2002. Anti-oppressive social work theory and practice. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Dominelli, L. 2004. Social Work: Theory and Practice for a Changing Profession.
Oxford: Polity Press.

Dominelli, L. 2010. Social Work in a Globalizing World. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Dominelli, L. 2012. ‘Globalisation and Indigenisation: Reconciling the Irreconcilable

in Social Work?’ in Lyons, K., Hokenstad, T., Pawar, M., Huegler, N. & Hall, N.
(Eds.). 2012. The SAGE Handbook of International Social Work. London: Sage.

Dowling, M. 1999. Social Work and Poverty. Attitudes and Actions. Aldershot:
Ashgate.

DSWD. 1994. 1st Global Consultation on Child Welfare Services. Gearing towards a
More Dynamic International Partnership for the Welfare of Filipino Children. Quezon
City: Department of Social Welfare and Development.

DSWD. 1995. Senior Citizens Center Act of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 7876).
Quezon City: Department of Social Welfare and Development.

DSWD. 2009. Sama-Samang Pagtawid Tungo sa Kaunlaran. 2009 Annual Report.

Quezon City: Department of Social Welfare and Development.

DSWD. 2011(1). About Us – Vision, Mission, Mandate. Available from:

http://www.dswd.gov.ph/index.php/about-us [Accessed 20.5.13].

DSWD. 2011(2). DSWD holds meeting on Kalahi-CIDSS Urban Community-Driven

Development (CDD) Project. Available from : http://www.dswd.gov.ph/ [Accessed
11.10.11]

298
DSWD. Undated. Expanded Senior Citizens Act (Republic Act 9257). Explanatory
Leaflet. Quezon City: Department of Social Welfare and Development.

Dunk-West, P. & Verity, F. 2013. Sociological Social Work. Farnham: Ashgate.

Eisenberg, A. 2008. ‘Negotiating the Social Landscape to Create Social Change’ in

Kivisto, P. (ed.) 2008. Illuminating Social Life. Classical and Contemporary Theory
Revisited. 4th Ed. London: Sage.

Ejaz, F.K. 1991. Social Work Education in India: Perceptions of Social Workers in
Bombay. International Social Work 34: 299-311.

Enriquez, V. 1992. From Colonial To Liberation Psychology. The Philippine

Experience. Quezon City: The University of the Philippines Press.

Erickson, M., Bradley, H., Stephenson, C. & Williams, S. 2009. Business in Society.
Cambridge: Polity Press.

Etzioni, E. 1966. The Semi-Professions and their Organisation. New York: Basic
Books.

Evans T. & Harris J. 2004. ‘Street Level Bureaucracy, Social Work and the
(Exaggerated) Death of Discretion’, British Journal of Social Work 43: 871–95.

Evetts, J. 2003. ‘The Sociology of Professional Groups: New Questions and Different
explanations’, Knowledge, Work & Society, 1(1): 33-55.

Fargion, S. 2006. Thinking Professional Social Work: Expertise and Professional

Ideologies in Social Workers’ Accounts of Their Practice. Journal of Social Work. 6:
255-273.

299
Fargion, S. 2008. ‘Reflections on social work’s identity: International themes in Italian
practitioners’ representation of social work’. International Social Work, 51; 206.

Fereday, J. & Muir-Cochrane, E. 2006. ‘Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic

Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme
Development’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5 (1), 1-11.

Ferguson, I. 2007. Increasing User Choice or Privatizing Risk? The Antinomies of

Personalization, British Journal of Social Work, 37(3), 387-403.

Ferguson, I. & Woodward, R. 2009. Radical social work in practice. Making a

difference. Bristol: Policy Press.

Ferguson, K. 2005. ‘Beyond Indigenization and Reconceptualization: Towards a

global, multidirectional model of technology transfer’. International Social Work, 48;
519.

Fielding, N. 2001. ‘Ethnography’. In Gilbert, N. (ed.) 2001. Researching Social Life.

2nd Ed. London: Sage.

Flick, U. 2009. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 3rd Ed. London: Sage.

Fook, J. 1993. Radical Casework: A Theory of Practice. NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Fook, J. 2002. Social Work. Critical Theory and Practice. London: Sage.

Fook, J. 2012. Social work: a critical approach to practice. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Freidson, E. 1994. Professionalism Reborn. Cambridge: Polity.

Freidson, E. 2001. Professionalism: The Third Logic. Cambridge: Polity.

Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Continuum.

300
Foucault, M. 1965. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of
Reason. London: Tavistock.

Fulcher, L. 2003. The Working Definition of Social Work Doesn’t Work Very Well in
China and Malaysia. Research on Social Work Practice, 13; 376.

Furness S. & Gilligan P. 2010a. Religion, Belief and Social Work: Making a
Difference. Bristol: Policy Press.

Furness S. & Gilligan P. 2010b. ‘Social Work, Religion and Belief: Developing a
Framework for Practice’. British Journal of Social Work, 40 (7), 2185-2202.

Gamboa, D. & Lapuz-Estal, E. 2010. The 2009 Account of Newspaper Articles on

Suicide. Social Welfare and Development Journal. 4 (2), 47-53.

Garrett, P.M. 2002. Social Work and the Just Society: Diversity, Difference and the
Sequestration of Poverty. Journal of Social Work, 2; 187.

Garrett, P.M. 2002b. ‘Encounters in the New Welfare Domains of the Third Way:
Social Work, the Connexions Agency and Personal Advisers’. Critical Social Policy,
22(4), 596-618.

Garrett, P.M. 2007. The Relevance of Bourdieu for Social Work: A Reflection on
Obstacles and Omissions. Journal of Social Work, 7; 355.

Garrett, P.M. 2007b. ‘Making social work more Bourdieusian: why the social
professions should critically engage with the work of Pierre Bourdieu’. European
Journal of Social Work, 10, (2), 225-243.

Garrett, P.M. 2009. ‘Pierre Bourdieu’ in Gray, M. & Webb, S. (eds.) 2009. Social
Work Theories and Methods. London: Sage.

Garrett, P.M. 2013. Social Work and Social Theory. Making Connections. Bristol:
Policy Press.

301
Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. Selected Essays. New York: Basic
Books.

Gerlock, E. Ed. 2009. Love Grows: A Primer. Quezon City: New Day
Publishers/Coalition of Services of the Elderly, Inc.

Gibson, W. & Brown, A. 2009. Working with Qualitative Data. London: Sage.

Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gilchrist, A. 2009. The well-connected community. A networking approach to

community development. Bristol: Policy Press.

Gilligan, P. & Furness, S. 2006. The Role of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work
Practice: Views and Experiences of Social Workers and Students, British Journal of
Social Work, 36, 617-637.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Glasser, P. 1970. Present Status of Social Welfare Services in the Philippines.

International Social Work.13: 55.

Goldthorpe, J., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F. & Platt, J. 1968. The Affluent Worker:
Individual Attitudes and Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gomm, R. 2004. Social Research Methodology. A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Gould, N. 2004. ‘Qualitative Research and Social Work: The Methodological

Repertoire in a Practice-Oriented Discipline’ in Lovelock, R., Lyons, K. & Powell, J.
2004. Reflecting on Social Work – Discipline and Profession. Aldershot: Ashgate.

302
Gray, M. 2008. Viewing spirituality in social work through the lens of contemporary
social theory. British Journal of Social Work. 38(1):175-96.

Gray, M. 2010. ‘Indigenization in a Globalizing World: A Response to Yunong and

Xiong (2008)’, International Social Work 53(1): 115–27.

Gray, M. & Coates, J. 2010. ‘“Indigenization” and Knowledge Development:

Extending the Debate’, International Social Work 53(5): 613–27.

Gray, M., Coates, J. & Yellow-Bird, M. 2008. Indigenous Social Work around the
World. Towards Culturally Relevant Education and Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Gray, M. & Webb, S. (eds.) 2009. Social Work Theories and Methods. London:
Sage.

Grbich, C. 2007. Qualitative Data Analysis. An Introduction. London: Sage.

Green, L. 2006. ‘Pariah Profession, Debased Discipline? An Analysis of Social

Work’s Low Academic Status and the Possibilities for Change’, Social Work
Education 25(3): 245–64.

HMSO. 1988. Griffiths Report. Community Care: Agenda for Action. London: HMSO.

Grinnell, R. & Unrau, Y. 2008. Social Work Research and Evaluation. Foundations of
Evidence-Based Practice. 8th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grint, K. 2005. The Sociology of Work. 3rd Ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.

GSCC. 2004. Code of Practice for Social Care Workers and Code of Practice for
Employers of Social Care Workers. London: GSCC.

