How U.S. Social Work Students are Prepared to Work with Culturally Diverse Individuals: A Scoping Review of Constructs and Interventions

Abstract

Globalization exerts its influence on every nation and impacts all members of society, whether through direct or indirect means. Now more than ever, U.S. social workers must implement cultural competence, cultural humility, cultural awareness, and other similar constructs while working with culturally diverse individuals, families, and communities to ensure effective and culturally responsive practice. The Council on Social Work Education directs social work programs to teach students these invaluable constructs. However, it remains unclear which construct is most effective and how it is regularly measured, how these constructs are taught, and once they are taught, if knowledge is gained and applied directly in the field. This scoping review analyzed literature from 2012-2022 to determine how U.S.-based social work students are equipped to work with culturally diverse individuals. Findings indicate that diverse constructs exist but often lack a clear definition, and similar constructs are measured inconsistently, with many studies utilizing unvalidated measures. The literature also points to a myriad of interventions aimed at helping social work students glean the necessary knowledge and skills to work within cultural diversity, including mostly U.S.-based learning opportunities, international opportunities, and a combination of the two.

Today, the United States has 45 million immigrants (American Immigration Council, 2021), which is 13.7% of the population (Budiman, 2020). The immigrant population is estimated to increase to 20% by 2060 (United States Census Bureau, 2015). In addition to the various lived experiences of immigrants not from the U.S., society is inundated with global issues such as climate change, war, pollution, disease, etc., that affect individuals, families, communities, and neighborhoods. Such work entails thoughtful insight, responses, and interventions. Awareness of cultural diversity is more important than ever when social workers seek to understand through engagement, assessment, and intervention practices. The National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics (NASW) (2023) guides social work practice to promote and provide best practices. It highlights the need to understand an individual’s culture and the culture’s inherent strengths and demonstrate the skills needed to ensure culturally informed services (NASW, 2023). At the same time, it encourages self-reflection of bias and that individuals are the experts of their own culture (NASW, 2023). Additionally, it reflects the importance of diversity and recognizing oppression within “race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, and mental or physical ability” (NASW, 2023, para. 21).

For social workers to practice insight and utilize culturally appropriate interventions, higher education must ensure students glean the necessary knowledge, skills, and awareness to practice with diverse individuals. The Council on Racial, Ethnic, and Cultural Diversity through The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) (2024b), which is social work education’s accrediting body, encourages activities and programs relevant to historically and emerging underrepresented groups, promoting human rights and social justice through dignity and respect; acknowledging power, privilege, and oppression; promoting an understanding through am empathic lens; and accentuating social change and equality. The Council on Global Learning and Practice encourages opportunities that advance global and international issues and learning (CSWE, 2024a).

Similarly, CSWE’s 2022 Educational Policy and Accreditation (EPA) Standards contend that programs ensure nine social work competencies are met. Competency 2 relates to advocating for and engaging in practices that advance human rights. Competency 3 enforces the implementation of anti-racist and anti-oppressive practices alongside fostering cultural humility, achieved through self-awareness to identify personal biases, privileges, and values. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of acknowledging others as experts in their experiences. Competency 4 focuses on culturally informed approaches to conducting research and building knowledge. While there is vast freedom in how programs incorporate such competencies within their curriculum and allow room for creativity and innovation, there is also a lack of direction, which can create vagueness and hinder how such knowledge is imparted to students.

The ability of social workers to practice locally with international individuals (e.g., immigrant populations) and to be aware of the practice in different countries is essential (Estes, 2010), along with the need to understand how social problems locally are connected to global systems and issues (Flem et al., 2017). Circumstances across the globe influence and consistently complicate social work practice (Gatenio Gabel & Healy, 2012). MSW students agree that global/ international issues affect local practice and need global content within social work education (Ramanathan et al., 2022). Due to social work accreditation standards, most programs integrate ‘global material’ into current core courses or seminars, while others offer separate elective courses or international experiences (Mapp & Gatenio Gabel, 2019). The impact on students of infusing international content into existing courses or creating specialized courses is limited (Greenfield et al., 2012), and yet there are also limitations with teaching international and global issues in a classroom as this does not allow the opportunity to engage on a practical level or experience the challenges associated with international work (Akilova et al., 2021). Programs receive limited guidance about the content to incorporate and the means to implement it.

Since social work programs aim to promote the knowledge, skills, and awareness needed to effectively work with diverse individuals, cultural competency as a construct has been at the forefront of assisting social workers to improve the understanding of individuals from diverse cultures. Cross (1988) defined cultural competence as behaviors, attitudes, and actions enabling professionals to work in multicultural settings. Cultural competency ensures an understanding and respect for cultural differences and similarities (Selig et al., 2006). Cultural competency seeks to reach an expert level of cultural understanding and puts the focus on the ‘other.’ It is assumed that the greater the knowledge about another culture, the more competent a professional is and that cultural competence can be taught, learned, and achieved (Chiarenza, 2012).

Likewise, cultural humility has emerged as another critical construct and includes the awareness and acknowledgment of the limitations of one’s view of other cultures (Abe, 2020). Professionals practicing cultural humility display openness, self-awareness, egolessness, supportive interactions, self-reflection, and self-critique (Foronda et al., 2016). Cultural humility was introduced to move away from the idea that the competence of a particular culture could be achieved and mastered to the belief in lifelong learning, self-reflection, mutually beneficial partnerships, and awareness of power imbalances (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998). While these are common constructs, others may be unclear yet compatible with a similar aim to enhance an understanding of diverse cultures.

Current Study

This multi-faceted scoping review explored broad research areas, key concepts, and knowledge gaps (Munn et al., 2018). It enhances our understanding by identifying the different constructs and tools used to assess social work students’ abilities to work with diverse populations, the interventions employed, and the effectiveness of these interventions. The review aims to address the following questions. (1) What are the various constructs used to assess social work students working with cultural diversity? (2) How are cultural competence, humility, or other similar constructs measured? (3) What interventions do social work programs provide to teach cultural competence, humility, or other similar constructs? (4) If social work students engage in programs focused on cultural competence, humility, or other similar constructs domestically or internationally, do they enhance students’ cultural competence, humility, or other similar constructs and ultimately prepare them to work with cultural diversity?

