Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Oxford University Press - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Oxford University Press - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Jul 27;51(5):1820–1838. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcab101

COVID-19 and BLM: Humanitarian Contexts Necessitating Principles from First Nations World Views in an Intercultural Social Work Curriculum

Annie Townsend 1,✉, Mishel McMahon 2
PMCID: PMC8344926  PMID: 34393656

Abstract

Unprecedented trends of complex humanitarian contexts are unfolding globally, and they are driven by numerous humanitarian crisis drivers. Two of the more recent and ongoing crisis drivers are the Coronavirus Pandemic 2019 and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. While the pandemic has already caused a direct impact on unprepared health systems and caused secondary havoc on already fragile countries, the BLM movement has exposed the deeply held structural inequalities experienced by populations who do not identify as Western European. Both crisis drivers have also exposed the structural problems that have long underpinned humanitarian responses. To prepare for these complexities in humanitarian contexts, social work educators need to respond to the loud outcry for holistically educated and critically reflective social work practitioners. We argue this can be achieved through an Intercultural Social Work Curriculum informed by First Nations world views to enable a shift in student mindset from Western thought, setting the foundations for professional intercultural practice in complex humanitarian contexts.

Keywords: Black Lives Matter, Coronavirus 2019, humanitarian contexts, intercultural social work curriculum, western hegemony

Teaser text

In this article, the authors demonstrate how:

  • Contemporary complex humanitarian contexts are unfolding now and defining this century. These contexts are driven by overlapping crisis drivers and examples of these crisis drivers include the Coronavirus 2019 and the Black Lives Matter Movement.

  • Complex humanitarian contexts are also defined by the colonial history of humanitarianism and by the rise of populist movements and their anti-immigration sentiments

  • Principles from First Nations world views can be used in an Intercultural Social Work Curriculum to teach social work students about these structural and historical problems that have long underpinned complex humanitarian contexts

  • Principles from First Nations world views prepare students to engage with communities impacted by humanitarian crises, ensuring that the pillars of the 2016 Localisation Agenda—equality, inclusion and social justice, are prioritised.

  • The Localisation Agenda has spurred on the long overdue shift needed to maximise deeper relationships between humanitarian organisations and communities.

  • Principles of First Nations world views will ensure that new social work graduates will be able to engage with this policy context and the various challenges in the realisation of the policy

Introduction

While the global Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic shakes the entire world and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement continues in the wake of the police killing of an unarmed Black man in the USA, it is imperative social work educators consider the readiness of pre-service social work students (PSSWS) for complexities in practice. We argue these two humanitarian crisis drivers signal the urgency to teach from an intercultural social work curriculum (ICSWC) informed by principles from First Nations world views to better prepare PSSWS for current and future practice in complex humanitarian contexts. This article argues that this shift in education will equate to improved ‘engagement’ between professionals and communities in complex humanitarian contexts. We define engagement as listening and responding to localised ways of knowing, being and doing which is critical for more nuanced responses. In addition to this, Kearney (2019) says that an ICSWC is socially and historically contextualised and prioritises local perspectives. Both Grosfoguel (2005) and Kearney (2019) contend that in an intercultural classroom, educators facilitate empathetic learning; challenge belief rigidity, encourage cognitive and personal flexibility and enable PSSWS to build stronger critical analysis regarding privileges won through exploitation and domination by global coloniality powers.

COVID-19 and BLM continue to unfold in contexts where there are other overlapping crises drivers of war, conflict, mass migration, climate change, human rights violations, strained funding arrangements and new humanitarian interventions. When these crisis drivers intersect, they promulgate vulnerability and marginalisation in communities, and this is one of the three defining factors of complex humanitarian contexts that are unfolding today and informing future trends. We demonstrate how these overlapping drivers disrupt daily lives with reverberations felt for a long time. The second defining factor of complex humanitarian contexts is the colonial history of humanitarianism, which re-positions particular population groups as marginalised, fuel conflict in localised areas and create economic disparities (Gordon and Donini, 2015; Hilton et al., 2018; Peters, 2019). COVID-19 and the BLM movements have exposed the deeply ingrained historical and colonial responses to complex humanitarian contexts. Lastly, complex humanitarian contexts are defined by the rise of populist movements and their anti-immigration sentiments, which result in high levels of intolerance and xenophobia towards oppressed populations, disrupting social and community cohesion (Purkayastha, 2018).

COVID-19 and BLM are a wake-up call for building the next generation of humanitarian organisations, which prioritise equality, inclusion and social justice, and to fully embrace the global policy commitment to the 2016 Localisation Agenda in humanitarian responses (Spiegel, 2017; Haque, 2019; Harris and Tuladhar, 2019; Barbelet et al., 2020; Betts et al., 2020; Gibbons et al., 2020; Tull, 2020). The Agenda examines the degree to which humanitarian assistance addresses the most important needs of local communities and the degree in which the humanitarian system is able to achieve positive, long-term outcomes for communities receiving support.

