An inductive content analysis of international social welfare syllabi at national and public universities in Japan: Towards a glocal subject design

ABSTRACT

To address global and local issues, the development of education on international social work and international social welfare is required in Japan. This study aims to identify the trends in and content of subjects related to international social welfare at national and public universities in Japan and use the findings to develop subject design. National, prefectural and other public universities that offered subjects related to international social welfare (n = 11) were selected for a syllabi analysis. The objectives and goals of each subject and the content of each planned class were coded through inductive content analysis by using qualitative data analysis software (MAXQDA). Common perspectives and topics were found despite the varying subject content. The findings concerning subject objectives and goals indicated that sample syllabi tended to include a multifaceted perspective and a view of relativisation. Based on the findings, we developed a subject design that includes a ‘glocal’ perspective on international social work.

KEYWORDS:

• International welfare
• international social work
• multiple perspectives
• SoTL
• qualitative data analysis

Introduction

The nature of social work in Japan has changed because the needs of clients have become more diversified through interaction with globalisation. Thus, the areas and fields wherein Japanese social workers engage have also become diversified within and outside the country. In such a changing global and local context characterised by interdependency, social workers in Japan are expected to provide necessary support for clients individually and collectively while tackling various social issues (Iwama, 2011 Sasaki, 2010). Social work education that is supposed to form the basis of their practice needs to adapt to changes in the context of globalisation and interdependency (Lyons et al., 2006). Hence, exploring and developing appropriate educational objectives and content in order to develop the competencies and skills of students registered in subjects related to international social welfare and international social work is important (Gray, 2019; Matsuo et al., 2018). This study discusses perspectives from international social work and interculturalism combined with diversity, which can be incorporated and used in social work education in Japan.

The internationalisation of social work education, reflecting global standards and frameworks, has been well-documented. Consistent with the global definition of the social work profession approved in 2014 (IFSW & IASSW, 2014), the global standards for social work education and training have been updated (IFSW & IASSW, 2020). Simultaneously, the educational situations of countries and regions worldwide and the future of international social work education are also being discussed (e.g. Gray, 2019; Hugman, 2010). Additionally, some researchers have discussed a process of internationalised social work education in the Asia-Pacific region (Matsuo & Akimoto, 2013; Pawar, 2010), whereas other stakeholders have explored indigenous social work (Akimoto, 2017).

While Japanese education on international social work has gradually developed, debate about the relevant terminology and perspectives continues. First, the meanings of the Japanese terms corresponding to ‘social welfare’ (Shakai-Fukushi: 社会福祉) and ‘social work’ (Sosharu-Waku: ソーシャルワーク, Shakai-Fukushi-Enzyo-Gijutsu: 社会福祉援助技術 or Shakai-Jigyou: 社会事業)¹ are often interpreted as overlapping, and the terms are sometimes used even interchangeably with ambiguous distinctions (Matsuo, 2013, 2020; Sasaki, 2010). This tendency is partly related to the historical context wherein Western-rooted professional social work theories (Akimoto, 2017), including those from the United States, have been translated and largely adopted in Japanese social work education (Ichibangase, 1998; Matsuo, 2013, 2020). Consequently, the ambiguity and uncertainty of the social worker identity among certified social workers (Shakai-Fukushi-Shi: 社会福祉士) has been noted in Japan (Asano & Tokoro, 2019; Matsuo, 2013). Second, given the complexity of the aforementioned basic terminology, various opinions exist on the concepts related to international social work, as well as global social work, in Japan. Recently, a major reference book on international social welfare was published in Japanese; it attempted to reconsider the perspectives of international social work. Akimoto (2020) stated the following:

The ultimate purpose is to improve the well-being of all people … around the world; the goal is to have the viewpoint of an outsider as well as a multifaceted perspective (Fukugan: 複眼; or ‘compound eyes’); to have pluralistic or common measures; and not to give any special value, superiority or inferiority to any one country or nation (p. 25: translated and paraphrased from Japanese by the author).²

While considering Akimoto's (2020) argument as the fundamental perspective, this study primarily uses ‘international social welfare’ conveniently as an umbrella term and as a translation of Kokusai-Fukushi (国際福祉) or Kokusai-Shakai-Fukushi (国際社会福祉) in social work education.