GSCC. 2008. Social workers trained and qualified outside the UK. Available from:
http://www.gscc.org.uk/The+Social+Care+Register/Apply+for+registration/Social+wo
rkers+trained+and+qualified+outside+the+UK/ [Accessed 10.5.09]

303
Guanzon, M. 2009. The Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004
(Republic Act No.9262). Manila: REX Publishing.

Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117).
London: Sage.

Gubrium, J. & Holstein, J. 1997. The New Language of Qualitative Method. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Haight, R.
1985. An Alternative Vision, An Interpretation of Liberation Theology.

Quezon City: Claretian.

Hakim, C. 1979. ‘Occupational Segregation: A comparative study of the degree and

pattern of the differentiation between men and women’s work in Britain, the United
States and other countries’, Research Paper No. 9. London: Department of
Employment.

Hall, N. (Ed). 2006. Social Work: Making a World of Difference. Social Work Around
the World IV in the year of IFSW’s 50th Jubilee. Berne: IFSW.

Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. 2007. Ethnography: Principles in Practice (3rd

Edition). London: Routledge.

Hardwick, L. & Worsley, A. 2011. Doing Social Work Research. London: Sage.

Hare, I. 2004. Defining Social Work for the 21st Century: The International Federation
of Social Workers’ Revised Definition of Social Work. International Social Work, 47:
407.

304
Harlow, E., Berg Luleå, E., Barry, J. & Chandler, J. Neoliberalism, managerialism
and the reconfiguring of social work in Sweden and the United Kingdom,
Organization, July 2013 vol. 20 no. 4 534-550.

Harris, J. 1998. Scientific Management, Bureau-Professionalism, New

Managerialism: The Labour Process of State Social Work, British Journal of Social
Work, 28, pp 839-862.

Harris, J. 2002. The Social Work Business. London: Routledge.

Harris, J. & McDonald, C. 2000. Post-Fordism, the welfare state and the personal
social services: a comparison of Australia and Britain. British Journal of Social Work
30 (1): 51-70.

Harrison, G. & Melville, R. 2010. Rethinking Social Work in a Global World.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hartman, A. 1992. ‘In search of Subjugated Knowledge’, Social Work, 37.6.

Hashim-Taradji, P. 2010. Towards Ensuring the Welfare of Victims in Disaster

Situations. Social Welfare and Development Journal. 4 (1), 2-6.

Haug, E. 2005. ‘Critical reflections on the emerging discourse of international social

work’. International Social Work, 48; 126.

HCPC. 2012. Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. London: Health and
Care Professions Council.

Healy, L. 2008a. Exploring the history of social work as a human rights profession.
International Social Work. 51: 735-748.

Healy, L. 2008b. International Social Work. Professional Action in an Independent

World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

305
Healy, L. 2008c. ‘A brief journey through the 80 year history of the International
Association of Schools of Social Work’ in Seibel, F. W. (ed.) Global Leaders for
Social Work Education: The IASSW Presidents 1928-2008. Available from:
http://www.socwork.net/2008/1/supplement/healy [Accessed 5.6.12].

Healy, L. & Meagher, G. 2004. ‘The Reprofessionalization of social work:

Collaborative Approaches for Achieving Professional Recognition’. In Davies, L. &
Leonard, P. 2004. Social Work in a Corporate Era. Practices of Power and
Resistance. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Healy, L. & Thomas, R. 2007. ‘International Social Work: A retrospective in the 50 th

year’, International Social Work, 50; 581.

Hearn, J. 1982. Notes on Patriarchy, Professionalisation and the Semi-professions.

Sociology, 16(2): 184-202.

Hechanova, R., Franco, E. & Reyes, R. (Eds). 2007. pinoy@work. Quezon City:
Ateneo de Manila University.

Hermoso, J. & Carmen, G. 2006. Civil society’s role in promoting local development
in countries in transition: A comparative study of the Philippines and Romania.
International Social Work. 49: 319-332.

Hodge, D. 2005. Developing a spiritual assessment toolbox: A discussion of the

strengths and limitations of five different assessment methods. Health and Social
Work 30(4):314-23.

Hogan-Garcia, M. 2003. The Four Skills of Cultural Diversity Competence. 2nd ed.
London: Brooks Cole.

Holliday, A. 2007. Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. 2nd Ed. London: Sage.

Holosko, M. 2003. The History of the Working Definition of Practice. Research on

Social Work Practice, 13; 271.

306
Horner, N. 2006. What is Social Work? Context and Perspectives. 2nd Ed. Exeter:
Learning Matters.

Houston, S. 2001. Beyond Social Constructionism: Critical Realism and Social Work.
British Journal of Social Work.31: 845 – 861.

Houston, S. 2002. Reflecting on Habitus, Field and Capital: Towards a Culturally

Sensitive Social Work. Journal of Social Work. 2: 149.

Howe, S. 2002. Empire. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Huang, Y. & Zhang, X. 2008. ‘A Reflection on Indigenization Discourse in Social

Work’, International Social Work 51(5): 611–22.

Huang, Y. & Zhang, X. 2011. Further discussion of indigenization in social work: A

response to Gray and Coates. International Social Work 55: 40-52.

Huegler, N., Lyons, K. & Pawar, M. 2012. ‘Setting the Scene’ in Lyons, K.,
Hokenstad, T., Pawar, M., Huegler, N. & Hall, N. (Eds.). 2012. The SAGE Handbook
of International Social Work. London: Sage.

Hugman, R. 1998. Social work and deprofessionalisation, in Abbott, P. and

Meerabeau, L. (eds.) The Sociology of the Caring Professions. London: UCL Press.

Hugman, R. 2005. ‘Looking Back: The View from Here’, British Journal of Social
Work, 35, 609-620.

Hugman, R. 2009. But Is It Social Work? Some Reflections on Mistaken Identities.

British Journal of Social Work, 39, 1138-1153.

Hugman, R. 2010. Understanding International Social Work: A Critical Analysis.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

307
Humphries, B. 2008. Social Work Research for Social Justice. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.

Humphries B. 2005. ‘From margin to centre: Shifting the emphasis of social work
research’. In: Adams, R, Dominelli, L. & Payne, M. (Eds) Social Work Futures.
Crossing Boundaries, Transforming Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hussein, S., Manthorpe, J. & Stevens, M. 2009. The Experiences of International

Social Care Workers in the UK: findings from an Online Survey. London: Social Care
Workforce Research Unit, King's College London.

Hussein, S., Stevens, M. & Manthorpe, J. 2010. International Social Care Workers in
England: Profile, Motivations, Experiences and Future Expectations. Final Report.
London: Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London.

Hussein, S., Manthorpe, J. & Stevens, M. 2010. People in Places: A Qualitative

Exploration of Recruitment Agencies’ Perspectives on the Employment of
International Social Workers in the UK. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1000-
1016.

IASSW/ICSW/IFSW. 2011. Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development.
Towards an Engagement Agenda. Mobilisation of Social Workers, Social Work
Educators & Policy Practitioners and Developers for Global Social Change. Available
from: http://www.globalsocialagenda.org/ [Accessed 11.12.11].

IFSW. 2000. International Definition of Social Work. Berne: IFSW.

IFSW. 2001. Ethics in Social Work. Statement of Principles. Berne: IFSW.

IFSW. 2006. 50 Years of International Social Work. Berne: IFSW.

IFSW. 2013. Global Definition of Social Work Update. Available from:

http://ifsw.org/get-involved/global-definition-of-social-work/ [Accessed 17.12.13].

308
IFSW. 2014. Global Definition of Social Work. Available from:
http://ifsw.org/get-involved/global-definition-of-social-work/ [Accessed 14.11.14].

Irving, Z. and Payne, M. 2004. `Globalisation: implications for learning and teaching
in Social Policy and Social Work´ in H. Burgess and I. Taylor, Effective learning and
teaching in Social Policy and Social Work, London: Routledge.

Jenkins, R. 1996. Social Identity. London: Routledge.

Joaquin, N. 2004. Culture and History. Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc.

Jocano, F. 1997. Filipino Value System. A Cultural Definition. Quezon City: PUNLAD
Research House.

Jocano, F. 1998. Filipino Social Organization. Traditional Kinship and Family

Organization. Quezon City: PUNLAD Research House.

Jocano, F. 2002. Slum as a Way of Life. A Study of Coping Behavior in an Urban

Environment. Quezon City: PUNLAD Research House.

Johnson, J. & Bytheway, B. 2001. An evaluation of the use of diaries in a study of

medication in later life. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 4(3):
183–204.

Jones, C. 2011. ‘The best and worst of times: reflections on the impact of radicalism
on British social work education in the 1970s’. In Lavalette, M. (ed). 2011. Radical
Social Work Today. Social work at the crossroads. Bristol: Policy Press.