While social work educators engage in future curriculum design, it is timely that we contribute to debates around how an ICSWC can address the gaps in preparing PSSWS for practice in complex humanitarian contexts whether close to home of further away. We demonstrate how principles from First Nations world views can be positioned in curriculum to prepare PSSWS for these contexts by enabling deep reflection about decolonisation and cultural humility (Modderman et al., 2020).

The definition of humanitarian contexts

To begin this examination, we define humanitarian contexts by drawing on seminal social work literature, which has an increasingly permanent fixture in the tool kits of social work educators. Similar to disaster contexts, a humanitarian context is a human, physical, economic or environmental damage from an event, or series of events that can overwhelm the capacities of communities (Cox and Pawar, 2013; Dominelli, 2018). Similar to disaster contexts, humanitarian contexts and humanitarian work are also implicitly located in the definitions of international social work and these are used widely in social work education (Healy, 2008; Hugman, 2010). Healy (2008), Hugman (2010) and Cox and Pawar (2013) assert even when not working internationally, all social workers are consciously, or subconsciously participating in international social work. Ife (2016, p. 179) infers, the local and global are intertwined, challenging the long-held assumption that disaster and humanitarian contexts are ‘far-away’ problems for Western countries to deal with. Ife’s definition (2016) captures some of the ‘nuances’ of a humanitarian context through the lens of an ICSWC. When not working from an intercultural social work perspective, then terms such as ‘third world’ and ‘developing countries’ become convenient labels, implying people living in these countries are ‘not like us’, nor the analysis of how a PSSWS’s country of origin has played a role through globalisation and colonisation in the lived experience of people far away.

Disaster Justice is an emerging social work theory and it provides important understandings of humanitarian contexts. Disaster Justice demonstrates humanitarian contexts are exacerbated by historical social development challenges, which increases people’s vulnerability to crisis drivers (Lukasiewicz, 2020; Lukasiewicz and Baldwin, 2020). As a very new practice, Disaster Justice captures the concerns that we have about practices and responses in complex humanitarian contexts and this includes the neo-colonial and imperialistic response systems, which make humanitarian contexts more complex and dangerous for communities.

We contend that the explanations of humanitarian contexts we have provided do not on their own translate to transformative practices where students have an increased awareness of the complexities of humanitarian contexts and diversity of humanity. We believe these explanations need to be integrated into an ICSWC informed by First Nations world views to provide a more deeply authentic learning space which teaches the process of engagement, which is critical to being able to create meaningful long-term, sustainable relationships with communities.

Exploring contemporary complex humanitarian crisis drivers

The overlapping nature of crisis drivers

Literature demonstrates the overlapping crisis drivers of war and conflict, mass migration, climate change, COVID-19 and racially inspired human rights violations are some of the main crisis drivers framing today’s humanitarian contexts. Wars are becoming more complex and internationalised and thus harder to unravel from global complexity (Griswold et al., 2020; Tull, 2020). Violence is pushing non-government organisations (NGOs) to reconsider their operations in conflict areas and the norm to provide humanitarian assistance to whereever it is needed, is consistently being challenged and possibly modified (Human Rights Watch, 2019; Nicoson et al., 2019). Countries with fragile governments, economies and geographies ricochet from one crisis to the next (UNOCHA, 2019; Griswold et al., 2020; Przybyla and Kathman, 2020; ). Many countries caught up in conflict or natural disasters with inadequate health care systems are weakened further by the lack of resources to deal with treatable diseases like malaria, let alone global pandemics such as COVID-19 (Adom et al., 2020; Truelove et al., 2020). Globally, extreme weather events are uprooting populations (Jolly and Ahmad, 2019). The true scale of population displacements far exceeds recorded numbers (UNOCHA, 2019). Pressure is also building for vulnerable people to return to their homelands and what is driving these returns is political considerations rather than established peace and readiness in the place of origin (Purkayastha, 2018).

Racially inspired human rights violations contribute to the complexity in humanitarian contexts and it is recognised by international human rights law (Bantekas, 2020) and protested against through the BLM movement. As a public emergency, human rights violations perpetuate negative consequences on civic space and human rights as well as creating additional barriers for already excluded groups (Sepúlveda Carmona, 2017). Using force to shut down the freedom of expression during these events is another form of human rights violations (Anisin, 2016). The killing of an unarmed Black man by the Minneapolis on 25 May 2020, galvanised people to organise and join massive protests against police brutality under the banner of BLM, spreading to all corners of the globe. Governments in the USA, the UK responded with excessive force during the protests. Existing inequalities and related human rights challenges have been amplified with the contemporaneous outbreak of COVID-19 and the ‘us and them’ policies of populist government, exposing problems of racial injustice and colonial histories.

