Interdisciplinary collaboration in social work education in the USA, Israel and Canada: Deans’ and...

Article i s w

Interdisciplinary collaboration in social work education in the USA, Israel and Canada: Deans’ and directors’ perspectives

Laura BronsteinBinghamton University, USA

Terry MizrahiHunter College School of Social Work, USA

Yossi Korazim-KorösyThe College of Management - Academic Studies and Ministry for Social Affairs, Israel

Debra McPheeBarry University, USA

AbstractThis article utilized survey research to examine where interdisciplinary collaboration is occurring and being taught in social work programs in three countries. Findings indicate that social work programs participate in high levels of interdisciplinary collaboration at the university–community level and the interdepartmental level and teach it through an array of courses.

Corresponding author: Laura Bronstein, Binghamton University Department of Social Work, Box 6000, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA. Email: [email protected]

International Social Work53(4) 457–473

© The Author(s) 2010Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0020872809358399

http://isw.sagepub.com

458 International Social Work 53(4)

Keywordscollaboration, interdisciplinary, international, interprofessional, social work education

The call for interdisciplinary collaboration has become commonplace among health, education and human service professionals around the world (Canadian Association of Social Workers [CASW], 2001; Korazim-Korösy et al., 2007). As modern societies seek solutions to increasingly complex social problems, both public and private funders in many countries are man-dating intergroup, interdepartmental and inter-organizational partnerships (El Ansari et al., 2001; Klein, 1996). Civic engagement where university faculty collaborates with community and government agencies is on the rise (Amey and Brown, 2004; Farquhar and Dobson, 2004; Motes and Hess, 2007; Soska and Johnson-Butterfield, 2004). Similarly, there is increasing recognition of the benefits of interdisciplinary collaborations within univer-sities (Clarke-Tasker, 2009; Danis, 2006). Discussion of the benefits of col-laboration that include synergistic outcomes (Lasker et al., 2001) come also with a discussion of its challenges, such as impermeable organizational structures and inadequate financial resources and personnel (Hill et al., 2009; Torkington et al., 2004; Trevillion and Bedford, 2002). With this increased demand for interprofessional training and expertise comes a need to better understand these collaborative efforts and their impacts on com-munities, faculty and students (El Ansari et al., 2001).

Interdisciplinary collaboration in social work education has been defined by Berg-Weger and Schneider (1998: 98) as ‘an interpersonal process through which members of different disciplines contribute to a common product or goal’. The definition used here goes further in its use of interdisciplinary col-laboration to mean an effective interpersonal process that facilitates the achieve-ment of goals which cannot be reached when individual professionals act on their own (Bronstein, 2003) both inside and outside the university. This defini-tion, which views collaboration as a positive as opposed to a neutral working together, reflects the way interdisciplinary collaboration is written about when compared with other closely-related interpersonal processes, including coop-eration, communication, coordination, coalitions and partnership (Bronstein, 2003; Graham and Barter, 1999; Mizrahi and Rosenthal, 2001).

Social workers are often participating in or leading collaborations at the micro level, including clinical teamwork (Abramson and Bronstein, 2008), and at the macro level in community development (Johnson-Butterfield and Chisanga, 2008). With skills in both task and small group facilitation as well as community organizing and organizational development, social workers are well placed to lead collaborative efforts. While there is significant and

Bronstein et al. 459

growing literature on interdisciplinary collaboration in social work practice, there are surprisingly few empirical studies about the ways that schools of social work engage in interdisciplinary collaborative endeavors.

This study was developed to learn more about the activities in which social work educators and leaders are engaged, with whom and how they are engaged, and how they prepare students and faculty for these complex forms of professional activities that, in a number of countries, are mandated for social work education. For example, in the UK the ‘government … requires all English degrees in social work to incorporate an interprofes-sional curriculum’ (Trevillion and Bedford, 2002: 215). Interdisciplinary collaboration is also included in the 2008 Educational Policy Accreditation Standards (EPAS) of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), where the accreditation status of social work programs in the USA is dependent on the incorporation of such standards (CSWE, 2008).