Jones, C. 2001. Voices from the Front Line: State Social Workers and New Labour,
British Journal of Social Work, 31, 547-562.

Jones, C., Ferguson, I., Lavalette, M. & Penketh, L. 2007. ‘Social Work and Social
Justice: A Manifesto for a New Engaged Practice’. In Lavalette, M. & Ferguson, I.

309
(eds). 2007. International Social Work and the Radical Tradition. Birmingham:
Venture Press.

Jones, D., Yuen, A. & Rollet, C. 2008. ‘News and Views… Rising to the global
challenge: IASSW, ICSW and IFSW join hands to build an agenda for the next
decade’. International Social Work, 51; 847.

Jordan, B. 2008. Social work and world poverty. International Social Work. 51: 440-
452.

Jordan, B. & Drakeford, M. 2012. Social Work and Social Policy under Austerity.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jordan, B. & Parton, N. 2004. Social Work, the Public Sphere and Civil Society. In
Lovelock, R., Lyons, K. & Powell, J. 2004. Reflecting on Social Work – Discipline and
Profession. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Jovelin, E. 2001. ‘Social Work as Career: Choice or Accident? The French Example’.
In Adams et al. 2001. Key Themes in European Social Work. Theory, Practice,
Perspectives. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.

Kerr, R. 2009. The Hysteresis Effect as Creative Adaptation of the Habitus: Dissent
and Transition to the ‘Corporate’ in Post-Soviet Ukraine. Organization, November
2009, 16(6), 829-853.

Kestenbaum, A. 1995. Independent Living: A review of findings and experience.

York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Kirkpatrick, I., Kitchener, M., Owen, D. and Whipp, R. 1999. Un-chartered territory:
experiences of the purchaser/provider split in local authority children’s services,
British Journal of Social Work, 29, 707-726.

Kirkpatrick, I., Ackroyd, S. & Walker, R. 2004: The New Managerialism and Public
Service Professions. London: Palgrave.

310
Kirkpatrick, I. 2006. Taking Stock of the New Managerialism in English Social
Services, Social Work and Society, 3/3 pp 1-17. Available from:
http://www.socwork.net/2006/1/series/professionalism/kirkpatrick/index_html/?search
term=ian Kirkpatrick [Accessed 12.4.11].

Kivisto, P. (ed.) 2008. Illuminating Social Life. Classical and Contemporary Theory
Revisited. 4th Ed. London: Sage.

Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Kulkarni, P. 1993. The Indigenous Base of Social Work Profession in India. Indian
Journal of Social Work 54: 555-565.

Laird, S. 2008. Anti-Oppressive Social Work: A Guide for Developing Cultural

Competence. London: Sage.

Lan, P. 2003. Maid or Madam? Filipina Migrant Workers and the Continuity of
Domestic Labor. Gender & Society, 17 (2), 187-208.

Landa Jocano, F. 1980. Social Work in the Philippines: A Historical Overview.

Quezon City: New Day Publishers.

Lane, J. 2000. Pierre Bourdieu. A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto Press.

Lavalette, M. (ed.) 2011. Radical Social Work Today. Social work at the crossroads.
Bristol: Policy Press.

Lavalette, M. & Ferguson, I. (eds.) 2007a. International Social Work and the Radical
Tradition. Birmingham: Venture Press.

Lavalette M. & Ferguson I. 2007b. ‘Democratic Language and Neo-liberal Practice:

The Problem with Civil Society’, International Social Work 50(4): 447–59.

311
Lawrence, S., Lyons, K., Simpson, G. & Huegler, N. (Eds.). 2009. Introducing
International Social Work. Exeter: Learning Matters.

Leadbetter, C. 2004. Personalisation Through Participation. London: Demos.

Lee-Mendoza, T. 2008. Social Welfare and Social Work. 3rd Ed. Quezon City:
Central Books.

Leicht, K. & Fennell, M. 1997. The Changing Organizational Context of Professional

Work. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 23, 215-231.

Leicht, K. & Fennell, M. 2001. Professional Work. A Sociological Approach. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Leininger, M. & McFarland, M. 2005. Transcultural Nursing: Concepts, Theories,

Research, and Practice. 3rd Ed. Philippines: McGraw-Hill Education (Asia).

Leonard, P. 1984. Personality and Ideology: Towards a Materialist Understanding of

the Individual. London: Macmillan.

Local Government Code. 1991. Manila: A.V.B. Printing Press.

Liamputtong, P. 2010. Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. Cambridge

University Press: Cambridge.

Liwanag, A.
1992. “Reaffirm Our Basic Principles and Rectify Errors.” Kasarinlan, A
Philippine Quarterly of Third World Studies 8(1).

Lombard, D. 2011. Social workers stand up for service users at TUC rally.
Community Care, 28.3.11. Available from:
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/03/28/116546/social-workers-stand-
up-for-service-users-at-tuc-rally.htm [Accessed 13.4.11].

312
Lorenz, W. 2004. ‘Research as an Element in Social Work’s Ongoing Search for
Identity’ in Lovelock, R., Lyons, K. & Powell, J. (Eds.). 2004. Reflecting on Social
Work – Discipline and Profession. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Lovelock, R., Lyons, K. & Powell, J. (Eds.). 2004. Reflecting on Social Work –
Discipline and Profession. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Lymberry, M. 2001. Social work at the crossroads, British Journal of Social Work, 31
(3): 369-84.

Lyons, K. 2006. ‘Globalization and Social Work: International and Local Implications’.
British Journal of Social Work, 36, 365-380.

Lyons, K. & Lawrence, S. 2009. ‘Social work as an international profession: Origins,

organisations and networks’ in Lawrence, S., Lyons, K., Simpson, G. & Huegler, N.
(eds.) Introducing International Social Work. Exeter: Learning Matters.

Lyons, K., Manion, K. & Carlsen, M. 2006. International Perspectives on Social

Work. Global Conditions and Local Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lyons, K., Hokenstad, T., Pawar, M., Huegler, N. & Hall, N. (Eds.). 2012. The SAGE
Handbook of International Social Work. London: Sage.

Manalili, A. 1990. Community Organizing for People’s Empowerment. Manila:

Kapatiran-Kaunlaran Foundation.

Mannheim, K. 1953. ‘Conservative Thought’, in Mannheim, K. (ed.) Essays on

Sociology and Social Psychology, p74-164. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Manthorpe, J., Hussein, S., Charles, N., Rapaport, P., Stevens, M. & Nagendran, T.
2010. ‘Social care stakeholders’ perceptions of the recruitment of international
practitioners in the United Kingdom – a qualitative study’. European Journal of Social
Work, 13(3): 393-408.

313
Mantle, G. & Backwith, B. 2010. Poverty and Social Work. British Journal of Social
Work, 40, 2380-2397.

Mathews, I. 2009. Social Work and Spirituality. Exeter: Learning Matters.

McLaughlin, H. 2009. 'What’s in a name: ‘client’, ‘patient’, ‘customer’, ‘consumer’,

‘expert by experience’, ‘service User’—What’s Next?' , British Journal of Social
Work, 39 , 1101-1117.

McLeod, J. and Thomson, R. 2009 Researching social change: qualitative

approaches. London: Sage.

Medina, B. 2001. The Filipino Family. 2nd Ed. Quezon City: The University of the
Philippines Press.

Mendoza, M. 2010. The New Kids In Town…What Lies Ahead? A Glimpse in the
Life of the Selected Reintegrated Children from the Regional Rehabilitation Center
for Youth (RRCY) in Region VI. Social Welfare and Development Journal. 4 (2), 2-
26.

Mendoza, T. 1999. Social Work with Groups. Quezon City: Megabooks Company.

Mendoza, T. 2008. Social Welfare and Social Work. 3rd Ed. Quezon City: Central
Book Supply, Inc.

Merton, R. K. 1987. 'The Focussed Interview and Focus Groups: Continuities and
Discontinuities', The Public Opinion Quarterly 51(4): 550-566.

Merton, R. K. and Kendall, P. L. 1946 'The Focused Interview', American Journal of

Sociology 51(6): 541-557.

Mickel, A. 2009. ‘Global marketplace puts up the barriers’, Community Care, 19

March 2009, 16-17.

314
Midgley, J. 1981. Professional Imperialism: Social Work in the Third World. London:
Heinemann.

Midgley, J. 1990. International Social Work: Learning from the Third World. Social
Work 35 (4), 295-301.

Midgley, J. 1995. Social Development: The Developmental Perspective in Social

Welfare. London: Sage.

Midgley, J. 1996. ‘Involving Social Work in Economic Development’. International

Social Work, 1996, 39:1313-25.