Currently, studies have indicated that the treatment of social welfare and social work topics in Japanese higher education can benefit from international perspectives, including the implications of comparative study for social work in the domestic context. For example, Virág (2019) argues that multiculturally sensitive education, including the promotion of self- and other-awareness and the deconstruction of socio-cultural problems, is much needed in Japanese social work education, which tends to focus on domestic issues. Additionally, Ishikawa (2012) expresses concern that in Japan, practical theory and skills for social work with clients—among migrants, immigrants, refugees, forcibly displaced people and those with transnational identities—tend to be taught only in international social welfare subjects by being separated from other social work curricula. Therefore, it is necessary to consider cross-sectional education of multicultural and minority issues as well as education with multifaceted perspectives, such as international and indigenous social work or ‘glocalised’ (global and local) practice (Fook, 2004; Gray & Fook, 2004; Gray, 2019; IFSW & IASSW, 2020; Wake, 2019).

Despite the differences in historical aspects and backgrounds, the current subjects of social work education in Japan appear to partly include some perspectives and content related to international social welfare and multicultural practices. Japanese welfare education predates World War II (Mitsuishi, 2013; Sasaki, 2010). A course at Nagasaki University of Foreign Studies in the 1970s is one example of a pioneering practice in the early days of contemporary international social welfare education in Japan (Mori, 1996). The Certified Social Worker and Certified Care Worker Act, which has regulated national qualifications, was enacted in 1987.³ The new standardised curriculum of social work education, whose revision has been implemented since 2021, includes 23 subjects (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan [MHLW], 2020); however, it does not include subjects related to international social welfare. This means that subjects on international social welfare are not required in order to qualify for the national examination. Some subjects, however, include content on international topics. In fact, simple extraction of terms from the standardised curriculum texts (MHLW, 2020) yields the following terms: ‘international’ (four subjects), ‘foreign’ (four subjects), ‘multicultural’ (three subjects), ‘Western’ or ‘developed countries’ (three subjects) and ‘global’ (three subjects). Hence, perspectives related to international social work and multiculturalism have been partially incorporated into the new standardised curriculum in a cross-sectional manner, although not sufficiently (Higashida, 2021). In other words, subjects on international social welfare may be offered at the discretion of each university, faculty or department.

A few studies have examined international social welfare subjects in Japan. For example, an exploratory analysis of syllabi related to international social welfare (Kokusai-Shakai-Fukushi) as of 1995 (Mori, 1996)⁴ found that 29 out of 51 member schools of the Japanese Association of Schools of Social Work (presently, the Japanese Association for Social Work Education or JASWE) offered or planned to offer subjects to international social work. Of these, the curricula of 19 schools were categorised as follows: 1) international comparison, 2) emphasis on developed Western countries, 3) emphasis on Asian countries, 4) war and peace, 5) human existence (life and death), 6) cross-cultural social work, 7) enhancement of lectures and practice and 8) integration. According to the JASWE’s (2018) recent report, of the 150 member schools that responded to the survey, 36% offered courses related to international welfare (Kokusai-Fukushi) as of 2018. These studies indicate that attempts to analyse subjects on international social welfare in Japanese higher education are still in the process of development and that further research is required.

This study aims to identify the trends in and content of subjects on international social welfare at national and public universities in Japan and to apply the findings to develop a subject design. The research questions are as follows:

RQ1:

What are the trends and content observed in the syllabi of subjects related to international social welfare in national and public universities in Japan?

RQ2:

What are the perspectives appropriate to be included in syllabus planning for subjects on international social welfare in Japanese higher education?

Methods

This study is part of a project based on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). It analyses syllabi from Japanese national, prefectural and other public universities with the intention of applying the findings, together with students’ voices, to develop a subject design.

SoTL is the process of developing educational practices in higher-education institutions with consideration given to critical peer reviews and student-learning perspectives (Hutchings & Shulman, 1999; Shulman, 2000). Felten (2013) suggests five principles of SoTL good practice: to involve inquiry into student learning, which is grounded in context, methodologically sound, conducted in partnership with students and appropriately public. Primarily based on an exploratory analysis of syllabi content with students’ feedback, together with reference to the literature, the present study is in the intermediate stage of designing a subject for educational development.

This study applied inductive content analysis (Kyngäs, 2020) to the syllabi data on international social welfare-related subjects at national, prefectural and other public universities. It referred to syllabi analysis methods used in the field of health and welfare education to capture trends in teaching at higher-education institutions (e.g. Mori, 1996; Sumita, 2016). The target population was selected from the member schools of the JASWE (N = 270) as of 31 January 2021.

Sample and data collection

With reference to the classification in a previous survey (JASWE, 2018),⁵ the sample selection criteria were as follows: the university had to be a national, prefectural or public university located in Japan (excluding vocational schools and junior colleges); the subject content related to international social welfare (excluding theories on the welfare state, international relations, multicultural coexistence or symbiosis, foreign languages and international affairs, among others); the subject content was generally relevant to international social work and international social welfare (excluding subjects that had only one or a few classes on the theme); and the subject was offered or scheduled to be offered in 2018 or later, as of December 2020. If the relevant subject at a particular university was offered more than once during the period, the most recent syllabus was collected as a sample.