This article provides the findings of an international exploratory study in which deans and directors of social work programs in the USA, Israel and Canada were surveyed about their interdisciplinary collaboration efforts, both intra-organizational within the university and inter-organizational between the university and the external community. This preliminary study allows us to examine whether and where interdisciplinary collaboration is prioritized in social work education in those three countries whose social welfare systems have distinct histories and ideologies.

Literature reviewExplicit education for interdisciplinary practice is not adequately reflected in the curricula of professional schools and academic departments, despite the growing literature on the process and outcomes of interdisciplinary col-laboration (Bronstein, 2003; Elazar, 1992; Johnson-Butterfield and Korazim-Korösy, 2007; Korazim and Klausner, 1989; Korazim-Korösy, 2000; Mizrahi and Rosenthal, 2001; Oliver et al., 2005; Yossi Interdisciplinary Forum on Community Development [IFCD], 2002). The exceptions have begun to focus on the models and experiences in teaching and learning interdisciplin-ary practice in the classroom and field (Amey and Brown, 2004; Grossman and McCormick, 2003; Maidenberg and Golick, 2001; Trevillion and Bedford, 2002). A few studies specify the professions involved in collabora-tion with social workers, such as journalism (Stone et al., 2008); medicine (Hill et al., 2009) and nursing (Torkington et al., 2004).

As an emerging imperative, new approaches to collaboration continue to take hold. For example, at both the level of the interprofessional team as well as community collaboration, efforts are being made to include consumers and families in the heart of collaborative efforts (Abramson and Bronstein,


2008; Connolly, 2006; Farquhar and Dobson, 2004; Kessler and Ackerson, 2004; Ogles et al., 2006; Pennell and Anderson, 2005). In addition, social work is among the professions ‘participating in the paradigm shift toward greater university–community involvement … influenced by a range of fed-eral agencies and funding sources to engage more fully in interdisciplinary, inter-community work’ (Rogge and Rocha, 2004: 104). Phillips et al. (2003) provide an exemplar case study of how a department of education and social work engaged with 90 Idaho school districts to reshape services to children and families. The Journal of Community Practice recently devoted a special issue to international interdisciplinary initiatives in macro-level community interventions (Johnson-Butterfield and Korazim-Korösy, 2007). One of the rare structured quasi-experimental designed studies that included social work, along with physical therapy and education, showed the importance of team-taught role modeling (Selli et al., 2008).

Current status of interdisciplinary collaboration by country

Social workers in the USA have reported on the extent of interprofessional collaborative activities in research, education and clinical and community service (Berg-Weger and Schneider, 1998), and more recently have been taking the lead in university–community partnerships (Bronstein et al., 2006a; Marshall and Giunta, 2007; Soska and Johnson-Butterfield, 2004). Social work educators are also identifying the theory, value of, and positive outcomes in, interdisciplinary research (Moxley, 2008).

Social workers in Israel are bounded by legal mandates to provide per-sonal (clinical) social services and community work; and, with a few excep-tions (Korazim and Klausner, 1989; Yossi Albeck, 1983) a broader, more effective interdisciplinary approach is beginning to be systematically stud-ied in theory and practice (IFCD, 2002; Karmon, 2002; Katz, 2006; Korazim-Korösy et al., 2007; Ministry of Social Affairs, 2006).

Interdisciplinary collaboration in Canada has long been common prac-tice in social service and community development, often promoted and shaped by both provincial and federal policies and organizational structures (King and Ross, 2004). Recently, Canadian social work professionals and educators have turned their attention to the evaluation of effective interdis-ciplinary collaborative practice as related to the promotion of global prac-tice and international development (Barr, 2005; CASW, 2001).