Midgley, J. 1997. Social Welfare in Global Context. California: Sage.

Midgley, J. 2001. ‘Issues in International Social Work: Resolving Critical Debates in

the Profession’. Journal of Social Work, 2001, 1: 21.

Midgley, J. 2008. ‘Microenterprise, global poverty and social development’ in

International Social Work, 51: 467-479.

Mirko Noordegraaf, M. & and Schinkel, W. 2011. ‘Professional Capital Contested: A

Bourdieusian Analysis of Conflicts between Professionals and Managers’.
Comparative Sociology, 10, 97–125.

Mohan, B. 2008. Rethinking international social work, International Social Work, 51

(11).

Mongaya Hogsholm, F. (Ed). 2007. In De Olde Worlde. Views of Filipino Migrants in

Europe. Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council.

Monnier, C. 2007. ‘Bourdieu, Pierre (1930–2002).’ Blackwell Encyclopedia of

Sociology. Ritzer, George (ed). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

315
Moore, R. 2008. ‘Social class, poverty and health’ in Cooke, C. & Philpin, S. (eds.)
2008. Sociology in Nursing and Healthcare. London: Elsevier.

Morberg, S., Lagerström, M. & Dellve, L. 2012. The school nursing profession in
relation to Bourdieu's concepts of capital, habitus and field. Scandinavian Journal of
Caring Sciences, 26(2):355-62.

Mosoetsa, S. & Williams, M. 2012. ‘Challenges and alternatives for workers in the
Global South’, in S. Mosoetsa and M. Williams (eds.), Labour in the Global South.
Geneva: International Labour Organization, 1–15.

Moss, 2005. Religion and Spirituality. Lyme Regis: Russell House.

Mulder, N. 1997. Inside Philippine Society. Interpretations of Everyday Life. Quezon

City: New Day Publishers.

Mullaly, B. 2007. The New Structural Social Work (4th Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Nadeau, K. 2002. Liberation Theology in the Philippines. Faith in a Revolution.

Westport: Praeger Publishers.

Narhi, K. 2002. Transferable and Negotiated Knowledge: Constructing Social Work

Expertise for the Future. Journal of Social Work, 2; 317.

Nash M. & Stewart B. 2002. Spirituality and Social Care: Contributing to Personal
and Community Well-being. London: Jessica Kingsley.

National Economic and Development Authority/United Nations Country Team. 2007.

Philippines Midterm Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals 2007.
Available from: http://www.neda.gov.ph/econreports_dbs/MDGs/midterm/01-
96%20UNDP_final.pdf [Accessed 22.6.11].

316
National Project on Street Children. 1991. First National Congress of Street Children.
Quezon City: Department of Social Welfare and Development.

Neagoe, A. 2013. Ethical dilemmas of the social work professional in a (post-)

secular society, with special reference to the Christian social worker. International
Social Work, 56: 310-325.

Nimmagadda, J. & Cowger, C. 1999. Cross-cultural practice: social worker ingenuity

in the indigenization of practice knowledge. International Social Work 42: 261-276.

Nititham, D. 2011. Migration as Cultural Capital: The Ongoing Dependence on

Overseas Filipino Workers. Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies. Malaysian
Economic Association Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies.

Norman, J. 2005. ‘A sampling of international practice variations’. International

Social Work, 48, 553.

Oak, E. 2009. Social Work and Social Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

O’Brien M. 2005. ‘A Just Profession or Just a Profession’, Social Work Review 17(1):
13–22.

O’Leary, Z. 2005. Researching Real-World Problems. A Guide to Methods of Inquiry.

London: Sage.

Oliver, M. 1990. The Politics of Disablement. London: Macmillan.

Oliver, M. and Sapey, B. 2006. Social Work with Disabled People, 3rd Ed.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Orme, J. 2002. Social Work: Gender, Care and Justice, British Journal of Social
Work, 32, 799-814.

317
Panopio, I. & Raymundo, A. 2004. Sociology. Focus on the Philippines. 4th Ed.
Quezon City: KEN Inc.

Orme, J. & Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. 2012. ‘Social Work Research’ in Lyons, K.,

Hokenstad, T., Pawar, M., Huegler, N. & Hall, N. (Eds.). 2012. The SAGE Handbook
of International Social Work. London: Sage.

Papadopoulos, I. (ed). 2006. Transcultural Health and Social Care: A Development

of Culturally Competent Practitioners. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.

Parrenas, R. 2001a. Mothering from a Distance: Emotions, Gender and

Intergenerational Relations in Filipino Transnational Families. Feminist Studies. 27,
2: 361-390.

Parrenas, R. 2001b. Servants of Globalization: Women, Migration, and Domestic

Work. California: Stanford University Press.

Payne, M. 2005. The Origins of Social Work. Continuity and Change. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.

Payne, M. 2005b. Modern Social Work Theory. 3rd Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Payne, M. 2006. What is Professional Social Work? 2nd Ed. Bristol: The Policy
Press.

Payne, M. 2006b. ‘Identity Politics in Multiprofessional Teams: Palliative Care Social

Work’. Journal of Social Work, 6; 137.

Payne, M. 2012. ‘Political and Organisational Contexts of Social Work Internationally’

in Lyons, K., Hokenstad, T., Pawar, M., Huegler, N. & Hall, N. (Eds.). 2012. The
SAGE Handbook of International Social Work. London: Sage.

318
Payne, M. 2014. Modern Social Work Theory. 4th Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Payne, M. & Askeland, G. 2008. Globalization and International Social Work.

Postmodern Change and Challenge. Farnham: Ashgate.

Peillon, M. 1998. Bourdieu’s field and the sociology of welfare, Journal of Social
Policy, 27 (2), 213-229.

Penketh, L. 2011. ‘Social work and women’s oppression today’. In Lavalette, M. (ed)
Radical Social Work Today. Social Work at the Crossroads. Bristol: Policy Press.

Perkin, H. 1989. The Rise of Professional Society. England since 1880. London:
Routledge.

Pernia, A.
1990. God’s Kingdom and Human Liberation. Manila: Divine Word.

Petrie, S. 2009. Are the International and National Codes of Ethics for Social Work in
the UK as Useful as a Chocolate Teapot? Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics,
6 (2).

Pettinger, L. 2005. A New Sociology of Work? Oxford: Blackwell.

Philippine Council for NGO Certification. Background and Rationale. Available from:
http://www.pcnc.com.ph/background-a-rationale.html [Accessed 14/5/11].

Pineda, J. 2000. ‘Spirituality and Social Work’. In Cordero, E., Pangalangan, E. &
Fondevilla, R. (eds.) 2000. Philippine Encyclopedia of Social Work (2000 Edition)
Volume 1. Quezon City: Megabooks Company/National Association for Social Work
Education, Inc.

Preston-Shoot, M. 2007. Effective Groupwork (2nd ed). Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

319
Price, J. 1997. Queer in the Head: An examination of the response of social work
mental health services to the needs and experiences of lesbians and gay men.
Surrey: University of Warwick & Social Care Association. Cited in Lester, H. &
Glasby, J. 2006. Mental Health Policy and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Price, J. & Artaraz, K. 2013. Professional 'imperialism' and resistance: Social Work in
the Philippines. Trabajo Social Global, 3 (5), 28-53.

Price, J. 2014. ‘The Philippines’ in Aspalter, C. (Ed). 2014. Social Work in East Asia.
Farnham: Ashgate.

Punch, K. 2005. Introduction to Social Research. Quantitative and Qualitative

Approaches. 2nd Edition. London: Sage.

Purnell, L. & Paulanka, B. 2003. Transcultural Health Care: A Culturally Competent

Approach. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: E.A. Davis Company.

Ramos Dehn, M. & Cordero, E. (Eds). 2009. Casebook on Beginning Family

Therapy: Philippine Experience. Makati City: Society of Filipino Family Therapists.

Ramsay, R. 2003. Transforming the Working Definition of Social Work into the 21st
Century. Research on Social Work Practice, 13; 324.

Raquiza, M. 2010. On Poverty, Hunger and Employment: Off-Track but not Without
Hope. Social Welfare and Development Journal. 4 (3), 10-21.

Rey, T. 2007. Bourdieu on Religion. Imposing faith and legitimacy. London: Equinox.

Rhodes, R. 1994. The Hollowing Out of the State: The Changing Nature of the Public
Service in Britain. The Political Quarterly. 68 (2), 138-151.

Rhynas, S. 2005. Bourdieu's theory of practice and its potential in nursing research.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2):179-86.

320
Rigg, J. 2007. An Everyday Geography of the Global South. Abingdon: Routledge.

Ritzer, G. 2007. Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots. 2nd Ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Roach Anleu S. 1992. ‘The Professionalisation of Social Work? A Case Study of

Three Organisational Settings’, Sociology 26(1): 23–43.