Sample schools were extracted from lists of the population through a selection process (see Appendix 1 in Supplemental Online Material). Eleven universities met the selection criteria: 10 public universities and 1 national university. They had the following regional distribution: two universities in Tohoku, two in Kanto, one in Chubu, one in Kinki, four in Chugoku and one in Shikoku. The subject titles were ‘International Welfare’ (Kokusai-Fukushi-Ron: 国際福祉論) at six schools (54.5%), ‘International Social Welfare’ (Kokusai-Shakai-Fukushi-Ron: 国際社会福祉論) at two schools (18.2%), ‘International Health and Welfare Activities’ (Kokusai-Hoken-Fukushi-Katsudou-Ron: 国際保健福祉活動論) at one school (9.1%), ‘International Comparison of Social Welfare’ (Shakai-Fukushi-Kokusai-Hikaku-Ron: 社会福祉国際比較論) at one school (9.1%) and ‘Social Development Studies’ (Shakai-Kaihatsu-Gaku: 社会開発学) at one school (9.1%). The distribution of grade levels for undergraduate subjects⁶ was as follows: second-year students at three schools (27.3%), third-year students at three schools (27.3%), fourth-year students at two schools (18.2%) and multiple years allowed or years not specified at three schools (27.3%). Regarding the syllabi, only one school specified a textbook on international social welfare for the subject and five schools specified reference books (three of which were specific to social work or social welfare).

Data analysis

Open-access syllabi of the 11 schools—whose identification codes were randomly allocated from A to K—were analysed through inductive content analysis by using qualitative analysis software (MAXQDA ver. 2022). The analysis was conducted in the original language, Japanese. First, the syllabi were converted into text data and imported into MAXQDA. Second, the subject objectives and goals in the syllabi were coded according to semantic units (48 code names that occurred a total of 314 times). Third, regarding the themes for each class, one code was assigned to each class in principle (up to two codes per class if there were multiple themes; 46 code names that occurred a total of 209 times). After completing all coding, the frequency of the applicable subjects and codes was analysed. Fourth, the relationships among the codes were explored using MAXQDA’s code co-occurrence model. The codes that corresponded to the majority―more than 50%―of the sample schools were designated as the main codes, and the relationship with the co-occurring other codes (sub-codes and other main codes) was visualised using MAXMaps. Instructions in the co-occurrence model were set to one intersection as the minimum quantity while reflecting the frequency of overlapping coded segments. Fifth, with reference to the findings, including the analysis of the code co-occurrence model, the main categories were generated. The descriptions in each subject syllabus were divided into relevant categories. The findings, including quotes from the syllabi in this study, were translated into English by the author.

Subject design

Using the findings, a subject plan on international social welfare (International Welfare; Kokusai-Fukushi-Ron) at a public university in Japan was designed. Then, as part of the design process, feedback from undergraduate students in trial classes that were conducted in January 2021 was considered. Additionally, teaching materials written in Japanese were created by August 2021, consistent with the subject design and syllabus. After the syllabus was designed with a class plan, the main subject was taught in 15 sessions by using the materials from the second semester of 2021. In parallel with the planning and implementation of the subject, students’ feedback and the author’s field diaries during the process, together with data related to syllabus design, were analysed descriptively and qualitatively. The anonymous students’ reflection sheets were collected after their written consent was obtained in accordance with the research and educational ethics regulations of the university. Prior to data analysis, any personally identifiable information was removed from the data collected.

Findings

Subject objectives and goals

In terms of objectives and goals, an analysis of the frequency of applicable subjects (the number of schools) and codes was conducted. Table 1 shows that a higher frequency of applicable subjects was observed in the codes that included comparisons with Japanese social work (‘Multiple Perspectives and Relativisation’, ‘International Comparison’ and ‘Social Welfare in Japan’) and those related to social issues, practices and policies (‘Problem-Solving and Practices’, ‘Social Security Systems and Policies’ and ‘Social Development Issues’). These were followed by codes related to global perspectives (‘Globalisation and Global Views’), foreign countries (‘Developing Countries’ and ‘Developed and Western Countries’) and multicultural and ‘glocal’ issues (‘Global Issues in the Local Context of Japan’, ‘Multiculturalism’ and ‘Foreign Residents and Workers in Japan’), among others. The frequency of the codes in all relevant data was the highest for ‘Social Security Systems and Policies’ (39 times), followed by ‘Developed and Western Countries’ (34 times), ‘Social Development Issues’ (33 times), ‘Globalisation and Global Views’ (28 times) and ‘International Comparison’ (22 times).