Method

Search strategy

This scoping review began in September 2022 by developing a comprehensive list of search terms. It ended in May 2023, producing a thorough review, analysis, and synthesis of the literature and data available. Literature collected from January 2012 through November 2022 was included in this scoping review. The review was limited to ten years to ensure the literature was applicable to current trends and captured the latest and most relevant interventions employed to promote cultural diversity in social work. This limitation also narrowed the volume of articles to analyze. Searches were conducted in four databases (APA PsycINFO, EBSCO, ProQuest, and SAGE Journals) using the following search terms:

• “classroom experience” OR “multicultural education" OR “field experience" OR "service learning" OR “practicum” OR “practica” OR "international experience" OR "study abroad"

  AND

  "cultural competence" OR "cultural humility" OR “cultural awareness” OR “cultural sensitivity” OR "cross-cultural" OR "cultural training" OR "global competence" OR "global awareness"

• “social work”

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were excluded if they were (1) duplicate studies, (2) not published in peer-reviewed journals, or (3) not U.S.-based BSW, MSW, or Ph.D. social work students.

Studies were included if they were (1) conducted between January 1, 2012, and November 15, 2022, (2) published in English, (3) original qualitative or quantitative research, or (4) assessments of domestic-based or international experiences aimed at building cultural humility, cultural competency, cultural awareness, or a related construct.

First stage: Database search

On November 15, 2022, 34 articles were extracted from APA PsycINFO, 56 articles from EBSCO, 229 from SAGE Journals, and 1,333 from ProQuest into Zotero. Once 158 duplicates were removed, 1,494 results were moved to Covidence (n.d.), a software designed to organize and manage systematic reviews, to begin the abstract review process. Covidence removed seven further duplicates.

Second stage: Detailed review of abstracts and full-text review

Three authors reviewed abstracts with at least one reviewer per abstract. Out of 1,494 abstracts, 150 met the inclusion criteria and were moved to full-text review. Abstracts not included in the full-text review were irrelevant or did not meet the inclusion criteria outlined above. See Figure 1.

Figure 1. Quorum Flowchart.

¹ These represent the first identified exclusion criterion, but studies may have had more than one criterion.

Third stage: Detailed review of full-text articles

Two authors conducted the full-text review, with at least one author reviewing each of the 150 articles. A total of 106 were excluded from the final review. The authors indicated the first identified exclusionary criteria. Forty-three articles were not qualitative or quantitative research, 37 did not include social work students, 18 did not include U.S.-based students, seven had the wrong outcomes, and one was not in English. See Figure 1.

Extraction and Analysis

The lead author extracted relevant data from each selected article and compiled the results in narrative and tabular format. A second author reviewed the analysis throughout the extraction and summarization process.

Results

Overview of Sample

A total of 44 studies met the inclusion criteria. Detailed information on the included studies can be found in Table 1. Within Table 1, each study is in alphabetical order and corresponds to a given number. This number is cited throughout. Of these studies, 17 (39%) sampled MSW students only (2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 33, 36, 37, 44), 12 (27%) sampled both BSW and MSW students (7, 8, 11, 20, 22, 32, 34, 35, 39, 41, 42, 43), nine (20%) sampled BSW students (4, 6, 13, 14, 15, 28, 29, 38, 40), two sampled former MSW students (16, 18), one sampled MSW and Ph.D. students (1), and one sampled Ph.D. students (30) while two were unspecified (5, 23).

Table 1.