Robson, C. 2002. Real World Research, 2nd Ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Robson, C. 2011. Real World Research. 3rd Ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rogowski, S. 2010. Social Work. The Rise and Fall of a Profession? Bristol: Policy
Press.

Ross, M. & Lappin, B. 1967. Community Organisation. Theory, Principles and

Practice 2nd Ed. New York: Harper and Row.

Rothman, J. 1979. ‘Three Models of Community Organization Practice’. In Cox, F.,

Erlich, J. & Troppman, J. 1979. Strategies of Community Organization. Illinois:
Peacock Publishers.

Ruch, G., Turney, D. & Ward, A. 2010. Relationship-Based Social Work. Getting to
the Heart of Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Ryan, A. 2006. Post-positivist Approaches to Research. Theory and Practice. MACE:

Maynooth Adult and Community Education. Available from:
http://eprints.nuim.ie/874/ [Accessed 11.6.11].

San Juan, E. 2006. Filipinos Everywhere: Displaced, Transported Overseas, Moving

On in the Diaspora. Quezon City: IBON Books.

Sarantakos, S. 2005. Social Research. 3rd Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

321
Sayer, A. 2000. Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.

Schinkel, W. & Mirko Noordegraaf, M. 2011 . Professionalism as Symbolic Capital:

Materials for a Bourdieusian Theory of Professionalism. Comparative Sociology, 10,
67-96.

Schratz, M. & Walker, R. 1995. Research as social change: new opportunities for
qualitative research. Oxford: Routledge.

Schweppe, 2007. ‘Resisting the New Rationale of Social Work’. In Lavalette, M. &
Ferguson, I. 2007. International Social Work and the Radical Tradition. Birmingham:
Venture Press.

Scie. 2009. Research Briefing 20: The implementation of individual budget schemes
in adult social care. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.

Seale, C. 2004. Researching Society and Culture. 2nd Ed. London: Sage.

Seidman, I. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research. A Guide for Researchers in

Education and the Social Sciences. 3rd Ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Serrano, I. 2010. MDG Chances: Stability and Vulnerability. Social Welfare and
Development Journal, 4 (3), 2-9.

Shakespeare, T. 2000. Help. Birmingham: Venture Press

Siegrist, H. 2002. Professionalisation and Professions in History. Amsterdam:

Elsevier Science.

Simpkin, M. 1979. Trapped within Welfare. Surviving Social Work. Basingstoke:

Macmillan.

322
Slater, P. 2004. Reforming professional training and protecting vulnerable adults
from abuse: A thematic analysis of the new social work degree’s prescribed
curriculum. British Journal of Social Work, 34: 649-61.

Smith, R. 2008. Social Work and Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Social Watch. 2007. Missing Targets. The Social Watch Philippines Report 2007.
Available from: http://www.socialwatchphilippines.org/images/Missing_Targets.pdf
[Accessed 20.5.11].

Stenner, P. 2013. ‘Human rights between brute fact and articulated aspiration.’ In:
Madsen, Mikael Rask and Verschraegen, Gert eds. Making Human Rights
Intelligible: Towards a Sociology of Human Rights. Oñati International Series in Law
and Society (1). Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 105–125.

Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N. and Rook, D. W. 2006 Focus groups: theory and
practice, 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Stirling, B., Furman, L., Benson, P., Canda, E. & Grimwood, C. 2009. A comparative
survey of Aotearoa New Zealand and UK social workers on the role of religion and
spirituality in practice. British Journal of Social Work, 10,1093.

Stogdon, C. & Kiteley, R. 2010. Study Skills for Social Workers. London: Sage.

Stones, R. 2005. Structuration Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stones, R. (ed) 2008. ‘Continuity and Change in the Preoccupations of Key

Sociological Thinkers’ in Key Sociological Thinkers. 2nd Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. London: Sage.

323
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1994. ‘Grounded Theory methodology: An overview’. In
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Swindol, C. 1994. Active Spirituality. USA: Word Publishing.

Swingewood, A. 2000. A Short History of Sociological Thought. 3rd Ed. Basingstoke:

Palgrave.

Syal, R. & Doward, J. 2009. Foreign social workers to fill staff shortage. Available
from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/08/social-care-immigration-child-
protection [Accessed 10.3.09].

Temple, B., Edwards, R. & Alexander, C. 2006. Grasping at Context: Cross

Language Qualitative Research as Secondary Qualitative Data Analysis. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4).

Thompson, N. 2005. Understanding Social Work. Second Ed. Basingstoke:

Palgrave.

Thompson, N. 2006. Anti-Discriminatory Practice. 4th Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Thompson, N. 2010. Theorizing Social Work Practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Thompson, N. 2012. Anti-Discriminatory Practice. Equality, Diversity and Social

Justice. 5th Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tigno, J. (Ed). 2009. State, Politics and Nationalism Beyond Borders. Changing
Dynamics in Filipino Overseas Migration. Quezon City: Philippine Social Science
Council.

Torres, A. 2002. Love in the Time of Ina Morata. Explorations into Gender
Constructions of Sexuality and Reproductive Roles. Quezon City: University of the
Philippines Center for Women’s Studies.

324
Tripodi, T. & Potocky-Tripodi, M. 2007. International Social Work Research. Issues
and Prospects. New York: Oxford University Press.

Truell, R. 2014. ‘The Philippines social workers who are still battling typhoon
Yolanda’. Available from:
http://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2014/feb/17/social-workers-
philippines-support-community [Accessed 17.2.14].

Tungpalan, T., Awitan, W., Anasarias, E. & Ferrer, O. 2010. Building Children’s
Spaces. Reflections on Children Organizing for Peace and Development. Quezon
City: University of the Philippines.

Turner, C. 2010. Investigating Sociological Theory. London: Sage.

Turner, J. 2003. Bartlett’s Definition of Social Work Practice: A Generalist Educator’s

Perspective. Research on Social Work Practice, 13; 339.

UN. 1995. Final Report of the World Summit for Social Development, A/CONF.166/9.
Available from: http://daccess-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N95/116/51/PDF/N9511651.pdf?OpenElement
[Accessed 20.5.11].

UN. 2000. United Nations Resolution 55/2: United Nations Millenium Resolution.
Available from: http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf [Accessed
20.5.11].

Van Nes, F., Abma, T., Jonsson, H. & Deeg, D. 2010. Language differences in
qualitative research: is meaning lost in translation? European Journal of Ageing. Dec
2010; 7(4): 313–316.

Veneracion, C. (ed). 2003. Social Work in the Philippines. Tradition and Profession.
Manila: Philippine Association of Social Workers, Inc.

325
Ventuti, L. 1995. The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. London:
Routledge.

Viloria, E. 1987. ‘Petra R. De Joya (1913 – 1987): Setting Trends’ in Veneracion, C.

(Ed). Social Work in the Philippines. Tradition and Profession. Manila: PASWI.

Viloria, E. &Martinez, J. 1987. ‘Growth and Development of Humanitarian Services in

the Philippines’ in Veneracion, C. (Ed). Social Work in the Philippines. Tradition and
Profession. Manila: PASWI.

Walton, R. & el Nasr, M. 1988. Indigenization and authentization in terms of social

work in Egypt, International Social Work. 31:2: 135-44.

Webb, S. 2003. Local orders and global chaos in social work, European Journal of
Social Work, 6(2), 191-204.

Webb, S. 2006. Social Work in a Risk Society. Social and Political Perspectives.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Weber, M. 1997 (1905). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London:
Routledge.

Weiss, I. & Welbourne, P. (eds.) 2007. Social Work as a Profession: A Comparative

Cross-national Perspective. London: BASW/ Venture Press.

Welbourne, P., Harrison, G. & Ford, D. 2007. Social work in the UK and the global
labour market: Recruitment, practice and ethical considerations. International Social
Work. 50: 27-40.

White, R. 2006. Opportunities and challenges for social workers crossing borders.
International Social Work. 49(5), 629 – 40.

Wilding, P. 1982. Professional Power and Social Welfare. London: Routledge.

326
Williams, C. 1995. Still a Man’s World: Men Who Do Women’s Work. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Williams, M. & May, T. 1996. Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Research.

London: Routledge.

Williams, S., Bradley, H., Devadason, R. and Erickson, M. 2013 Globalization and work.
Cambridge: Polity (pp. x – xi).

Wilson, B. 1966. Religion in Secular Society: A Sociological Comment. London:

Watts.

Witz A. 1992. Professions and Patriarchy. London and New York: Routledge.