Over a decade ago, Berg-Weger and Schneider (1998) examined inter-disciplinary collaboration in social work education in the USA. Their study


surveyed a cohort of deans and directors of accredited graduate and under-graduate social work programs. They found that 66 percent of social work schools or departments were engaged in some form of collaborative activ-ity, with research being the highest (48%), education next (43%) and then service (27%). Berg-Weger and Schneider made many suggestions for increasing the type and extent of collaboration in social work education, especially in teaching and service.

Ten years after Berg-Weger and Schneider’s (1998) study, our research was designed to: first, explore the current state of collaboration as a priority for social work education in the USA; and second, extend the examination beyond the USA by including social work programs in both Israel and Canada. Israel and Canada were chosen for inclusion for both pragmatic and academic reasons. First, the authors’ professional experience provided first-hand knowledge of social work education in these countries. Second, the curriculum structure and perspective of Israeli and Canadian social work education is comparable with that of US programs. This alignment made programs in these countries logical choices for inclusion in an international exploratory study. We hope to utilize these findings to refine the methodol-ogy so as to expand its scope to include interdisciplinary collaborative edu-cational approaches in additional countries.

MethodologyApproval for the study was obtained by the Institutional Review Boards for the Protection of Human Subjects at the authors’ universities. Data for this study were collected using an 18-item electronic survey of social work deans and directors in the USA, Israel and Canada in 2006 using the online service, Survey Monkey (Bronstein, et al., 2006b). The purpose of the sur-vey was to provide an understanding of the status of interdisciplinary activ-ity, knowledge and skill in classroom and field teaching, and approaches to interprofessional work by social work educators. Specifically, there were queries about school size, location, degrees offered, types of collaboration, whether and how collaboration was promoted and encouraged, faculty and student experiences, curriculum opportunities and future directions. The survey went out electronically with a follow-up email reminder and follow-up phone calls to a total of 226 social work programs: 180 on the NADD (National Association of Deans and Directors, USA) listserv, 10 Israeli and 35 Canadian programs. All programs accessed through the NADD listserv offered combined (graduate and undergraduate) programs or stand-alone graduate programs. The Israeli and Canadian programs surveyed included stand-alone BSW as well as combined and stand-alone graduate programs.


Survey responses were analyzed, with frequencies, percentages and cross-tabulations as supported by importing data from Survey Monkey into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Findings

Sample

A total of 106 programs – 78 from the USA (43% of country sample and 74% of total sample); 17 from Canada (50% from country sample and 17% of total sample); and 10 from Israel (100% of country sample and 10% of total sample) (one program did not indicate country) – responded to the survey, yielding an above-average response rate (Sheehan, 2001) of 47 percent. With regard to program size, 40 percent reported a student population of 201–400 in their programs, followed by 22 percent report-ing 101–200. Forty-four percent reported a total university student body of over 20,000, followed by 22 percent with 10,000–20,000 students. The majority of respondents were from a large city (41%), with the smallest percentage (4.8%) located in suburban communities. Ninety-four percent of programs offer MSWs with 75 percent also offering BSWs and 48 percent also offering PhDs.

Collaboration within the university

Results from this study reveal data about how the interdisciplinary collab-orative activities programs of universities are structured. Only 5.7 percent of respondents (n = 6) reported no interdepartmental collaboration. Seventy-nine percent reported that their university promotes some kind(s) of col-laboration within their university.

Almost all (93%) programs report being engaged in interdisciplinary activities with a wide variety of other programs and specialties, as noted from the list of 16 ‘other’ disciplines with which they engage, provided by respondents. In order of frequency, interdisciplinary activities occur with: education (45.3%), nursing (45.3%), psychology (38.7%), public health (35.8%), law (34.9%), public policy (32.1%) and medicine (25.5%). In addition, 44 respondents in the ‘other’ category named an additional 16 disciplines including sociology, other health programs and architecture as programs with which they collaborated in some way (see Figure 1, part A).