Type and Details of Experience and Sample

Authors	Type of Experience	US Students	Racial Demographics	Time Frame	Location
1. Acquaye & Crewe (2012)	International service-learning short term	MSW/PhD	100% African American/ Black	Spring break, 2009-2011	South Africa
2. Akilova et al. (2021)	US-based learning and international service-learning short term	MSW	Not provided	14-week semester course, 10-days abroad, 2018-2020	US and Jordan
3. Ando (2017)	US-based learning	MSW	58% non-Hispanic White, 38% African American/ Black, .04% Hispanic	7-hour event, 2014	PA, US
4. Andrews (2021)	US-based learning; educational content and service-learning activities	BSW	Not provided	7 days in summer, 2019	NY, US
5. Bai et al. (2016)	International study abroad	Various	African American/ Black, Caucasian, Chinese, Hispanic	3-day session in US, 3 weeks in abroad, 2010-2012	China
6. Battle & Hill (2016)	US-based learning	BSW	64% Hispanic, 18% African American/ Black, .09% White, .09% Multiracial	Semester course	Northeast, US
7. Boateng & Thompson (2013)	International study abroad	BSW/MSW	Social Service Delivery Systems in Ghana course, 40% African American/ Black	Summer, 2010	Ghana, W. Africa
8. Bolea (2012)	US-based service-learning	BSW/MSW	Predominantly White female students, out of five males, 40% Native American, 40% White, 20% African American/Black,	10-day immersion throughout 4 years	US
9. Brommelsiek et al. (2018)	US-based field experience	MSW	70.6% identified as White	8-week immersion course	Midwest, US
10. Corbin (2012)	International field experience	MSW	100% Euro-American	8 months	Uganda
11. Cotton & Thompson (2017)	US-based learning and international study abroad	BSW/MSW	Not provided	6 weeks in summer, 10-days abroad	US and Guatemala
12. Dessel & Rodenborg (2017)	US-based learning	MSW	80.5% White, 8.2% African American/ Black, 3.7% Asian, 3% Native American, 2.3% Latino, 2.3% other	2 semesters (1 instruction, 1 dialogue in groups), 2008-2011	Midwest, US
13. Dunlap & Mapp (2017)	US-based predeparture learning	BSW	92% White, .08% Latina	Semester course, 2015-2016	US
14. Engelmann et al. (2021)	US-based learning	BSW (assumed)	Not provided	Virtual 3-day event, 2020	US
15. Feize et al. (2021)	US-based learning	BSW	96% Mexican descent	Semester course	US
16. Gearing et al. (2020)	International short-term study abroad	Former MSW students	46% White non-Hispanic, 42% White Hispanic, 14% African American/ Black, 13% Asian/ Pacific Islander, .02% American Indian/ Native American	10-25 days, 2002-2016	International
17. Ghose (2012)	US-based learning and international service-learning	MSW	Not provided	Summer course and 6 week service- learning abroad, 2010 and 2011	US and India
18. Glassbum & Reza (2022)	US-based learning and international short-term study abroad	Former MSW students	Not provided	3-day pre-sessions, 2 weeks abroad, post-trip sessions over 3 months, 2017 and 2018	US and India
19. Greenfield et al. (2012)	US-based learning and/or short-term study abroad	MSW	60.9% White, 39.1% African American/ Black, Latino, or other	International social work course, study abroad course winter and spring, 2011	US and Israel, Romania, or China
20. Hall & Theriot (2016)	US-based learning	BSW/MSW	Not provided	5 courses at 3 universities	Southeast and Southwest, US
21. Lalayants et al. (2013)	US-based learning (perceptions of global social work)	MSW	Not provided	2011	NY, US
22. Lee & Priester (2015)	US-based learning	BSW/MSW	Film 1-BSW students and public, 49.4% White, 35.6% African American/ Black, 6.9% Asian, 3.4% Hispanic, 2.3% Native American, Film 2-MSW students 76.9% White, 15.4% African American/ Black, 3.8% Asian	3 film festivals, 2011-2012	Southeast, US
23. Lough et al. (2012)	International short-term and long-term service program	Unclear, not limited to social work	Not limited to social work 80.5% White, 8.5% Asian, 8.2% Other, 2.8% African American/ Black	Unclear	Asia, Central and South America, Africa
24. Luciano (2020)	International study abroad	MSW	100% African American/ Black	6-week engagement	China
25. Marchant et al. (2018)	US-based learning and short-term international service-learning	MSW	Not provided	2-month summer course, 2 weeks abroad	MA, US and Chile
26. Maschi et al. (2013)	US-based learning	MSW	57.1% White, 18.6% Hispanic, 12.9% African American/Black, 4.3% Asian, 4.3% Other, 2.9% Interracial	15-week course, 2009-2010	NY, US
27. Matthew et al. (2017)	International service-learning	MSW	Not provided	3 14-day trips, 2012-2013	Guatemala
28. McClinton & Schaub (2017)	US-based learning	BSW	Not provided	Semester courses, winter and fall 2015	MI, US
29. McGovern (2018)	US-based learning	BSW	Not provided	Semester course, fall 2017	NY, US
30. McPherson et al. (2022)	International short-term study abroad	Doctoral Level	40% White, 40% African American/Black, 20% Hispanic	6 days, July 2017	Croatia
31. Neely-Barnes et al. (2020)	US-based learning	MSW	58.6% African American/ Black, 41.4% White, .02% Latino/Hispanic	6 monthly trainings and field placement over 8-9 months	TN, US
32. Patterson (2019)	International field experience	BSW/MSW	Not provided	Semester abroad	Canada, Mexico, Dominica, Guatemala, Ecuador, N. Ireland, Romania, India, Ghana, Uganda, S. Africa
33. Paul & Berger (2014)	International short-term study abroad	MSW	Not provided	11 days, 2014	Israel
34. Rautenback & Black-Hughes (2012)	US-based learning and international field experience	BSW/MSW	100% White	2 semesters US-based or 1 US-based and 1 abroad	MN, US and S. Africa
35. Roe (2022)	International field experience	BSW/MSW	Not provided	semester abroad	11 countries (not provided)
36. Rosen et al. (2017)	US-based learning	MSW	Not provided	3 sections of semester course	Midwest, US
37. Rowan et al. (2012)	US-based learning	MSW	89% White, 11% African American/ Black	Semester course	NC, US
38. Smith & Yang (2017)	International short-term study abroad	BSW	100% White	21 days, 2012- 2014	Ghana
39. Thampi & Metzger (2022)	US-based learning	BSW/MSW	Not provided	2 weeks with 10 4-hour classes	US
40. Vasquez et al. (2019)	US-based learning and US-based or international service-learning	BSW	71% White, 17% Latino, 7% African American/ Black, 5% Other	2-year program with 3-week US-based or abroad or 1 semester abroad, 2010-2013	Midwest, US; OR, US, Mexico, or India
41. Walker et al. (2021)	US-based learning	BSW/MSW	79% White, 14% African American/ Black, 2% Asian or Pacific Islander, 2% Other	Not provided	US
42. Willis et al. (2019)	International service-learning	BSW/MSW	100% Latinx	2 week or 6-week summer, 2014-2016	Costa Rica
43. Zhu et al. (2022)	International study abroad	BSW/MSW	42% White, 42% Latino/a, 11% African American/ Black, .05% Asian American	3-week summer, 2016-2018	Ghana
44. Zubaroglu & Popescu (2015)	International study abroad	MSW	Not provided	3-week	Peru

Twenty-six (59%) studies reported some detail of racial demographics (1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43), although three studies were unclear regarding the racial breakdown (5, 7, 8). Sixteen (62%) of the twenty-six studies reported Whites as the majority racial category (3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 23, 26, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41) with three studies including only White students (10, 34, 38). Two studies included only African American/ Black students (1, 24), one reflected most African American/ Black students (31), and one represented an equal percentage of White and African American/ Black students (30). One study was designated for Latinx students (42), another included 96% of students of Mexican descent (15), and a third contained a majority (64%) of Hispanic students (6). One study reported an equal percentage of Latino/a and White students (43).

Study characteristics

Based on the studies included in this review, universities employ various constructs measured in different ways to assess social work students utilizing various interventions, both U.S.-based and international-based.

Central Constructs

The 44 studies conceptualized and operationalized the central concept around cultural skills in various ways. Table 2 outlines the construct measured in each study. Seven (16%) studies measured cultural competency (4, 6, 9, 12, 31, 40, 41). In the studies reviewed, cultural competency includes learned skills to provide quality care for diverse individuals (Andrews, 2021). Additionally, it includes self-awareness, sensitivity, knowledge, and lived experiences adapting to and exposure to different cultures (Long, 2016, as cited in Andrews, 2021). It encompasses cultural awareness of one’s own values and beliefs, knowledge of another cultural group, and the skills by integrating awareness and knowledge (Nadan & Ben-Ari, 2013, as cited in Battle & Hill, 2016). Seeleman et al. (2009, as cited in Brommelsiek et al., 2018) consider cultural competency to include empathy and openness to others’ values and beliefs.

Table 2.