Woodcock, J. & Dixon, J. 2005. ‘Professional Ideologies and Preferences in Social

Work: A British Study in Global Perspective. British Journal of Social Work. 35, 953-
973.

Wright-Mills, C. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yan, M. & Tsui, M. 2007. The quest for western social work knowledge: Literature in
the USA and practice in China. International Social Work, 50; 641.

Yengoyan, A. & Makil, P. (Eds). 2004. Philippine Society and the Individual. Selected
Essays of Frank Lynch. Revised Edition. Quezon City: Institute of Philippine Culture,
Ateneo de Manila University.

Yip, K. 2005. A dynamic Asian response to globalization in cross-cultural social work.

International Social Work. 48: 593-607.

Yu, N. 2006. Ideological roots of Philippine social welfare. International Social Work,
49: 559-570.

327
Yu, N. 2013. Devolution: Discontinuity and dissonance. International Social Work, 56
(2) 193-207.

Zaide, G. & Zaide, S. 2008. Jose Rizal. Life, Works, and Writings of a Genius, Writer,
Scientist, and National Hero. 2nd Ed. Quezon City: All-Nations Publishing Co., Inc.

Zhang, X. & Huang, Y. 2008. A reflection on the indigenization discourse in social

work. International Social Work. 51, 611-622.

Zubin, A. 2007. Geographical migration, psychological adjustment, and re-formation

of professional identity: the double-culture shock experience of international
pharmacy graduates in Ontario (Canada). Globalisation, Societies and Education 5
(2), 239-255.

Zufferey C. 2012. “Jack of All Trades, Master of None?” Social Work Identity and
Homelessness in Australian Cities, Journal of Social Work 12(5), 510–27.

Zulueta, F. & Liwag, D. 2001. Social Problems and Issues in the Philippines.
Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.

Zulueta, F. & Nebres, A. 2003. Philippine History and Government Through the
Years. Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.

328
Appendix 1: Recruitment Flyer
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Are you a qualified Social Worker?

Did you qualify in the Philippines?

And are you

- Practising as a Social Worker in England? or

- In the Philippines after a period of Social Work in England? or

- Considering practising as a Social Worker in England?

If you are interested in talking to a researcher about your

experiences and perspectives, we will be pleased to hear from you.

Interviews are planned both in England and the Philippines.

This research is kindly being supported by the Philippine

Association of Social Workers Incorporated.
……………………………………………………………………………………

For further information, please contact:

329
Appendix 2:Participant Information Sheet – Social Workers
(Note: Sheet originally intended for Filipino social workers working
currently in England or who had previously done so. However, no
participants were accessed who fell into the latter category).

Journeys between the Philippines and England: What do social

workers think about the purpose and transferability of social work?

You are being invited to take part in a research project. Before you decide, it’s
important that you understand why the research is being done and what is involved.

Please read this carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Feel free to ask if
anything is unclear or if you want more information. Please take time to decide
whether or not you wish to be part of the project. Thank you very much.

About the Project

I am a qualified social worker and researcher from England. I am interested in what
social work means in the Philippines and England and in how social workers transfer
their knowledge and skills between the two countries.

Why have I been chosen?

I am inviting you to take part in the project because you are a Filipino social worker
who qualified in the Philippines. I have also chosen you either because you are
currently working in England or because you have previously done so.

Do I have to take part?

It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. If you do decide to take part you
will be given this information sheet to keep and be asked to sign a consent form, a
copy of which you will also receive. If you decide to take part you are still free to
withdraw at any time without giving a reason. A decision to withdraw at any time, or a
decision not to take part, will not affect you in any way.

330
What will happen if I take part?
You will be asked to participate in a one-to-one interview with me, lasting no more
than 1 hour. I will then type up the interview and send you a copy. You will then be
asked to undertake one further (shorter) interview by telephone or video link, to
clarify or expand on any issues or for you to say anything you wish to add. The
project itself is not due to be completed until 2012 but your contribution would be
limited to these 2 contacts. All interviewees will be asked the same questions but
there will be space also to expand on what is important to you. You will be free to
withdraw anything you say in the interview for some time afterwards. However, you
will be given a date after which your data cannot be withdrawn, so that the study as a
whole can proceed.

Possible benefits of taking part

It is hoped that information from this project will help us to understand more about
what it is like for people who qualify in the Philippines and then seek to transfer to a
different country. You may also find that the process of sharing your perspectives
gives you some space to reflect on your own personal and professional issues. I
hope that the research process will feel collaborative and that positive contacts might
be forged between the University of Brighton and social workers and academics from
the Philippines. Any out-of-pocket travel expenses incurred by you in attending the
interviews will be reimbursed.

Possible disadvantages and risks of taking part

It is possible that some topics discussed in the interview may be upsetting, although I
have made every effort to minimise the chances of this happening. If this did happen,
I would end the interview. Possible sources of support are given in a separate sheet,
where people would be available to talk to you. My supervisor’s contact details are
also provided. Please note that all interviews will be in English.

Will my taking part in this project be kept confidential?

Confidential information will be seen only by me and will not be revealed to anyone
else. All information will be kept safely at the University of Brighton. At the end of the
project, data will be kept in the University for 5 years, after which they will be
destroyed. I will use a system of codes, which means your name will not appear in

331
computerised/paper transcripts. It is important to be clear that your employing
agency is aware that social workers employed by them may be interviewed as part of
the project. However, you and the agencies and locations in which you currently
work or previously worked, will not be named in the final thesis or subsequent
papers. Information such as gender, ethnicity, age, broad geographical location and
area of practice may, however, be included. The only circumstances in which I may
be required to breach confidentiality is if you were to disclose behaviour which
suggests that you might present a risk of harm to yourself or others; or a child or
vulnerable person may be at risk of harm; or criminal activity may occur or have
occurred. I will send you a summary of the findings when the research is complete.

What will happen to the results of the project?

The results will be published in a doctoral thesis and will therefore be a public
document. The thesis will be available online through the University of Brighton
Repository. The results may be used for other reports, publications and
presentations. You will not be identified in reports or publications, though the broad
descriptors stated above may be used.

Has this project been approved?

This project has been approved by the relevant Research Ethics bodies of the
University of Brighton and your employing authority.

How to Contact Me
Please feel free to contact me at any time over the next 6 months, if you have any
queries about the research:

If you have any concerns

If you have any concerns about the conduct of the research, please contact my
supervisor, using the contact details below:

Thank you very much for being part of this project.

PartInfo1. 25/5/09

332
Appendix 3: Information Sheet – Participants in the
Philippines

Journeys between the Philippines and England: What do social

workers think about the purpose and transferability of social work?

You are being invited to take part in a research project. Before you decide, it’s
important that you understand why the research is being done and what is involved.

Please read this carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Feel free to ask if
anything is unclear or if you want more information. Please take time to decide
whether or not you wish to be part of the project. Thank you very much.

About the Project

I am a qualified social worker and researcher from England. I am interested in what
social work means in the Philippines and England and in how social workers transfer
their knowledge and skills between the two countries. Whilst on a study visit to the
Philippines, I am aiming to meet with policy makers, educators, academics and
representatives of other key agencies.

Why have I been chosen?

I am inviting you to take part in the project because you have knowledge and
perspectives which I feel would really help me to further understand social welfare
and social work in the Philippines.

Do I have to take part?

It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. If you do decide to take part you
will be given this information sheet to keep and be asked to sign a consent form, a
copy of which you will also receive. If you decide to take part you are still free to
withdraw at any time without giving a reason. A decision to withdraw at any time, or a
decision not to take part, will not affect you in any way.

333
What will happen if I take part?
You will be asked to participate in a one-to-one interview with me, lasting no more
than 1 hour. I will then type up the interview and send you a copy. You will then be
asked to undertake one further (shorter) interview by telephone or video link, to
clarify or expand on any issues or for you to say anything you wish to add. The
project itself is not due to be completed until 2012 but your contribution would be
limited to these 2 contacts. You will be free to withdraw anything you say in the
interview for some time afterwards. However, you will be given a date after which
your data cannot be withdrawn, so that the study as a whole can proceed.

Possible benefits of taking part

It is hoped that information from this project will help us to understand more about
what it is like for people who qualify in the Philippines and then seek to transfer to a
different country. You may also find the process of sharing perspectives with a
researcher from the UK interesting. I hope that the research process will feel
collaborative and that positive contacts might be forged between the University of
Brighton and those involved in social welfare and social work in the Philippines. Any
out-of-pocket travel expenses incurred by you in attending the interviews will be
reimbursed.

Possible disadvantages and risks of taking part

It is unlikely that topics discussed in the interview will cause distress and I have
made every effort to minimise the chances of this happening. If this did happen, I
would end the interview. My supervisor’s contact details are also provided. Please
note that all interviews will be in English.