Table 1. Frequency of codes on the objectives and content of international social welfare subjects.

	Rank*	Code name	Frequency of schools	Frequency of codes
Objectives and goals^†	1	Problem-Solving and Practices	8	19
	2	Multiple Perspectives and Relativisation	8	13
	3	Social Security Systems and Policies	7	39
	4	Social Development Issues	7	33
	5	Globalisation and Global Views	7	28
	6	International Comparison	7	22
	7	Social Welfare in Japan	7	16
	8	Developing Countries	5	14
	9	Social Work (General)	5	13
	10	Active Learning	5	12
	11	Global Issues in the Local Context of Japan	5	7
	12	Developed and Western Countries	4	34
	13	Context, Background and Social Structure	4	10
	14	Multiculturalism	4	9
	15	Life-Related Issues	4	4
	16	Foreign Residents and Workers in Japan	3	6
	17	Research and Theory	2	8
	18	Implementing Body	2	6
	19	Socially Vulnerable Groups	2	3
	20	International Social Work	2	2
Content of each class^‡	1	Developed and Western Countries	8	50
	2	International Comparison^§	8	16
	3	Developing Countries	7	22
	4	International Social Work and Welfare	6	17
	5	Immigration, Refugees and Border Crossing	5	7
	6	Gender and Women’s Issues	5	6
	7	Foreign Residents in Japan	4	13
	8	Multicultural Symbiotic Societies (Tabunka-Kyosei-Shakai)	4	7
	9	Theory (Welfare State and Social Security)	4	5
	10	Poverty	3	7
	11	Children and Education	3	4
	12	Social and Community Development	2	7
	13	International Cooperation	2	4
	13	Development Implementation Body	2	4
	15	Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)	2	3
	16	Indigenous Practices	2	2

Codes that were included in more than two schools were extracted from the samples.

*Each code was ranked according to the frequency of the school concerned first and then according to the frequency of the codes in all relevant texts.

^†General words, such as ‘learn’ and ‘this subject’, were excluded in the coding process.

^‡General classes, such as ‘orientation’, ‘recap’ and ‘summary’, were excluded in the coding process.

^§This code includes the comparison with Japan.

Figure 1 illustrates the relationships among codes that were explored by using the code co-occurrence model. The seven main codes were identified as follows: ‘Problem-Solving and Practices’, ‘Multiple Perspectives and Relativisation’, ‘Social Security Systems and Policies’, ‘Social Development, ‘Globalisation and Global Views’, ‘International Comparison’ and ‘Social Welfare in Japan’. Each main code was related to other codes. For example, ‘Social Security Systems and Policies’ was directly associated with seven codes, whereas ‘Social Development Issues’ was directly associated with five codes. The following illustrative example shows how multiple codes were interrelated (underline and brackets added by the author to show the relevant parts of coding and codes, respectively):

A world where many events cannot be isolated in the country [Globalisation and Global Views] … (To learn) what social work can do [Problem-Solving and Practices] for the various life-related issues that people face [Life-Related Issues] beyond the framework of the system and policies [Social Security Systems and Policies] of social welfare in Japan [Social Welfare in Japan] … to learn about welfare (or social work) [Social Work (General)] with a multilateral perspective [Multiple Perspectives and Relativisation]

(University D).

Figure 1. Code co-occurrence model for objectives and goals of international social welfare subjects.

Note: This figure was generated using a code co-occurrence model (code-intersection) on MAXMaps (MAXQDA ver. 2022). The number in brackets after a code name indicates the frequency of each code in all documents. The line width reflects the frequency of co-occurrence; however, the positional relationship and distance in-between do not have meaning.

Additionally, the following is an example of ‘International Comparison’ among ‘Developed and Western Countries’, ‘Developing Countries’ and ‘Social Welfare in Japan’:

To learn about the current status of social welfare [Social Security Systems and Policies] in developed countries [Developed and Western Countries] and developing countries [Developing Countries] in comparison with [International Comparison] Japan [Social Welfare in Japan]

(University F).

Subject content

Applicable subjects and codes were analysed in terms of their content. Table 1 also shows the coded content with the frequency among applicable schools. Dominant codes were related to the situation of other countries and international comparisons (‘Developed and Western Countries’, ‘Developing Countries’ and ‘International Comparison’) and a wide range of social development and humanitarian issues (‘Immigration, Refugees and Border Crossing’, ‘Gender and Women’s Issues’, ‘Poverty’ and ‘Children and Education’). Additionally, codes related to international practices and welfare policies in a broad sense (‘International Social Work and Welfare’, ‘International Cooperation’ and ‘Development Implementation Body’), perspectives on global issues and interconnectedness in the domestic context (‘Foreign Residents in Japan’ and ‘Multicultural Symbiotic Societies’), the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and indigenous practices were observed. The frequency of the codes in all relevant data was the highest for ‘Developed and Western Countries’ (50 times), followed by ‘Developing Countries’ (22 times), ‘International Social Work and Welfare’ (17 times) and ‘International Comparison’ (16 times).