Measurement of Construct and Construct Defined

Authors	Measurement of Construct	Cultural Competency	Cultural Humility	Other	Not Clearly Defined
Acquaye & Crewe (2012)					x
Akilova et al. (2021)					x
Ando (2017)					x
Andrews (2021)	Novel assessment tool measuring cultural competency Giger and Davidhizar’s Transcultural Assessment Model (Kersey-Matusiak, 2013)	x
Bai et al. (2016)					x
Battle & Hill (2016)		x
Boateng & Thompson (2013)				x
Bolea (2012)					x
Brommelsiek et al. (2018)	Novel knowledge survey Health Professionals Attitudes Toward Veterans Scale (Knopf-Amelung et al., 2018)	x
Corbin (2012)					x
Cotton & Thompson (2017)	Novel Guatemala Service-Learning				x
Dessel & Rodenborg (2017)	Novel measures adapted from Multi-University Intergroup Dialogue Research Project (Gurin et al., 2013)	x
Dunlap & Mapp (2017)	Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (Kelley & Meyers, 1995)			x
Engelmann et al. (2021)					x
Feize et al. (2021)					x
Gearing et al. (2020)	Social Work Learning Abroad Competency Rating (Gearing, 2017) Quick Discrimination Index (Ponterotto et al., 2002; Ponterotto et al., 1995) Multicultural Counseling Inventory (Sodowsky et al., 1994) Attitude-Skills-Knowledge Scale, Short Version (Leung & Cheung, 2013)			x
Ghose (2012)					x
Glassbum & Reza (2022)					x
Greenfield et al. (2012)	Novel measure of skills on cultural sensitivity, functional knowledge, knowledge of global interdependence and interpersonal accommodation (adapted from Sutton & Rubin, 2004) Novel measure of identification as a global citizen, feelings of empowerment to influence the world for better, and hopefulness for the world (adapted from Keyes, 1998) Novel measure of personal mastery (adapted from Lachman & Weaver, 1998)				x
Hall & Theriot (2016)	Multicultural Awareness-Knowledge-and Skills Survey (D’Andrea et al., 1991)			x
Lalayants et al. (2013)	Novel survey focused on the knowledge, importance, and interest in international social work				x
Lee & Priester (2015)	Novel survey rating importance of race/ethnicity, gender, and social class, perceptions, and learning benefits				x
Lough et al. (2012)	Developed, piloted, and validated International Volunteering Impacts Survey			x
Luciano (2020)			x
Marchant et al. (2018)					x
Maschi et al. (2013)	Future Plans with Older Adults subscale (provided by funder John A. Hartford Foundation) CSWE Geriatric Competencies Scale (Damron-Rodriguez, 2006, 2007)				x
Matthew et al. (2017)					x
McClinton & Schaub (2017)	Cultural Intelligence Scale (Van Dyne et al., 2007)			x
McGovern (2018)					x
McPherson et al. (2022)					x
Neely-Barnes et al. (2020)	Promoting Cultural and Linguistic Competency Self-Assessment Checklist for Personnel Providing Primary Health Care Services (Goode, 2009)	x
Patterson (2019)					x
Paul & Berger (2014)					x
Rautenback & Black-Hughes (2012)					x
Roe (2022)					x
Rosen et al. (2017)			x
Rowan et al. (2012)					x
Smith & Yang (2017)	Intercultural Learning Outcomes (Sutton & Rubin, 2010)				x
Thampi & Metzger (2022)			x
Vasquez et al. (2019)	Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale (Short Form) (Miville et al., 1999)	x
Walker et al. (2021)	Attitude Toward Poverty Scale (Short Form) (Yun & Weaver, 2010)	x
Willis et al. (2019)					x
Zhu et al. (2022)			x
Zubaroglu & Popescu (2015)	Novel Knowledge and Skill scale			x

^*Other may include more than one construct

Cultural humility was measured in four (9%) studies (24, 36, 39, 43). According to the reviewed studies, cultural humility focuses on continuous learning, introspection, empathy, fairness, and contentment (Ortega & Coulbouarn Faller, 2011; Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998, as cited in Luciano, 2020). Foronda et al. (2016, as cited in Rosen et al., 2017) define cultural humility as a constent process that includes openness, self-awareness, egolessness, self-reflection, and supportive interactions and moves away from focusing on the knowledge about a particular culture and the skills to employ (Foronda et al., 2016, as cited in Rosen et al., 2017).

Seven (16%) studies measured other constructs, including intercultural competence, intercultural sensitivity, self-efficacy, and multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills (7, 13, 16, 20, 23, 28, 44). For example, intercultural competence refers to efficient communication based on knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Deardorff, 2008, cited in Lough et al., 2012). Twenty-six (59%) of the 44 studies used one or more than one construct without clearly defining the central construct (e.g., using terms like diversity awareness, cultural competence, and multicultural education without explicitly stating a definition) (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 42).

Measurement of Central Constructs

Various instruments were used to measure cultural competency, cultural humility, and other similar constructs in the studies that used quantitative research. Eleven (61%) of the 18 studies using quantitative methods used standardized scales (4, 9, 13, 16, 20, 26, 28, 31, 38, 40, 41), while eight (44%) used novel scales (4, 9, 11, 12, 19, 21, 22, 44), two used both (4, 9) and one developed, piloted, and validated a survey (23). Of the studies using novel scales, 4 (22%) measures were adapted from other standardized scales (12, 19). All studies used different scales, even when conceptualizing similar constructs. See each study and the tool utilized in Table 2.

Cultural competency was the measured construct in six (32%) quantitative studies. Validated scales used to measure cultural competency included: Giger and Davidhizar’s Transcultural Assessment Model (Kersey-Matusiak, 2013) (4), Health Professionals Attitudes Toward Veterans Scale (Knopf-Amelung et al., 2018) (9), Promoting Cultural and Linguistic Competency Self-Assessment Checklist for Personnel Providing Primary Health Care Services (Goode, 2009) (31), the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale (Short Form) (Miville et al., 1999) (40), and the Attitude Toward Poverty Scale (Short Form) (Yun & Weaver, 2010) (41).

Intercultural competence was measured using the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (Kelley & Meyers, 1995) (13) and the Cultural Intelligence Scale (Van Dyne et al., 2008) (28). The Social Work Learning Abroad Competency Rating (Gearing, 2017), Quick Discrimination Index (Ponterotto et al., 2002; Ponterotto et al., 1995), Multicultural Counseling Inventory (Sodowsky et al., 1994), and Attitude-Skills-Knowledge Scale (Short Form) (Leung & Cheung, 2013) measured various constructs to determine the perceptions of how learning abroad programs furthered social work competencies (16), multicultural understanding was measured through the Multicultural Awareness-Knowledge-and-Skills Survey (D’Andrea et al., 1991) (20), and the International Volunteering Impacts Survey (Lough et al., 2012) measured various outcomes of international service (23).

In studies where the construct was not clearly defined, one utilized the Future Plans with Older Adults Subscale (provided by The John A. Hartford Foundation https://www.johnahartford.org/grants-strategy) and items from the CSWE Geriatric Competencies Scale (Damron-Rodriguez, 2006, 2007) (26). Another study utilized the Intercultural Learning Outcomes scale (Sutton & Rubin, 2010) (38).

Two studies developed novel measures and adapted the measures from other scales. One study developed a measure of cultural sensitivity, functional knowledge, knowledge of global interdependence and interpersonal accommodation (adapted from Sutton & Rubin, 2004), identification as a global citizen, feelings of empowerment to influence the world for the better, and hopefulness for the world (adapted from Keyes, 1998), and personal mastery (adapted from Lachman & Weaver, 1998) (19). The Multi-University Intergroup Dialogue Research Project (Gurin et al., 2013) (12) was also adapted.