Will my taking part in this project be kept confidential?

Confidential information will be seen only by me and will not be revealed to anyone
else. All information will be kept safely at the University of Brighton. At the end of the
project, data will be kept in the University for 5 years, after which they will be
destroyed. I will use a system of codes, which means your name will not appear in
computerised/paper transcripts. It is important to be clear that your employing
agency is aware that social workers employed by them may be interviewed as part of
the project. However, you and the agencies and locations in which you currently

334
work or previously worked, will not be named in the final thesis or subsequent
papers. Information such as gender, ethnicity, age, broad geographical location and
area of practice may, however, be included. The only circumstances in which I may
be required to breach confidentiality is if you were to disclose behaviour which
suggests that you might present a risk of harm to yourself or others; or a child or
vulnerable person may be at risk of harm; or criminal activity may occur or have
occurred. I will send you a summary of the findings when the research is complete.

What will happen to the results of the project?

The results will be published in the UK in a doctoral thesis and will therefore be a
public document. The thesis will be available online through the University of
Brighton Repository. The results may be used for other reports, publications and
presentations. You will not be identified in reports or publications, though the broad
descriptors stated above may be used.

Has this project been approved?

This project has been approved by the relevant Research Ethics bodies of the
University of Brighton and (where appropriate) your employing authority.

How to Contact Me
Please feel free to contact me at any time over the next 6 months, if you have any
queries about the research:

If you have any concerns

If you have any concerns about the conduct of the research, please contact my
supervisor, using the contact details below:

Thank you very much for being part of this project.

PartInfo2. 25/5/09

335
Appendix 4: Informed Consent Form – Social Workers
Consent Form - Journeys between the Philippines and England: A
study of social workers’ perspectives on the purpose and
transferability of social work

 I agree to take part in this research which is to explore the experiences and
perspectives of social workers who qualify in the Philippines and have
experience of moving to England to practice.

 The researcher, Jem Price, has explained to my satisfaction the purpose of the
study and the possible risks involved.

 I have had the procedure explained to me and I have also read the information
sheet. I understand what is involved fully.

 I am aware that I will be required to answer questions about my experiences

and perspectives.

 I understand that any confidential information will be seen only by the

researcher and will not be revealed to anyone else. However, I also
understand that:

- General descriptions, such as gender, ethnicity, age, broad geographical

location and area of practice may be included in the thesis and subsequent
publications;

- Ethical approval has been given by my employing agency;

336
 - I should not refer to the detail of individual cases or practice situations or
name clients or colleagues;

- The researcher may be required to breach confidentiality if I disclose

behaviour which suggests that I might present a risk of harm to myself or
others; or a child or vulnerable person may be at risk of harm; or criminal
activity may occur or have occurred

 I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time, without
giving any reason. I know I will not be able to withdraw my data after this date:

Name (please print) .............................. Signed .................................. Date …….

337
Appendix 5: Informed Consent form – Other Participants in the
Philippines

Journeys between the Philippines and England: A study of social

workers’ perspectives on the purpose and transferability of social
work

 I agree to take part in this research which is exploring the experiences of social
workers who qualify in the Philippines and move to England to practice.

 The researcher, Jem Price, has explained to my satisfaction the purpose of the
study and the possible risks involved.

 I have had the procedure explained to me and I have also read the information
sheet. I understand what is involved fully.

 I am aware that I have been asked to participate because the researcher is

meeting policy makers, educators, academics and representatives of other
agencies and that I will be required to answer questions based on my own
experiences and perspectives.

 I understand that any confidential information will be seen only by the

researcher and will not be revealed to anyone else. However, I also
understand that:

- General descriptions, such as gender, ethnicity, age, broad geographical

location and area of practice may be included in the thesis and subsequent
publications;

- Ethical approval has been given by my employing agency;

- I should not refer to the detail of individual cases or practice situations or

name clients or colleagues;
338
 - The researcher may be required to breach confidentiality if I disclose
behaviour which suggests that I might present a risk of harm to myself or
others; or a child or vulnerable person may be at risk of harm; or criminal
activity may occur or have occurred

 I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time, without
giving any reason. I know I will not be able to withdraw my data after this date:

Name ………………………… Signed ........................ Date ..........................

339
Appendix 6: Interview Schedules

A. Interviews With Social Workers Based In England

1. Can you tell me about how and why you became a social worker?
 What were you doing before you qualified as a social worker?
 Was your decision shaped by any events or circumstances in your life?
 What attracted you in particular to social work?

2. Can you tell me about your social work training?

 When and where did you train?
 What can you tell me about the content of your course?
 How did your training help you to develop an identity as a social worker?

3. Can you tell me about social work in the Philippines?

 What are your feelings about the profession there?
 What roles do social workers undertake there?
 For how long did you practise as a social worker there?

4. Can you tell me about your decision to work in England?

 What factors or events shaped your decision?
 Why did you come to England in particular?

5. Can you tell me what you expected England to be like and what you
anticipated social work would be like here?
 What did you understand social work to be before you came to England?
 What did you see as the purpose of social work?
 What did you anticipate about the social work profession and social work
roles and tasks in England?

6. Can you tell me about your reactions to social work in England?

 In what ways were things different?
 What things were similar or the same?

340
  How did you adjust to social work overseas?

7. Can you describe how you feel about social work now?
 Has/did this experience change your approach to practice?
 What strengths and weaknesses do you see in social work in each
country?
 What do you now see as the purpose of social work?
 What are your feelings about the profession here and there?
 Do you feel that there are any core aspects or features of social work
which you were able to transfer between countries?

8. Is there anything else you want to tell me?

9. Can you tell me why you decided to take part in this study?

341
B. Interviews With Social Workers Based In The Philippines

1. Can you tell me about how and why you became a social worker?
 What were you doing before you qualified as a social worker?
 Was your decision shaped by any events or circumstances in your life?
 What attracted you in particular to social work?

2. Can you tell me about your social work training?

 When and where did you train?
 What can you tell me about the content of your course?
 How did your training help you to develop an identity as a social worker?

3. Can you tell me about social work in the Philippines?

 What are your feelings about the profession there?
 What roles do social workers undertake here?
 For how long did you practise as a social worker here before going to
England?
 How long have you practised as a social worker here since returning from
England?

4. Have you ever worked overseas as a social worker?

 What factors or events shaped your decision?
 Have you considered working in England?
 Could you tell me about your experiences?
 In what ways were things different from the Philippines?
 What things were similar or the same?
 How did you adjust to social work overseas?

5. Can you describe how you feel about social work now?
 Did (any experience of working abroad) change your approach to
practice?
 What strengths and weaknesses do you see in social work in each
country?

342
  What do you see as the purpose of social work?
 Do you feel that there are any core aspects or features of social work
which might transfer between countries?

6. Is there anything else you want to tell me?

7. Can you tell me why you decided to take part in this study?

343
C. Interviews With Others Based In The Philippines

NB: This schedule will need to be tailored to particular interviewees but possible
areas to be addressed are shown below.

1. Can you tell me about the agency you work for and your own role?

2. In what ways do you, or your agency, connect to social welfare or social work
in the Philippines?

3. What does social work try to achieve in the Philippines?

4. What are your perspectives on social work education and training in the
Philippines?

5. What are your perspectives on the experiences of social workers or other care
workers who move to England specifically or to work overseas more
generally?

6. Have you ever been to England? What similarities and differences do you
think might exist between social welfare and social work in the Philippines and
England?

7. Is there anything else you want to tell me?

8. Can you tell me why you decided to take part in this study?

344
Appendix 7: Some Sources of Support

Note – this Information Sheet was tailored to individual agencies and contexts.
However, an exemplar for UK-based participants is provided here.

This Information Sheet provides details of potential sources of support in the UK.

Your Employer
Most statutory social work agencies in the UK provide confidential counselling for
their employees. This would usually be accessed via the Human Resources or
Personnel Department.

Trade Unions
If you are a member of a trade union, these normally offer personal advice, support
and counselling services.

The Centre for Filipinos

This organisation, accredited by the Office of the Immigration Services
Commissioner and the Community Legal Services, provides information and advice
to Filipino nationals in the UK and can also refer people to a trained Filipino
counsellor.

Address:
St. Albans Church Community Centre
2 Margravine Road
London
W6 8HJ
Tel: (020) 7381 2600
Email: [email protected]

Citizen's Advice Bureau

Your local Citizen's Advice Bureau may be able to offer advice, where this concerns
financial, legal or employment matters. Local contact details may be accessed at:

345
http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/

Samaritans
Confidential emotional support for people who are experiencing feelings of distress
or despair:
24-Hour Helpline: 08457 909090
Website: http://www.samaritans.org/

346
Appendix 8: Participant Details

NOTE: All names are pseudonyms.