The most common type of collaboration (60%) is institutionalized through dual-degree programs. The most frequently reported are with law


(29.5%), public health (21%) and chaplaincy/theology (12.2%). Together with the additional ones provided through the ‘other’ category, a total of 25 different joint degrees in which at least one social work program was engaged were identified. About 40 percent of programs reported no dual-degree programs (Figure 1, part B). Additionally, programs reported that outside dual degrees, they were engaged in many and even multiple teach-ing arrangements. The most common formal teaching arrangements are with education (24%) and social sciences (14.9%), with a few in each of the following: public health, medicine, psychology and law. Approximately 41 percent reported no formal teaching agreements out-side dual-degree programs (Figure 1, part C).

University–community collaborationAlmost all respondents (97.1%) reported that their university promotes col-laboration with the community. One question separated this into a query about collaborative practice and collaborative research. The overwhelming majority of programs reported by social work administrators identify multiple ways in which their faculty are engaged in collaborative practice, with the most com-mon mechanism being consultation and technical assistance (90.5%), grant development (87.6%), attending workshops and seminars (81%), and

Figure 1. Collaboration within the university


community organizing and development (81%) (Figure 2, part A). In collab-orative research, there were multiple forms of engagement reported, including consultation (82.9%), linking researchers and organizations (77.1%), grant writing (79%), agency program evaluation (76.2%), community needs assess-ments (74.3%) and co-authoring publications (73.3%) (Figure 2, part B).

Interdisciplinary education for social work studentsFocusing on the ways field placements are interdisciplinary, social work programs report that mental health settings are the most frequent sites for collaboration (87%), followed by medical settings (83%), schools (73%), and children and family services (72.4%). Only 6 percent of programs (n = 6) reported that there are no field placements affording interdisciplinary oppor-tunities (Figure 3, part A). In the classroom, respondents report that research (75%) is the class best suited to teach content on interdisciplinary collabora-tion, with policy, macro practice and electives close second choices with 73 percent each (Figure 3, part B).

The vast majority of deans and directors reported plans to further develop students’ expertise in interdisciplinary collaboration. The majority of these plans include promoting community-based research and evaluation (62%),

Figure 2. University – community collaboration


followed closely by increasing course content (57%), school-wide projects with community organizations (44%), seminars/brown bags (41%), plans for dual-degree programs (40%) and field education requirements (39%). Only 9.6 percent reported no plans in this area.

Cross-country comparisonsIn all three countries, social work programs report that their universities promote collaboration with the community more than interdisciplinary collaboration within the university. Ninety-six percent of respondents in the USA report that their universities formally promote university–com-munity collaboration, compared with 82 percent in Canada and 100 per-cent in Israel (Figure 4, part A). This compares with 78 percent of respondents in the USA who report that their universities promote inter-disciplinary collaboration within the university, compared with 70 per-cent in Canada and 70 percent in Israel (Figure 4, part B). In all three countries, the most frequent ‘reward’ for interdisciplinary collaboration is ‘university/school recognition’. The second most frequent ‘reward’ in the USA and Canada is workload release; however, no workload release was reported from any of the 10 Israeli schools.

Figure 3. Interdisciplinary education for social work students


Other data regarding interdisciplinary collaboration in social work education

Most of the programs report positively about encouraging collaboration in faculty practice and/or research. Almost 77 percent identified general recog-nition by the school or university as the way it was encouraged. Workload release time was the most frequent tangible incentive (37.5%), followed by monetary rewards (17.3%). A few additional incentives were mentioned in the open-ended responses (reported later).

Participants also had an opportunity to respond to an open-ended question about their experiences and efforts in teaching students about collaboration, and 17 took advantage of this opportunity. Responses were more positive than negative concerning the amount and types of supports and barriers to this effort. Two respondents (US and Canada) specifically mentioned the development of interdisciplinary centers related to the field of health. Two (US) also mentioned certificate programs (without additional specification). In addition, a conference (US), a pilot project (US), cross-listed courses (Canada) and a curriculum specialty area (US) were each being planned by different schools. Several described established or anticipated interdisciplin-ary courses or the ability of students to take courses in other programs (US and Canada). A few planned dual-degree programs (US). Among the less common responses, one dean mentioned the initiation of an orientation day

Figure 4. Cross-country comparisons


for all incoming students associated with the health disciplines (Canada). Another dean suggested that accreditation bodies develop standards related to interdisciplinary collaboration at the BSW and MSW levels (Canada).