Interventions

U.S.-based Experiences.

A range of interventions were found within the selected 44 studies. Twenty-two (50%) comprised U.S.-based learning interventions, which was the largest representation (3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41). Of the 22 U.S.-based learning studies, 14 (64%) included a course (6, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 26, 28, 29, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40), three included one to three daylong events (3, 14, 22), two included service-learning activities (4, 8), two included field experiences (9, 31), and one included a simulation experience (41). One study did not include an intervention but analyzed perceptions of global social work (21). Three of the total studies were U.S.-based learning experiences with the option to participate in an international experience (19, 34, 40).

Combined International and U.S.-based Experiences.

Within the study’s cohort, eight studies (18%) demonstrated an international experience paired with a U.S.-based experience (2, 11, 17, 18, 19, 25, 34, 40). One study compared an international study abroad experience with a U.S.-based learning experience (19).

International Experiences.

Exclusively international experiences comprised 16 (36%) of the total studies (1, 5, 7, 10, 16, 23, 24, 27, 30, 32, 33, 35, 38, 42, 43, 44). International experiences included nine study abroad (53%) (5, 7, 16, 24, 30, 33, 38, 43, 44), four service-learning (27%) (1, 23, 27, 42), and three international field placement opportunities (10, 32, 35).

Amount of Time Abroad.

Fifteen (63%) international experiences offered short-term opportunities, including at least six to 25 days (1, 2, 5, 11, 16, 18, 25, 27, 30, 33, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44). Three experiences offered six weeks (17, 24, 42), and five offered a semester (19, 32, 34, 35, 40). One study included eight months abroad (10). One study was not specific regarding how much time was spent abroad (23).

Countries Represented in International Experiences.

Of the 24 studies that included international experiences with or without a combination of U.S.-based interventions, four (17%) of the studies included experiences in Ghana (7, 32, 38, 43) and India (17, 18, 32, 40); three in China (5, 19, 24), Guatemala (11, 27, 32), and South Africa (1, 32, 34); two in Canada (21, 32), Israel (19, 33), Mexico (32, 40), Romania (19, 32), and Uganda (10, 32); and one in Chile (25), Costa Rica (42), Croatia (30), Dominican Republic (32), Ecuador (32), Jordan (2), North Ireland (32), and Peru (44). Three did not list specific countries (16, 23, 35) (See Table 1).

Research design and outcomes

Qualitative research methods represented 26 (59%) of the 44 studies (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 39, 42, 43), quantitative research methods represented 11 (24%) studies (9, 12, 13, 16, 20, 23, 26, 28, 31, 38, 44), and a mixed methods approach was used in seven (16%) studies (4, 11, 19, 21, 22, 40, 41) (See Table 3).

Table 3.