The themes related to countries and regions specified in the subject content found in multiple schools included the United States (four schools), Germany (three schools), Sweden (three schools), Australia (three schools), Scandinavia (two schools), Italy (two schools) and Asian countries (two schools).

Figure 2 displays the relationships among the codes that were explored using the code co-occurrence model. The four main codes were identified as follows: ‘Developed and Western Countries’, ‘Developing Countries’, ‘International Comparison’ and ‘International Social Work and Welfare’. ‘Developed and Western Countries’ was directly associated with seven codes, including a relatively strong co-occurrence with ‘Older People and Nursing Care’ and a moderate co-occurrence with ‘International Comparison’. ‘International Comparison’ has, besides ‘Developed and Western Countries’, a co-occurrence with two other codes (‘Poverty’ and ‘Older People and Nursing Care’). ‘Developing Countries’ was directly associated with six codes, including ‘Poverty’, ‘Gender and Women’s Issues’ and ‘International Cooperation’. ‘International Social Work and Welfare’ was associated with two codes (‘Sustainable Development Goals’ and ‘Indigenous Practices’).

Figure 2. Code co-occurrence model for the class contents of international social welfare subjects.

Note: This figure was generated using a code co-occurrence model (code-intersection) on MAXMaps (MAXQDA ver. 2022). The number in brackets after a code name indicates the frequency of each code in all documents. The line width reflects the frequency of co-occurrence; however, the positional relationship and distance in-between have no meaning.

The following examples illustrate the integrated content observed in the aforementioned analysis. In a syllabus at University K, based on a lecture titled ‘Trends of care policies for older people in OECD countries and an international comparison of welfare policies’ (‘International Comparison’ and ‘Older People and Nursing Care’), the social security policies of Germany, Sweden, the United States and other countries (‘Developed and Western Countries’) were meant to be introduced. Then, the following classes were intended to focus on other themes, such as child labour in developing countries (‘Developing Countries’ and ‘Children and Education’), various problems faced by foreigners in Japan (‘Foreign Residents in Japan’), global refugee issues (‘Immigration, Refugees and Border Crossing’) and sustainable development (‘Sustainable Development Goals’).

In the syllabus at University A, after reviewing the basic concepts and views on international social welfare (‘International Social Work and Welfare’), one-third of the classes were allocated to ‘Poverty’ or ‘Gender and Women’s Issues’ in ‘Developing Countries’, whereas another one-third were allocated to themes related to ‘Foreign Residents in Japan’.

Classification of each university

Six categories were generated with reference to the codes in the content and results of the code co-occurrence model: Category-1 ‘Western and Developed Countries’, Category-2 ‘Developing Countries’, Category-3 ‘Global Issues in Japan’ (including part of ‘Immigration, Refugees and Border Crossing’ and other related codes), Category-4 ‘International Social Work’ (extracting the international social work part from ‘International Social Work and Welfare’), Category-5 ‘Social Development Issues’ (combining the relevant codes such as ‘Gender and Women’s Issues’, ‘Poverty’, ‘Children and Education’ and ‘Older People and Nursing Care’) and Category-6 ‘Multiculturalism and Coexistence’ (Tabunka-Kyosei).

The content covered by each university’s subjects was classified into the six categories (Appendix 2). Category-5 ‘Social Development Issues’ appeared in the subject content of all the sample universities. Additionally, more than half of the universities had subjects with topics related to Category-1 ‘Western and Developed Countries’ and Category-2 ‘Developing Countries’. Five and four universities, had subject content related to Category-3 ‘Global Issues in Japan’ and Category-6 ‘Multiculturalism and Coexistence’ (Tabunka-Kyosei), respectively, and two universities offered subjects that addressed Category-4 ‘International Social Work’.

Regarding the overlapping categories within each university (the identification codes of the sample universities are shown in parentheses), subjects at five universities included the content of Category-1 ‘Western and Developed Countries’ and Category-2 ‘Developing Countries’ (B, D, F, I and K). Subjects at three universities included Category-3 ‘Global Issues in Japan’ and Category-6 ‘Multiculturalism and Coexistence’ (Tabunka-Kyosei) (E, J and K), and three universities showed results with Category-4 ‘International Social Work’ and/or Category-2 ‘Developing Countries’ (C, D and G).