Although not specifically asked, a few deans and directors identified obsta-cles and barriers to achieving an interdisciplinary agenda. One called the uni-versity environment ‘hostile’ towards collaboration (Israel). Another talked about the difficulty of implementation, saying that ‘it takes time and resources’ (US). Some administrators addressed the importance of teaching collabora-tion and had ideas about changes needed to make this successful, for example:

In order to teach students more about interdisciplinary collaboration, we need to expand the collaborative efforts of the faculty. This means overcoming obstacles such as needing to devote primary time to establishing the School’s ‘territory,’ and finding ways that the University actually rewards collaboration (rather than giving credit and indirect cost returns on research to only one partner). (US)

Faculty need to model this in their work for it to become part of the culture. It will not happen just in the classroom. (US)

LimitationsOne limitation of our study was that we did not give an in-depth definition of interdisciplinary collaboration; we simply defined it as ‘sustained, formal interaction between your program and others, both inside and outside the university/college’ in our online questionnaire. In addition, we did not survey BSW program directors of stand-alone undergraduate programs in the USA, as did Berg-Weger and Schneider’s (1998) study. We shared a limitation with Berg-Weger and Schneider, which was only surveying one person from a school. Also, deans and directors may have felt compelled to provide the socially-desirable response and so we may have a slanted proportion stating the value of collaboration. Certainly, university–community collaboration has its critics. Some remain cynical of the motivations and appropriateness of interdisciplinary and globally-focused collaborations as providing more ben-efits to the university than to the partnering community or country. Another major limitation resulted from the difference in the number of programs across the three countries, rendering cross-country comparisons difficult.

DiscussionDespite the limitations, our study raises interesting questions about the cur-rent state of interdisciplinary collaboration in social work education. For one, there is clearly a lot of both inter- and intra-university collaboration


occurring and being promoted by universities in the three countries. Collaboration with the community is the most prominent and may be driven by social work’s mission and focus on applied research; it may also be driven by external sources of funding, university accreditation and the increased emphasis on engagement.

Study findings confirm that, while there remain the typical collaborators, including education, psychology, nursing, law and public health, social work educators and students are collaborating with a wide range of other disciplines, as noted by the large response to our ‘other’ category when ask-ing about interdisciplinary activities and dual-degree programs.

This survey additionally reveals that there is a value in exposing social work students to interdisciplinary collaboration and that this almost always occurs in the field. What we do not know is whether there is proactive teach-ing about this activity in the field, and if so, whether there is a coordinated effort in social work programs to train field instructors or whether it is occurring inconsistently. There is also a belief that there are a range of courses where content on this topic is relevant. Again, what we do not know is where instructors are teaching this content and whether there is coordination inside social work programs about what content is taught, where, how and if it is integrated across the curriculum.

Future directionsSocial work researchThe one open-ended question included on our survey opened the door to the rich interdisciplinary experiences in which social work faculty and students are engaged. Future research should include qualitative methods, and should address a range of respondents and participants, including faculty, field coordinators, field instructors, students and community members. Studies should be geared to learn more about each of these constituents’ experiences with collaboration. For example, what strategies have been used and what knowledge is taught that students feel has been most useful to them in their practice, and through which aspects of the program have the knowledge and skills been taught? Do field coordinators address interdisciplinary collabo-ration in their student orientations or in seminars for field instructors? What tools are being used in the field to teach students collaborative skills? What kinds of collaboration would community agencies like to have with social work programs? In what ways are community agencies getting what they need from social work programs and how might social work educators be more responsive to agency and communities? What specific approaches to collaboration are being employed in countries that may be successfully


adapted by others around the world? How might having an international interprofessional effort promote global objectives? Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, does training for interdisciplinary collaboration positively affect outcome for the targeted populations?