Research Design and Outcomes

Authors	Design	Outcomes (quantitative measures for quantitative studies and codes/themes for qualitative studies)
Acquaye & Crewe (2012)	Qualitative	Importance to create international opportunities for minorities
Akilova et al. (2021)	Qualitative	Maintaining an anti-oppressive lens, and cultural humility
Ando (2017)	Qualitative	Positive attitude towards diversity, value of peer-learning, and self-reflection
Andrews (2021)	Quantitative/ Qualitative	Improved understanding of culture (42.5%), ethnicity (15%), racism (17.5%), multicultural (55%); increased awareness of stereotypes (35%), how culture influences thinking and action (22.5%), and treating people with respect (17.5%) Themes: enhanced understanding of culture, recognition of diversity, and comfort level with other cultures
Bai et al. (2016)	Qualitative	90% understood a different culture and how culture shapes social services; 85% believed visits enhanced learning Themes: increased general cultural competence, Chinese cultural competence, and self-confidence
Battle & Hill (2016)	Qualitative	Feeling culturally competent, serving clients with respect and dignity, some unsure how to apply skills in practice setting
Boateng & Thompson (2013)	Qualitative	Learned about different cultures, delivery systems, social problems, how to live and work in a different culture; student self-awareness, and enhanced cultural sensitivity
Bolea (2012)	Qualitative	Increased ability to be quieter in new situations and to consider others’ experiences; awareness of being a minority and cultural bias and differences in communication, and improved empathy for Native Americans
Brommelsiek et al. (2018)	Quantitative	Improvement in knowledge of military culture and veterans’ health (mean [standard deviation] pre-course=6.02[1.25], post-course=6.94[1.06], p=.000); positive attitude improved relating to knowledge and comfort with military culture (Culture subscale; mean [SD] pre-course=7.46[2.92], post-course=10.31[2.06), p=.000); improvement in professional capacity and intention to provide culturally competent services to veterans (Care subscale; mean [SD] pre-course=19.25[4.33], post-course=23.19[3.75], p=.000)
Corbin (2012)	Qualitative	Gained understanding of collectivist culture and ethical tensions, differences in values and culturally competency
Cotton & Thompson (2017)	Quantitative/ Qualitative	92-100% increased competency levels Themes: comparison of poverty in US, increased cultural competence, and transformational experience
Dessel & Rodenborg (2017)	Quantitative	Significant improvement on social identity awareness: cognitive involvement (pre=4.08[1.12], post=4.42[1.20], t(125)=3.06, p<.01), common fate (pre=4.29[1.37], post=4.63[1.55], t(125)=2.66, p<.01), and collective self-esteem (pre=4.73[1.30], post=5.03[1.23], t(1250=2.88, p<.01); knowledge about inequality: racial inequality (pre=5.99[.84], post=6.18[.92], t(125)=2.15, p<.05), economic inequality (pre=5.24[.80], post=5.42[.81], t(125)=2.32, p<.05), and attribution for wealth (pre=4.63[1.00], post=4.86[1.06], t(125)=2.03, p<.05); micro and macro skills: motivation to bridge differences (pre=4.84[.96], post=5.14[1.04], t(125)=3.38, p≤.001), action (pre=5.09[.88], post=5.68[.76], t(125)=8.06, p≤.001), confidence action (pre=5.44[.94], post=5.83[.79], t(125)=5.41, p≤.001), frequency action (pre=4.78[.98], post=5.53[.90], t(125)=8.12, p≤.001), and active thinking (pre=5.61[.80], post=5.45[.96], t(125)=−2.18, p<.05; no significant improvement in accurate depiction of marginalized groups, blame for poverty, sexual orientation inequality, comfort communicating, and dealing with conflict
Dunlap & Mapp (2017)	Quantitative	Emotional resilience sub-scale (t (18) =2.36, p=.03) and flexibility and openness sub-scale (t (18) =2.23, p=.04); more than 20% greater improvement at Time Three in CCAI scores
Engelmann et al. (2021)	Qualitative	Learning from other disciplines, opportunity to network, change to the online format
Feize et al. (2021)	Qualitative	Culture has an essential role in lives, desire to be sensitive working with individuals from different cultures
Gearing et al. (2020)	Quantitative	Higher Social Work Learning Abroad Competency Rating scores associated with higher Multicultural Counseling Inventory scores (t(77)=−4.11, p=.001, g=.93) and Attitude-Skills-Knowledge Scale scores (t(74)=−2.00, p=.05, g=.45)
Ghose (2012)	Qualitative	Local cultural immersion; challenged universalist preconceptions; values, beliefs, and ideologies, social change processes
Glassbum & Reza (2022)	Qualitative	Positionality, privilege, cultural perspective, personal transformation through resilience, growth, and spirituality, career applications, speaking out about injustice, and getting involved
Greenfield et al. (2012)	Quantitative/ Qualitative	Significant gains in self-rated skills, understanding of international service, and identification as a global citizen for both types of courses, for all variables apart from self-rated skills (b=.33, p<.001), there was no difference in gains in competencies Themes: enhanced cultural sensitivity and confidence, increased desire to pursue international social work, increased understanding, awareness, and knowledge of global issues for those on campus
Hall & Theriot (2016)	Quantitative	Total scale scores improved by 17 points; scores on knowledge increased by 6 points, and scores on skills improved by 8 points; with each additional diversity training, outcome at posttest increased approximately 5 points (p<.001); each additional training predicted a rise of 2.5 points on student’s posttest total scale after controlling for pre-test scores (p=.058, p<.10)
Lalayants et al. (2013)	Quantitative/ Qualitative	Importance to learn about international social work (M=5.60), motivation to learn about international social work (M=5.65), and interest in communicating with foreign social work students (M=5.79) Themes: sharing other countries experiences to solve social problems; unity of social work global values, ethics, and professional standards; solving problems pertinent to international relations locally; and global professional connections
Lee & Priester (2015)	Quantitative/ Qualitative	Film 1 (BSW students and public) increase in recognizing the importance of race/ethnicity (t=−3.29, p<.01), gender (t=−3.04, p<.01), sexual orientation (t=−4.44, p<.001, and social class (t=−4.07, p<.001); Film 2 (MSW students) helped to value LGBTQ issues (t=−3.08, p<.001) and religion/spirituality (t=−1.44, p<.05) Themes: increase in cultural competence and recognizing the need for cultural competence (Film 1); surprised LGBTQ community could be religious, gratitude to learn more, and usefulness of a panel event to further prepare students (Film 2)
Lough et al. (2012)	Quantitative	Increased international contacts (t=11.70, df=566, p<.001), international understanding (t=5.24, df=570, p<.001), intercultural relations (t=3.86, df=570, p<.001), civic activism (t=3.35, df=541, p<.01),
Luciano (2020)	Qualitative	Educational empowerment regarding Chinese holistic practices, language and cultural immersion, internalization of Chinese cultural values and health care practices, and recognition as a global citizen through cultural humility
Marchant et al. (2018)	Qualitative	Opportunity for collaboration, improved cultural competence, and skill-building through direct consulting
Maschi et al. (2013)	Quantitative	Individuals in the experimental group changed significantly in confidence with diverse older adults over time (p=.05); significant change over time in geriatric social work competencies (p=.03), experimental group improved compared to the comparison group
Matthew et al. (2017)	Qualitative	Prioritization of research outcomes instead of social change and community needs, communication patterns reinforced cultural dominance and power, and limitations of international service-learning structures
McClinton & Schaub (2017)	Quantitative	Statistically significant improvement in all capabilities (drive, knowledge, strategy, and action) in Class 1 and several capabilities (knowledge, strategy, and action) in Class 2
McGovern (2018)	Qualitative	Experiential learning deepened understanding, increased interest in gerontology practice, greater engagement with learning about research and cultural competence, and appreciating social connectedness
McPherson et al. (2022)	Qualitative	Enhanced understanding of privilege, developed sense of self as a global professional; experiential learning and peer and professional interaction promoted global engagement
Neely-Barnes et al. (2020)	Quantitative	Reported improvement in communication skills (F(3,91)=5.81, p=.018, η2= .059) and more culturally responsive values and attitudes (F(3,91)=9.26, p=.003, η2= .091) while no statistical significance for influencing the cultural competency/ responsiveness of the physical working environment over the course of the training.
Patterson (2019)	Qualitative	Housing experience, self-awareness, supervision helped to bridge the cultural gap, importance of developing rapport, the ability to work cross-culturally, and the shift from cultural competence to humility
Paul & Berger (2014)	Qualitative	Desired opportunity to connect, transformative experience regarding cultural exposure and trauma, increased tolerance of unfamiliar/stressful situations, relationship building with other students, enhanced self-reflection
Rautenback & Black-Hughes (2012)	Qualitative	Peer-education post experience, exchange theory, and social norms; introduced similarities and differences in delivery of services, and learned about different academic objectives of social work departments; and email exchange prior to visit bridged communication gap and helped to develop a social network
Roe (2022)	Qualitative	Importance of relationships, cross-cultural practice, cross-cultural humility, privilege and oppression, and anti-oppressive practice principles
Rosen et al. (2017)	Qualitative	Critical reflection, an emergence of a professional identity, and an acknowledgment of cultural humility
Rowan et al. (2012)	Qualitative	Lack of awareness and exposure to HIV/AIDS, self-critical of lack of knowledge they had of HIV/AIDS after the intervention
Smith & Yang (2017)	Quantitative	Functional Knowledge t(27)=−5.3, p<.05; Knowledge of Global Interdependence t(27)=−2.15, p<.05;
Thampi & Metzger (2022)	Qualitative	Importance of cultural humility, international perspective, and the integration of Eastern and Western approaches
Vasquez et al. (2019)	Quantitative/ Qualitative	Diversity of Contact scale (t=−5.78, df=62, p<.001); for the Relativistic Appreciation scale (t=−5.24, df=60, p<.001); Sense of Connection scale (t=−5.51, df=62, p<.001) Themes: Privilege, communicating personal information and experiences, skills for interacting with different people and groups, cultural competence is a journey
Walker et al. (2021)	Quantitative/ Qualitative	Significant difference in attitudes that changed after participating in poverty simulation; “some ‘poor’ people live better” (mean difference of .33), “welfare mothers have babies to get more money” (mean difference of .21), “an able-bodied person collecting welfare is ripping off the system” (mean difference of .43), and “people who are poor should not be blamed for their misfortune” (mean difference of .19) Themes: Understanding of poverty, initiating community change, knowledge of community and university resources or lack thereof
Willis et al. (2019)	Qualitative	Teamwork, communication, accepting help, and self-awareness; understanding difference, cultural humility, and self-regulation; and theoretical grounding and empathy in engagement
Zhu et al. (2022)	Qualitative	Confusion and discomfort, re-moulding, and humility in action
Zubaroglu & Popescu (2015)	Quantitative	Significant difference in both knowledge (z=−2.67, p=.008) and skills (z=2.67, p=.008), knowledge of global markets (MPre=2.0; MPost=5.0; ES Cohen’s d=4.24), and microcredit (MPre=2.8; MPost=6.0; ES Cohen’s d=2.45); confidence with strategic planning skills in micro-finance institutions (MPre=1.1; MPost=5.1; ES Cohen’s d=4.31); 70% gained knowledge from the interaction with community members, 60% gained knowledge from general observation