Discussion with action

This study aimed to reveal the trends in and content of international social welfare subjects at national and public universities in Japan, with the overall purpose of applying the findings to subject design. Following the order of the research questions, first, a summary of the findings based on syllabus analysis will be presented. Second, the perspectives to be included in the syllabus planning on international social welfare will be discussed by describing the process. Although the development of the syllabus design is still in its intermediate stage, with some limitations and challenges, lessons learnt from planning trial classes can provide important implications for international social work education in Japan.

Trends in the syllabi of subjects on international social welfare at national and public universities

This study explored the perspectives and content of subjects on international social welfare at Japanese national, prefectural and other public universities. This section summarises the findings from the inductive content analysis of the syllabi, including similarities and differences in terms of the subject objectives and content, consistent with the first research question; then, it draws implications for subject design.

The findings concerning subject objectives and goals indicate that subjects at sample universities tend to emphasise a multifaceted perspective and a view of relativisation. In other words, they encourage international comparisons of social security, social welfare and social work for addressing social issues with knowledge of similar situations in other countries and regions. Some universities offered subjects that focused on ‘Global Issues in Japan’ (five universities) or ‘Multiculturalism and Coexistence’ (Tabunka-Kyosei) (four universities) while also including content about corresponding situations in other countries. The subject content varied widely, with some focusing on global challenges faced by minorities worldwide and enquiring how to solve them. Only two universities included what was clearly international social work in the narrow sense in their subject content.

Because subjects related to international social welfare are not included in the standardised curriculum of social work education in Japan (MHLW, 2020), they are likely to be offered as complementary subjects that undergraduate students can opt for (JASWE, 2018).⁷ Thus, the visions of each university and the specialties of its faculty might be reflected in the aims and content of international social welfare courses (Mori, 1996). The findings of the syllabi analysis found various subject objectives and content, with some common trends in Japan. Therefore, exploring globally and locally relevant content and perspectives with critical reflection is required for education on international social welfare while also considering the relationship among the overall curricula at each university.

Towards developing a subject design and teaching materials

This section discusses the second research question while describing the actual process of designing a subject. We had initially assumed that it would be desirable to include international and intercultural perspectives across subjects in the standardised curriculum of social work education (Fook, 2004; Ishikawa, 2012). Although this argument is not to be denied, the findings of the syllabi analysis and the aforementioned discussion indicate that international social welfare subjects can be specialised to focus on global and local perspectives in a comprehensive manner (Gray, 2019). Specifically, in the context of Japanese social work education, which focuses on domestic issues, policies and practice, subjects with international perspectives may contribute greatly to undergraduate students’ learning concerning ‘glocal’ issues and cross-border practices (Saito & Johns, 2009).

The findings also suggest that students could relativise their understanding of social work and welfare through critical thinking beyond borders by taking courses on international social welfare to learn about systems and practices in other countries, including developed and developing countries, from an overarching international perspective. In other words, a design is needed that allows students to gain a comparative understanding of social work in the domestic and local contexts in addition to cross-national learning about skills and theories related to practice (Lyons et al., 2006; Simpson & Nowacki, 2015). Therefore, the findings indicate that it is appropriate to incorporate an approach that prompts students to explore implications for the domestic context while also discussing issues, policies and practices related to social work in other countries and regions from an international perspective and the viewpoint of interconnectedness.

Trial classes were implemented before designing an international social welfare subject that targets third-year undergraduate students. In each trial class for third-year students, social work systems and practices in other countries, including Europe, the United States and developing countries in Asia, were introduced and discussed with a focus on practices around mental health issues.⁸ A student, for instance, made the following comment:

As I had almost no knowledge of [social work in] foreign countries, I was able to understand the perspectives so as to capture the policies and characteristics of each country. They were easier to understand through comparisons with Japan. I thought that by learning about the current situation in developing countries, I would be able to understand the development and shortcomings of policies and practices in Japan.

(Student A, 6^th January 2021)

Considering the students’ feedback during the trial classes, we developed a plan for the main subject (International Welfare) along with materials and with reference to the literature. The plan included ‘glocal’ perspectives on cross-border social work―without assigning superiority or inferiority to any particular country or people (Akimoto, 2020)—as well as theories and practical examples of international collaborative practices with critical perspectives against hegemony and neo-colonialism⁹ (Midgley, 1981, 2008). As shown in Table 2, the four objectives were intended to enable students to learn about diverse perspectives and skills in international social work and to gain suggestions for practice in Japan. The subject design included a discussion on the perspectives required for each social worker on transnational issues and global challenges (e.g. Zapata-Barrero, 2018), with simulations of practical cases. Moreover, a textbook written by the author in Japanese, comprising nine chapters from the international developmental social work perspective (Desai, 2013), was introduced as teaching material for this subject (Higashida, 2021).