Social work educationOur survey clearly reveals much inter- and intra-university collaboration, and a lot of training for students occurring in social work education. However, as a profession committed to self-reflection and improvement, there is a need to further examine the impact and outcomes of including an interdisciplinary dimension. We need to understand how much students are taking away from their education as conscious knowledge and skills in collaboration and how it is applied in the community. A recent study of social workers in healthcare asserts that workers feel they need more training in interdisciplinary collabo-ration (Bronstein et al., 2007). Surely the majority of these workers had field placements in host settings where they indeed learned alongside other profes-sionals? Is learning alongside enough? We would argue that the experience of collaboration is not sufficient and that students need specific language to articulate their collaborative experiences, as well as a better understanding of what makes them successful and what poses barriers. It is not enough to leave this to individual instructors, as there may be overlap or, conversely, important content omitted. We believe that there needs to be coordinated efforts in social work programs to decide where knowledge and skills around collaboration should be taught both in the field and in the classroom, includ-ing what should be taught and how these competencies are measured.

To conclude, this study provides important information about the types and quantity of interdisciplinary collaboration occurring and being taught in social work programs in the USA, Canada and Israel. The news is encourag-ing; hopefully next steps will be taken to ensure that this knowledge is being digested and skills are being taught and utilized such that the next genera-tion of social workers unequivocally has what it takes to participate in and lead collaborative efforts in their own countries and across the globe.

References

Abramson, J.S. and L.R. Bronstein (2008) ‘Teams’, in T. Mizrahi and L. Davis (eds) Encyclopedia of Social Work, 20th edn, pp. 199–204. New York: Oxford University Press and NASW Press.

Albeck, S. (1983) ‘Multidisciplinary Teams – A Solution to the Confusion among Professions in Welfare Services’, Chevra Ve’Revacha (Society and Welfare-Quarterly for Social Work) 5: 116–25 (in Hebrew).


Amey, M.J. and D.F. Brown (2004) Breaking out of the Box: Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Faculty Work. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Barr, H. (2005) ‘Collaboration in Social Work’, Journal of Interprofessional Care 19(5): 530–1.

Berg-Weger, M. and F.D. Schneider (1998) ‘Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Social Work Education’, Journal of Social Work Education 34(1): 97–107.

Bronstein, L.R. (2003) ‘A Model for Interdisciplinary Collaboration’, Social Work 48(3): 297–306.

Bronstein, L.R., P. Kovacs and A. Vega (2007) ‘Goodness of Fit: Social Work Education and Practice in Health Care’, Social Work in Health Care 45(2): 59–76,

Bronstein, L., P. McCallion and E. Kramer (2006a) ‘Developing an Aging Prepared Community: Collaboration among Counties, Consumers, Professionals and Organizations’, Journal of Gerontological Social Work 48(1/2): 193–202.

Bronstein, L.R., D. McPhee, T. Mizrahi and Y. Korosy-Korazim (2006b) ‘Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Social Work Education in the U.S., Israel and Canada’. Available online at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=1okErQhu2MKtprs09xiDzA_3d_3d (accessed 1 November 2009).

Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) (2001) Report: Toward Sector Collaboration: A Report on the Social Work Forum. Montreal, Quebec (11–14 October).

Clarke-Tasker, V. (2009) ‘Commentary on Collaboration: The Key to Interdisciplinary Research’, ABNF Journal 20(1): 25–6.

Connolly, M. (2006) ‘Fifteen years of Family Group Conferencing: Coordinators Talk about Their Experiences in Aotearoa, New Zealand’, British Journal of Social Work 36(4): 523–40.

Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) (2008) ‘Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards’. Available online at: http://www.cswe.org/NR/rdonlyres/ 2A81732E-1776–4175-AC42–65974E96BE66/0/2008EducationalPolicyandAccreditationStandards.pdf (accessed 18 June 2008).