Qualitative Findings.

Thirty-three (75%) of the total studies reviewed included a qualitative research design (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43). Thirteen (39%) of the qualitative studies were U.S.-based (3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 22, 29, 36, 37, 39, 41), including examining perceptions of global social work (21), 12 (36%) studies were based on an international experience (1, 5, 7, 10, 24, 27, 30, 32, 33, 35, 42, 43), eight (24%) included both U.S.-based and international experiences (2, 11, 17, 18, 19, 25, 34, 40). The most common theme found throughout 14 studies was cultural humility, including self-awareness, self-reflection, sensitivity, and recognizing bias (2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 19, 24, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 42, 43). Twelve studies found themes centered on cultural competency, understanding a diverse culture, feelings of increased comfort and confidence working with a diverse culture, and learning to live and work in a different culture (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 19, 25, 29, 40, 42). Interestingly, one study reported a shift from cultural competency to cultural humility (32).

Four studies had themes that emerged around social connection, including the importance of relationships (35), the opportunity for collaboration (25) and learning from other disciplines (14), the ability to develop a social network (34), and enhanced relationship-building with other students and a desire to connect on a deeper level with individuals from Israeli culture (33). Three studies recognized the importance and effectiveness of experiential learning opportunities (2, 29, 30). Three studies that included international experiences in Guatemala (11), China (24), and Israel (33) reported a theme of a transformative experience. Two studies reported themes regarding the importance of cross-cultural practice (32, 35). One recognized the need to create international opportunities for minorities (1). Two studies showed a theme of increased competency specific to Chinese culture (5, 24), one showed a theme of increased competency with Ghanaian culture (7), and one showed a greater understanding of poverty (41). One reported a theme of an increase in empathy for Native Americans (8).

Quantitative Findings.

Despite heterogeneity in the type of intervention, each study testing for significance, focusing on cultural competence, humility, or other similar constructs, showed some improvement or change in at least one evaluated outcome. While none of the studies utilized a randomized controlled trial, sixteen (89%) of the 18 studies employed a longitudinal design including a pretest and posttest (4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 31, 38, 40, 41, 44). Two studies utilized a cross-sectional single survey design (16, 23). Two studies did not test for statistical significance (4, 21).

Of the studies utilizing quantitative methods, ten (56%) focused on U.S.-based experiences (4, 9, 12, 13, 20, 22, 26, 28, 31, 41). Of these ten studies, six (60%) were interventions that lasted one semester or longer (12, 13, 20, 26, 28, 31). These U.S.-based interventions took a range of forms and measured various outcomes; for example, a diversity course offering intergroup dialogue showed improvement in social identity awareness, knowledge about inequality, micro and macro skills, and motivation to bridge differences (12), and an oral history project embedded in a research course showed improvements in the experimental group’s plans and confidence to work with older adults and geriatric social work competencies (26). Interventions that were performed in less than a semester included an interprofessional course with an immersive clinical practicum focusing on the veteran population, showed improvements in the knowledge of military culture, veteran health, and the intent to provide culturally competent services to veterans (9). Interventions were conducted in less than a week, with one demonstrating an increase in recognizing the importance of race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and social class after viewing a film. A different film helped students value LGBTQ issues and religion/spirituality (22). Several studies lacked a specific timeline for the intervention. Despite an unclear timeframe, one study’s poverty simulation demonstrated changes in attitudes about poverty (41).

Four (25%) quantitative studies with exclusively international experience showed gains in one or more measured outcomes (16, 23, 38, 44). Three studies were 10-25 days (16, 38, 44), while one did not specify the duration (23). One of the studies contributed most highly to developing diversity, justice, and engagement and least to evidence-based practice, policy, and evaluation (16). While each of these studies included international experiences, outcomes varied in these studies. For example, one study found that international contacts, international understanding, intercultural relations, civic activism, media attentiveness, and financial contribution were significantly higher for returned international volunteers relative to prospective volunteers (23). In contrast, open-mindedness, life plans, and community engagement were not significantly different between prospective and returned international volunteers (23).

Three studies included interventions involving a U.S.-based component and an international experience (11, 19, 40). The timeframe varied for each intervention. One included six weeks U.S.-based with 10 days international (11), one included one semester U.S.-based and one semester international (19), and one included a two-year program with three weeks U.S.-based or international or one semester international (40). The shortest of these interventions included six weeks in the US and 10 days internationally and included a HIP (high-impact educational practice), which reported positive changes in self-perceptions of competency levels, improvement of confidence levels and understanding of knowledge and competency, and high competency levels for engaging with difference, applying knowledge and skills to real-world settings, and gaining awareness, clarity, and refining own values and beliefs (11). The longest experience, including a Critical Cultural Competence certificate program paired with an international experience, yielded statistically significant changes in the diversity of contact, relativistic appreciation, and a sense of connection (40).

One study did not include a U.S.-based or international experience but examined social work students’ perceptions of global social work and the value of learning about international social work (21). This study showed the importance and motivation to learn about international social work and an interest in communicating with foreign social work students.

Six (33%) of the 18 quantitative studies measured cultural competency (4, 9, 12, 31, 40, 41). Respectively, one study that included a U.S.-based Health Resources and Services Administration Behavioral Health Workforce, Education, and Training program paired with a U.S. field placement reported improved communication skills and more culturally responsive values and attitudes. At the same time, there was no statistical significance for influencing cultural competency and responsiveness (31). Six studies measured other related construct(s) but did not include cultural competency or humility (13, 16, 20, 23, 28, 44). Examples included improved cultural intelligence indicated by enhanced intercultural competence in a U.S.-based training program (28) and knowledge and skills gained in a three-week study abroad program implementing an international interdisciplinary teaching model (44). Six studies did not clearly define the measured construct (11, 19, 21, 22, 26, 38). For example, one study utilized an international short-term study abroad experience, demonstrating statistical significance in functional knowledge and knowledge of global interdependence and no significance in the knowledge of world geography, interpersonal accommodation, and cultural sensitivity (38).