Table 2. Objectives and learning outcomes of a course on international welfare.

This course introduces the theory and practice of international social welfare and international social work in a changing and uncertain world. Although the broad term ‘international social welfare’ has multiple meanings in Japan, this course will focus on international social work practice, in developed and developing countries, while considering global and local issues and strategies. By the end of the unit, students will be able to confidently: (1) analyse and synthesise core debates in perspectives required for international social work considering the interaction between global and local issues, (2) critically discuss one or more examples of collaborative practice in international social work, (3) prepare a draft of a project plan for international social welfare by using the Project Design Matrix (PDM), (4) demonstrate critical understanding of the possibilities and challenges of social work in a global society through the study of perspectives and practice cases that can be applied to the domestic context.

In the first class, we planned to ask the registered students whether they had studied social welfare and social work in terms of any countries or regions other than Japan. Assuming that the Western content would be mainstream, we decided to critically discuss why such learning had occurred. Afterwards, we planned to encourage discussion among the students about theories on international social work, by using relevant literature, and feedback from the lecturer. The intent was then to have each student select an international or global social welfare issue that interested them. Students were then expected to discuss how the issue could be addressed in collaboration with stakeholders considering the socioeconomic and political context from the international social work perspective.

Furthermore, we planned to implement classes for discussing the implications of the international social welfare debates in the local contexts, while considering interconnectedness, in the second half of the semester. For instance, two class sessions were designed for students to think and learn about the context and process of social work practices by considering questions such as ‘What perspectives have been valued?’, ‘What are minority issues, interculturalism and transnationalism in the global and local contexts?’ and ‘What about those in Japan?’

The subject assessments were conducted by means of the following: (i) reflection papers after each class (20%), (ii) an essay on a selected ‘glocal’ or international social welfare issue (20%) and (iii) a final report with a mock project design draft and critical reflection (60%).

These plans were generally conducted as per the above discussion. During the course, we received some reflective comments from the students:

I thought it [this class] was worthwhile to consider not only the Eurocentric (global North) view of social work but also the views of developing countries while learning from these countries.

(Student B, 25^th October 2021)

I was able to think about social work from the international perspective, which I had rarely learnt, and develop my critical thinking skills. Additionally, we may support clients with overseas [or transnational] roots even in Japan. Considering such possibilities, I think it is necessary to learn how to support them without imposing ‘normality’ in Japan or as a ‘developed’ country …

(Student C, 20^th December 2021)

These comments suggested that this subject could be an opportunity for students to learn about multiple perspectives on social work in the global and local contexts.

Looked at from a different perspective, the comments also imply that the international social welfare field seemed remote for those who even took the subject. Many students seemed to learn about social work only by taking various related undergraduate courses and experiencing fieldwork in the Japanese welfare context. Moreover, without overseas training and fieldwork, it might have been difficult for them to even imagine the overseas field reality. In other words, it was likely to be a challenge for many students to even imagine stakeholders—such as clients, local supporters, including indigenous social workers, and policymakers—in other countries where the socio-cultural context might differ from that of Japan (Field diary, November 2021). This fact underscores the significance of continual development of the design and content of the subject for addressing these issues through an evaluation with students’ voices in the cyclical process of SoTL.

Limitations and challenges

This study has several limitations. First, the syllabi analysis had methodological issues. The syllabi content might differ from the actual content in educational practice.

Second, the author faced linguistic difficulties in the syllabi analysis. Although the analysis was conducted in the original language—Japanese—some aspects might not have been adequately described in this paper through an English translation because of linguistic complexity (Simpson & Nowacki, 2015). Beyond discussing the study limitations, translation could be an important aspect owing to its potential relationship with the linguistic imperialism of English,¹⁰ or unilingualism, within the context of international social welfare education (Gray et al., 2008; Gray, 2019).

Third, the sample for the syllabi analysis was limited to national, prefectural or other public universities. Some public universities might have paid attention to internationalisation issues within prefectures, while some private universities might have organised curricula based on unique educational policies. Therefore, it is not appropriate to generalise the syllabi analysis findings as reflecting the actual situation of related courses at universities in Japan.

Fourth, this study is at an intermediate stage as regards educational development. Because SoTL is developed based on student-learning perspectives (Shulman, 2000), educational practice and future research need to consider a wider range of responses and opinions from students. The spiral-up process of educational development in general includes analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation (Inagaki & Suzuki, 2011). In-depth and critical reflection on the future implementation of classes and the evaluation of the educational practices are required because this study focused on the stages from analysis to development. During the process, it is necessary to consider not only the content of the curricula but also the educational approach in terms of social work in the domestic context (Akimoto, 2008).