Danis, F.S. (2006) ‘In Search of Safe Campus Communities: A Campus Response to Violence Against Women’, Journal of Community Practice 14(3): 29–46.

El Ansari, W., C.J. Phillips and M. Hammick (2001) ‘Collaboration and Partnerships: Developing the Evidence Base’, Health and Social Care in the Community 9(4): 215–27.

Elazar, Daniel J. (ed.) (1992) Urban Revitalization: Israel’s Project Renewal and Other Experiences. Lanham, MD, and London: University Press of America and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Farquhar, S. and N. Dobson (2004) ‘Community and University Participation in Disaster-relief Recovery: An Example from Eastern North Carolina. University-Community Partnerships: Universities in Civic Engagement’, Journal of Community Practice 12(3/4): 203–18.


Graham, J.R. and K. Barter (1999) ‘Collaboration: A Social Work Practice Method’, Families in Society 80(1): 6–13.

Grossman, B. and K. McCormick (2003) ‘Preparing Social Work Students for Interdisciplinary Practice: Learnings from a Curriculum Development Project’, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 7(1/2): 97–113.

Hill, L., R. Gary, J. Stroud and S. Chiripanyanga (2009) ‘Inter-professional Learning to Prepare Medical and Social Work Students for Practice with Refugees and Asylum Seekers’, Social Work Education 28(3): 298–308.

Johnson-Butterfield, A.K. and B. Chisanga (2008) ‘Community Development’, inT. Mizrahi and L. Davis (eds) Encyclopedia of Social Work, 20th edn, pp. 375–81. New York: Oxford University Press and NASW Press.

Johnson-Butterfield, A.K. and Y. Korazim-Korösy (eds) (2007) Interdisciplinary Community Development: International Perspectives. New York: Haworth Press; Journal of Community Practice 15(1/2) (special issue).

Interdisciplinary Forum on Community Development (IFCD) (2002) ‘Principles for Collaboration’ (in Hebrew), paper distributed at the Second National Conference of the IFCD in Ef’al, Israel.

Karmon, A. (2002) ‘Interdisciplinarity in Community Development – from Conceptualization to Practice’, paper prepared for 3rd National Conference of the Interdisciplinary Forum for Community Development, Efal (in Hebrew).

Katz, C. (2006) Promoting Inter-organizational, Inter-disciplinary and Inter-sectorial Collaborations in Welfare Services. Jerusalem: Ministry of Social Affairs (in Hebrew).

Kessler, M.L. and B.J. Ackerson (2004) ‘Wraparound Services: An Effective Intervention for Families Impacted by Severe Mental Illness’, Journal of Family Social Work 8(4): 29–45.

King, N. and A. Ross (2004) ‘Professional Identities and Interprofessional Relations: Evaluation of Collaborative Community Schemes’, Social Work in Health Care 38(2): 51–72.

Klein, J.T. (1996) Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.

Korazim, Y. and D. Klausner (1989) ‘The Interdisciplinary Integration of Community Work and Local Economic Development’, Community Development Journal 24(2): 127–35.

Korazim-Korösy, Y. (2000) ‘Toward a New Balance between Governmental and Non-governmental Community Work: The Case of Israel’, Community Development Journal 35(3): 276–89.

Korazim-Korösy, Y., T. Mizrahi, C. Katz, A. Karmon, M. Bayne-Smith and M.L. Garcia (2007) ‘Toward Interdisciplinary Community Collaboration and Development: Knowledge and Experience from Israel and the USA’, Journal of Community Practice 15(1/2): 13–44.


Lasker, R.D., E.S. Weiss and R. Miller (2001) ‘Partnership Synergy: A Practical Framework for Studying and Strengthening the Collaborative Advantage’, Milbank Quarterly 79(2): 179–205.

Maidenberg, M.P. and T. Golick (2001) ‘Developing or Enhancing Interdisciplinary Programs: A Model for Teaching Collaboration’, Professional Development in Social Work: The International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education 4(2): 15–24.