Discussion

CSWE,’s 2022 EPA standards emphasize social work competence through incorporating knowledge, values, skills, and thought processes structured in culturally responsive, purposeful, and professional practice. The competencies center on the importance of cultural diversity through ethical and professional behavior; advocating and pursuing practices to enhance human rights; demonstrating anti-racist and anti-oppressive social work and cultural humility; conducting culturally informed, anti-racist, and anti-oppressive research strategies; analyzing policy through social justice, anti-racist, and anti-oppressive lenses and pursuing policies to advance human rights; and utilizing culturally responsive methods in engagement, assessment, intervention, and evaluation (CSWE, 2022). Program developers are tasked with implementing the content, approaches, and activities provided to students and assessing their ability to meet the nine social work competencies (CSWE, 2022). CSWE (2022) endorses program independence in leadership, policy development, and curriculum design to support culturally competent social workers. Ultimately, social work programs vary in how these competencies are reflected in the curriculum.

Based on this scoping review, various constructs were identified and measured, though many lacked a clear definition. Of those studies with constructs clearly defined, most studies focused on cultural competence, in addition to cultural humility, cultural awareness, and other similar constructs. These constructs often overlap in meaning and can be subtle and nuanced in distinction. While cultural competency seeks to master another culture on a deep level, critics of cultural competency believe it lacks focus on the self, uses a generalized term of ‘culture’ to identify others, attempts to become proficient in another culture, and does not recognize a social justice agenda to address social inequalities (Fisher-Borne et al., 2015). There is an assumption that individuals can reach a level of competence and knowledge of another culture. Critics call for a shift towards cultural humility, which brings insight into the fact that one might not know about another’s experience and is willing to learn while being aware of one’s culture (Lekas et al., 2020). Some argue that cultural humility lacks a clear conceptual definition and a structured framework (Danso, 2018). Cultural humility, on the other hand, assumes a high level of self-awareness without a full cultural understanding. Despite the differences and criticisms, it was evident that both constructs and additional, yet similar, constructs are used and measured. Moreover, the measures applied to assess constructs were vastly different.

In addition, the studies reviewed showed variation regarding the types of interventions offered. Almost half of the studies included U.S.-based experiences, while more than a third included international-based experiences, with some offering both. This aligns with a survey of BSW and MSW programs completed in 2017 suggesting most social work programs infuse international and global social work content into current, mostly diversity-focused courses and programs offer the least support to faculty in supporting study abroad options or financial assistance to students participating in such options (Mapp & Gatenio Gabel, 2019). Specific interventions differed. More than half of the studies representing U.S.-based experiences included a semester course, while there were also one to three-day events, service-learning activities, field experiences, and a simulation experience. These experiences were implemented over different timeframes. The timeframes for the international experiences also differed in duration from short-term opportunities lasting six days to eight months. Overall, the lack of program guidance may explain the variability in how competencies are met. Despite this, each intervention presented showed some benefit to the students who participated in the study.

The study designs also varied. Most U.S.-based classroom experiences were longitudinal and relied on quantitative methods. No quantitative studies employed randomized controlled trials, which limits the ability to generalize the results and infer causation. In contrast, international experiences mostly employed qualitative methods to extract themes from interview data. Studies utilizing various methodologies make it challenging to synthesize and compare results.

The research suggests that students learn about cultural diversity in various ways. However, the findings are difficult to assess given the sheer number of different interventions and their wide variation, the inconsistent application of rigorous methodology to optimize generalizability and causal inference, diverse and unclearly defined central constructs, and the extensive range of measures employed to operationalize outcomes, many of which were not previously validated. This inhibits the ability to discern best practices in social work education. It might be beneficial for the field of social work to move toward a more specific construct that embodies the competencies and best practices or suggest that key sub-competencies be established for the field and translated into a validated measure that can be used across evaluations. Once there is consensus around a specified construct, studies implementing various interventions utilizing rigorous research designs can inform evidence-based interventions that programs can offer their students. This could assist with greater consistency, ensuring strategies are supported by research and are shown to be effective, leading to better-prepared social work students and their ability to work with culturally diverse individuals. On the other hand, it is essential to recognize that universality in such an extensive, constantly evolving, and dynamic area can have the opposite effect and stagnate learning and growth.

It is also warranted to recognize that while international experiences can be valuable, such experiences are attainable only to some. Financial cost is one of the most substantial barriers to participating in an international experience (Gearing et al., 2020). In addition, students may have other obligations, responsibilities, and commitments that prohibit going abroad. Additionally, only some students are interested in international experiences. The lack of diversity in most samples and the lack of attention to critical characteristics or social determinants that may impact the accessibility of international experiences is notable if the approaches assessed are meant to be utilized by most social work students. Due to some of the barriers involved, bi-directional learning can be crucial to experiencing cultural diversity. Zhu et al. (2022) believe there is value in creating these opportunities to simulate international experiences through engagement and interaction with individuals from diverse backgrounds within U.S.-based experiences. Further research is warranted to determine the effectiveness of such innovative programs and can create opportunities for those unable to access international experiences.

Limitations

This review was limited to geographical location and field of study, including exclusively U.S. social work students. Therefore, research involving students from various geographical locations and study areas still needs to be reviewed. Studies in other locations may provide consistent or additional constructs, further tools to measure these constructs, additional intervention options to draw more conclusive results and outcomes, or lead to the need for further research in a specified area.

Conclusion

Social workers are exposed to global and international issues and cultural diversity daily. Therefore, social work students must be taught the knowledge and skills necessary to work with culturally diverse individuals. Social work programs employ various avenues to teach about cultural diversity and ensure students are aware of and practicing cultural competence, cultural humility, cultural awareness, etc., through U.S.-based classroom experiences, international experiences, and a combination of both. There is no uniform approach that social work educators use to impart knowledge and skills, no universal construct for assessing student learning, and there is no defined method for measuring the development of these constructs. On the one hand, this lends to variety and the opportunity for innovation in how students can gain the needed knowledge while accommodating various preferences and learning styles and, in some interventions analyzed, having the opportunity to reach a greater population of students. At the same time, interventions need to be consistently and rigorously evaluated to ensure students are maximizing their learning and, in turn, will utilize best practices once they are employed in the field.