Key:

FSW P = Filipino Social Worker in the Philippines

USSW P = Social Worker from USA in the Philippines
FSW UK = Filipino Social Worker in the UK
FStudentSW = Filipino Social Worker in Training
FAC = Filipino Social Work Academic
FPOL = Filipino Policy Maker (all in Government positions)
GOV = Currently in Government social work role in the Philippines
NGO = Currently in NGO social work role in the Philippines
PRIV = Currently in private sector social work role in the Philippines

Demographic Information:

Also provided for each participant, based on their self-declaration, is an age range
(eg 40 – 49); gender (M/F); and any religious affiliation (RC = Roman Catholic; C =
Other Christian; M = Muslim).

continued

347
Social Workers: Philippines

Mary (FSW P GOV 40-49 F RC)

Janice (FSW P NGO 30-39 F RC)
Grace (FSW P PRIV 25-29 F RC)
Evelyn (FSW P NGO 30-39 F RC)
Michael (FSW P NGO 30-39 M C)
Arlene (FSW P NGO 50-59 F Christian)
Joan (FSW P PRIV 30-39 F RC)
Leah (FSW P GOV 30-39 F RC)
Wendy (USSW P NGO 60+ F C)
Bill (USSW P NGO 50-59 M C)
Notes from Visit to State Hospital (Research Journal)

Social Workers in Training: Philippines

Ryan (FStudentSW P NGO 25-29 M Irreligious)

Social Work Academics: Philippines

Cherry (FAC P 50-59 F C)

Marissa (FAC P 50-59 F RC)
Karen (FAC P 60+ F RC)
Teresa (FAC P 60+ F RC)
Aisha (FAC P 50-59 F Muslim)
Fiona (FAC P 50-59 F C)
Hope (FAC P 60+ F RC)

continued

348
Policy Makers: Philippines

Joel (FPOL P 30-39 M RC)

Camile (FPOL P 60+ F C)
Mark (FPOL P 18-24 M RC)
Bea (FPOL P 40-49 F RC)
Yvonne (FPOL P 50-59 F RC)

Social Workers: England (all, with the exception of Tessa, were in

statutory social work positions)

Angel (FSW UK 40-49 F)

Ella (FSW UK 40-49 F C)
Grace (FSW UK 30-39 F RC)
Nina (FSW UK 25-29 F RC)
Jay (FSW UK 30-39 M RC)
Sheila (FSW UK 40-49 F C)
Bridget (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)
Emily (FSW UK 40-49 F RC)
Tessa (FSW UK Retraining as Nurse 30-39 F RC)

349
Appendix 9: First-Level Coding

SI: Social Issues in the Philippines

D Social Work Dilemmas
SP Social Work Strategies
C Cultural Considerations
FSW Forms of Social Work
DSW Dimensions of Social Work
UL Use of Language
SUG Service User Groups
DI Areas of Difference/Divergence (Philippines/UK)
SWP Social Work Profession
M Motivation for Social Work
FWO Filipino Workers Overseas
PI Public Image of Social Work
SP Social Policy
SWE Social Work Education

Example of Sub-Categories:

DSW Dimensions of Social Work

DSWPSUP Philippines Supervision
DSWPM Philippines Managerialism/Monitoring
DSWPD Philippines Direct Work
DSWPU Philippines Unqualified/Para-Professionals
DSWPUS Philippines Use of Self
DSWPUP Philippines User Participation
DSWPC Philippines Creativity

350
Appendix 10: Excerpt from Transcribed Interview

Evelyn (FSW P NGO 30-39 F RC)

1 P
2 It’s so easy, If you are a Filipino, It’s easy for you to become a Social
Worker
3 I
4 because?
5 P
6 because uhm because in our culture you should be, you always nice to
other people
7 I
8 mmm
9 P
10 and being a Social Worker you should always be nice, ahh “pati”, be
sympathetic, something like that, isn’t it? And also {laughs} uhm being Comment [JMS1]: Sees SW as
NATURAL for Filipinos; though implies
grateful also… I think when you’re working with your boss SW is to be nice and sympathetic
11 I
12 mmm
13 P
14 I will say that uhm being grateful if some… if your boss hire you
15 I
16 mmm
17 P
18 for the position
19 I
20 mmm
21 P
22 and sa… even though some, even times will come that you will not like
the way she will treats or he will treats you, you, as if you are not uhh you
are just putting aside the way he’s treating or she’s treating you because
we’re so grateful about the work that she’s giving to you so I think uhh if Comment [JMS2]: Being grateful for
work – even if unhappy with boss.
I’m going to relate that in Social Work Practice in the country, most often Unchallenging? Uncritical? Accept poor
than not uhh the experience of Social Workers behaviour? Speak out? What about in
UK?
23 I
24 mmm
25 P
26 I think most of although, mmm, there are you know, what will I say? it’s
not.. Even though you don’t like your boss
27 I
28 mmm
29 P
30 You have to be nice {laughs}
31 I
32 ok
33 And also with your co-workers and isn’t it that right now also uhm most of Comment [JMS3]: Same approach
with co-workers – unchallenging?
the people they have no work

351
34 I
35 Right
36 P
37 Yes, so, having work
38 I
39 Your grateful for it?
40 P
41 Yes, You’re being grateful
42 I
43 Is that ever a bad thing?
44 P
45 Come again?
46 I
47 Is that ever difficult, that you, it sounds to me like you would never argue
with your boss, you would never say hang on, shouldn’t we do this?
48 P
49 Uhm ah actually, I agree with my boss
50 I
51 Ok
52 P
53 But, I’m a kind of a person that if you don’t like, ok, I, I uhm I already told
you what I want to tell, so if you don’t like it, it’s up to you
54 I
55 Ok
56 P
57 But
58 I
59 But you, so you would speak your mind?
60 P
61 Yes
62 I
63 You’re not quiet and say nothing?
64 P
65 Yes, but if the program will affect… if your decision will affect, will affect
the programs that I’m handling
66 I
67 Mmm
68 P
69 We will have a {laughs} you know
70 I
71 Will have a discussion at least
72 P
73 Yes, yes
74 I
75 And do you think most Filipino people would be the same?
76 P
77 Yes I think so
78 I
79 So they’re not quiet?
80 P

352
81 No, they’re not
82 I
83 You don’t sort of say, oh I’ll say nothing … you
84 P
85 But we will always say it in a good manner, in a good things
86 I
87 Mmm
88 P
89 Oh yeah, yeah, Always be polite and respectful Comment [JMS4]: Culture: clarified –
Filipinos WILL say if unhappy but in a
90 I nice way; avoid conflict, perhaps; remain
91 Uhuh, yes respectful; may just think ‘I’ve told my
view but it’s your decision’
92 P
93 Yes, We will always tell that in a good manner in a good thing, so that he
will not get angry with you and at least there will be a win-win solution Comment [JMS5]: Not get angry – so
avoid conflict?
94 I
95 Yes, how about clients? Or the people you work with, how does culture
affect how you relate to them?
96 Are there…
97 Are there expectations or the way they react to you?
98 I
99 I remember when I was doing my direct practice in the church, in XXX
Catholic Church because I also working then with crisis interventions, Comment [JMS6]: Previous direct SW
with church: client culture
100 ok
101 I’m also handling that, so I don’t want my client to wait
102 I
103 To?
104 P
105 Wait
106 I
107 Ok
108 I don’t like them to wait for me, yes
109 I
110 So you like to arrive on time? You mean or …
111 P
112 No when I see them waiting for me, I, even though I’m going to have a
meeting or I always take time to discuss with them what and ask them
what do they need from me, so sometimes, sometimes when I go to other
places or other you know in other… you know when you go to mall and
you buy something and the sales lady does not give you enough time and
you’re paying, I always tell to myself oh this lady doesn’t know, you know,
doesn’t know how to handle people because for me, even how busy I am
and how tired I was then, I always see to it that my client is the first for me, Comment [JMS7]: SW as client-
centred when direct practice
but,
113 I
114 Ok
115 P
116 on the contrary, when I go home, I don’t want to be disturbed that time is
for me, yes
117 I

353
118 So when you were working you will devote your time to people you work
with, but afterwards you relax and
119 P
120 Yes, and sometimes they will tell you, you know, they are so grateful about
your assistance to them and I always tell them, no this is my work, and,
you should not be grateful about this, this is err, I am being paid for this
so, Comment [JMS8]: Exception? Closer
to UK view – professional job not
grateful…COMMENT: perhaps reflected
the missionaries’ approach?

354