Marshall, J. and N. Giunta (2007) ‘Learning Locally, Sharing Nationally: Universities and Community Partnerships for Older Adults’, paper presented at Annual Program Meeting, Council on Social Work Education, San Francisco, CA.

Ministry of Social Affairs (2006) Welfare Services during the Second LebanonWar – Lessons Learned and Recommendations. Jerusalem: Division of Research, Planning and Training (in Hebrew).

Mizrahi, T. and B. Rosenthal (2001) ‘Complexities of Coalition Building: Leaders’ Successes, Struggles, Strategies, and Solutions’, Social Work 46(1): 63–78.

Motes, P.S. and P.M. Hess (2007) Collaborating with Community-based Organizations through Consultation and Technical Assistance. New York: Columbia University Press.

Moxley, D.P. (2008) ‘Interdisciplinarity’, in T. Mizrahi and L. Davis (eds) Encyclopedia of Social Work, 20th edn, pp. 468–72. New York: Oxford University Press and NASW Press.

Ogles, B.M., D. Carlston, D. Hatfield, G. Melendez, K. Dowell and S.A. Fields (2006) ‘The Role of Fidelity and Feedback in the Wraparound Approach’, Journal of Child and Family Studies 15(1): 115–29.

Oliver, D., L.R. Bronstein and L. Kurzejeski (2005) ‘Examining Variables Related to Successful Collaboration on the Hospice Team’, Health and Social Work 30(4): 279–86.

Pennell, J. and G. Anderson (eds) (2005) Widening the Circle: the Practice and Evaluation of Family Group Conferencing with Children, Youths, and Their Families. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Phillips, R., P. Gregory and M. Nelson (2003) ‘Moving Toward Collaboration: Using Funding Streams to Advance Partnerships in Child Welfare Practice’, Journal of Human Behavior and the Social Environment 7(1/2): 115–33.

Rogge, M.E. and C.J. Rocha (2004) ‘University–community Partnership Centers: An Important Link for Social Work Education’, Journal of Community Practice 12(3/4): 103–21.

Selli, K.M., K. Salamon, R. Boarman and J. Sauer (2008) ‘Providing Interprofessional Learning Through Interdisciplinary Collaboration: The Role of “Modeling” ’, Journal of Interprofessional Care 11(1): 85–92.

Sheehan, K. (2001) ‘Email Survey Response Rates: A Review’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communications 6(2), Available online at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html (accessed 1 November 2009).


Soska, T.M. and A.K.J. Johnson-Butterfield (eds) (2004) ‘University–Community Partnerships: Universities in Civic Engagement’, Journal of Community Practice 12(3/4).

Stone, S., E. Ekman, D. English and S. Fujimori (2008) ‘Collaboration among Social Work and Journalism Students and Faculty: An Instructional Model’, Journal of Social Work Education 44(1): 163–72.

Torkington, C., M. Lymbery, A. Millward, M. Murfin and B. Richell (2004) ‘Shared Learning: Impact on Quality of Assessment’, Learning in Health and Social Care 3(1): 26–36.

Trevillion, S. and L. Bedford (2002) ‘Utopianism and Pragmatism in Interprofessional Education’, Social Work Education 22(2): 215–27.

Author biographies

Laura Bronstein is Chair of the Binghamton University Department of Social Work, Box 6000, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA. [email: [email protected]]

Terry Mizrahi is Professor at the Hunter College School of Social Work, 129 East 79 St, New York, NY 10075, USA.

Yossi Korazim-Korösy is Senior Lecturer, The College of Management - Academic Studies, Department of Behavioral Sciences, MA Program in Family Studies, and the Ministry of Social Affairs, 2 Kaplan St, Jerusalem, Israel.

Debra McPhee is Dean of the Barry University School of Social Work, 11300 NE Second Ave, Miami Shores, FL 33161, USA.

Interdisciplinary collaboration in social work education in the USA, Israel and Canada: Deans’ and...

Documents

Transcript of Interdisciplinary collaboration in social work education in the USA, Israel and Canada: Deans’ and...