Conclusions

This study explored the objectives, goals and content of subjects related to international social welfare and international social work at Japanese national and public universities. It identified certain common perspectives and content in the syllabi, although such subjects are not included in the designated curriculum of social work education and training courses in Japan. Based on these findings along with arguments in the literature, we developed a unique plan to include perspectives from international social work and intercultural social work. Although the history of education on international social welfare in Japan is not short, this study’s actionable findings indicate that it is helpful to develop a new course design that reflects students’ learning and participation while also learning from the other relevant subjects. Further, there is a need for continued discussion on how to integrate international social work content into the standardised curriculum of Japanese social work education. Moreover, it would be beneficial for Japanese educators to participate in discussions on international social work education on a more active basis as well as develop and teach courses that include interdependent perspectives on global issues and interculturalism combined with diversity, including indigenous knowledges in Japan. To this end, it will be important to explore opportunities for continuous discussion with stakeholders, including students, to reciprocally develop international social work education worldwide, even in the face of difficulties such as global pandemics and international armed conflicts. In such reciprocal exchanges, there will also be a continued need for debate on how to deal with linguistic difficulties when envisaging the teaching of international social work, particularly in non-English-speaking countries.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the academic staff of Aomori University of Health and Welfare for their advice and assistance with this study. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the university. The author would also like to express his sincere gratitude to Dr Tatsuru Akimoto of the Asian Research Institute for International Social Work, Shukutoku University, for sharing valuable information. Some content of this study was orally presented at the 56^th conference of the Japanese Association of Mental Health Social Workers held on 11 September 2021.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2022.2107194

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP21K13477 and JP21KK0039.

Notes on contributors

Masateru Higashida

Masateru Higashida, PhD, has been a head researcher at the Asian Research Institute for International Social Work, Shukutoku University, as well as a part-time lecturer at Aomori University of Health and Welfare, since April 2022. He obtained a Master of Social Welfare degree from the Osaka Prefecture University, Japan, in 2005; a Master of Public Health degree in International Development with Distinction from the University of Sheffield, UK, in 2016; and a doctorate in Human Sciences from Osaka University in 2020. He has extensive practical experience in the disability sector in Japan, Sri Lanka and Mongolia for more than 10 years in total.

Notes

1. The Kanji characters that denote ‘certified social workers’ (社会福祉士) consist of ‘social welfare’ (社会福祉) and ‘certified’ (士).

2. Akimoto (2004) also states the following: ‘(1) International Social Work is ... social work which is concerned with national boundaries … (2) International Social Work thinks of and acts for the well-being of all people on this earth … (3) International Social Work does not attach any special meaning or importance in value to any specific country or people. It requires not egocentrism and ethnocentrism but “compound eyes”. (4) Ignorance and innocence, including those of the history, will jeopardize international social work … ’ (p. 1).

3. As of the end of December 2021, approximately 260,000 people registered as certified social workers or Shakai-Fukushi-Shi (Social Welfare Promotion and National Examination Centre, Japan, 2021). The qualification requirements are complex; however, the most common way to obtain certification is to complete a set of designated courses (including placement field training) at a university and take the national examination (Matsuo, 2020; Social Welfare Promotion and National Examination Centre, Japan, 2021). The pass rate for the national examination, held once a year, is approximately 30%. Certified social workers, mental health social workers and certified care workers are often referred to as the three welfare qualifications in Japan.

4. Mori (1996) includes some descriptions about the early days of international social welfare education in Japan with reference to articles or reports of some researchers including Yoshihiro Ashikaga (1991), Yoko Kojima, Toru Furuse and Mariko Kimura. Additionally, Tatsuru Akimoto (1997), for example, discusses the concept of international social work critically.

5. In the JASWE's (2018) survey, international welfare (Kokusai-Fukushi) subjects are regarded as those that include any of the following three categories: (i) subjects focusing on welfare issues abroad; (ii) global welfare issues within Japan and (iii) cross-border welfare issues.

6. In Japan, it is common for the target year to be set for each course.

7. Some private universities, for example, have set up international social work courses in conjunction with overseas fieldwork (JASWE, 2018).

8. Moreover, as an introduction to the subject, we tried to set up a class on the theme of ‘Multicultural Life and International Social Work’ in the ‘Introduction to Social Welfare’ subject for first-year undergraduate students in 2021.

9. A critical discussion on the relationship between the Empire of Japan’s colonial policies and social work (or Shakai-Jigyou) in Asia before and during the Second World War would also be required (Mishima, 2016; Otomo, 2018).

10. This issue would not be limited to English. For instance, Akimoto (2010) critically discusses the controversial issues of dominant and official languages, including Japanese, used in international social work organisations.