Humanitarian funding assistance is another crisis driver, which intersects with the those drivers we have previously described. Funding for complex humanitarian contexts is built on traditional business models, which emerged from the need for an increased accountability of humanitarian organisations over thirty years ago following much needed critique of the incalculable suffering and losses from humanitarian crisis at the time. Although there have been some important in-roads made in expediating humanitarian assistance and firming up important logistical arrangements in very complex settings (Zolnikov and Zolnikov, 2018), the model’s original aims to ease global suffering and to continue to respond to consistently elevated humanitarian needs have been thwarted by the enormous growth in some UN humanitarian agencies over others, and by those organisations that are the most effective in promoting their mandates. This might be more defensible if the mandates were shared across all UN agencies but instead, they are inconsistent, promulgating fragmented assistance, weak co-ordination and exclusion of local populations from meaningful involvement in decision making. A striking characteristic of the humanitarian business model from Annie’s experience is the vocabulary: ‘consumers’ are communities impacted by humanitarian crises, and NGOs are ‘suppliers of goods’ and these terms erode the original principles of humanitarianism (A. Townsend, unpublished data).

The business model of humanitarianism has also paved the way for different kinds of interventions, new NGO’s mandates and emerging definitions of what constitutes a humanitarian crisis (Gordon and Donini, 2015; Peters, 2019). This is evident in the current wave of information and communication technologies (ICTs), which are prolifically active in fragile humanitarian contexts (Sandvik et al., 2017; Vannini et al., 2020) As much as technology holds implicit promise and enables successes that were considered impossible in the past, ICTs are usually implemented by private companies who use the opportunity for public relations and profit-making opportunities. This demonstrates there is concerning disconnect between the work of ICTs and the needs of the communities during a humanitarian crisis (Madianou, 2019). In these current times, NGOs are more likely to operate as transactional bureaucracies, shaped by the enormous multi-billion-dollar global humanitarian funding assistance (Ife, 2016), arguably perpetuating new dynamics of a colonial legacy. Similar to other human service operatives elsewhere, humanitarian systems are upholding administrative duties of the Western-business model over humanitarian ideologies. Allocating objective assistance toward the greatest need is what we feel has been sidelined.

The historical legacies of colonisation

Humanitarian response systems are situated within a continuing colonist agenda, coupled with Western economics and political hegemony (Gordon and Donini, 2015). Many of the humanitarian system’s components are historical stalwarts, largely originating in African and Asian colonies (Hilton et al., 2018). Support for regime changes (Spiegel, 2017), lack of accountability (Ramachandran and Walz, 2015) and ongoing racism in the humanitarian system (Balaji, 2011) are indicators of the continuing dominant model of colonialism. Colonialism politically positions affected populations as vulnerable and need assistance (Gordon and Donini, 2015; Hilton et al., 2018; Peters, 2019). From Mishel’s practice experience, working as an Aboriginal Family Services practitioner in regional Victoria, Australia hegemony of Western European thought crept into every assessment and intervention applied to Aboriginal children (McMahon, 2012). The Looking After Children is an assessment tool from research in England developed for children of this geographic area (Yeatman and Penglase, 2009). However, it was used to assess Aboriginal children in all caseloads. Parents, Grandparents and other relatives would try to explain in their homes, in court and in hospitals that the way they raise their children is how their parents, grandparents raised them. These conversations would be filled with desperation, tears and sometimes anger. Families were broken up or fell apart as they tried to navigate Western expectations. Many families do hold trauma and do struggle to access the economic possibilities of colonised Australia such as housing, education and employment. However, their strength, their culture and ways of knowing for attachment and childhood, were not given equal opportunity to inform their own localised pathway to health, healing and balance (McMahon, 2012).

With all these problematic concerns in humanitarian contexts and response systems, we argue an ICSWC informed by principles from First Nations world views, provides a critical colonist analysis of humanitarianism. Through an ICSWC, PSSWS engage in an analytical view of the historical, hegemonic and global forces of humanitarianism, which have become institutionalised within the system. This analysis is crucial to informing a practice where PSSWS are able to understand and confidently respond to global inequalities and power discrepancies in domestic and international humanitarian contexts and they will therefore be better equipped to play a critical role in disrupting the hegemonic, Northern-dominated traditions and practices, which perpetuate continuing international injustices.

The rise of populist movements

The mass exodus of populations from the Middle East to Europe is also revealing challenges to global human rights and social cohesion in various regions. One of the most notable challenges is the global political climate and the rise of populist movements and how these changing politics contribute to contemporary understandings of complexity in humanitarian contexts. The popularity of these movements is intimately connected to the political visibility of refugees in high-income countries (Purkayastha, 2018). Many populist leaders and their movements have gained traction by building fear in regard to immigration within their nationalistic rhetoric. For example, we see in Australia that disruption and disinformation are increasingly being deployed as tactics of power with negative impacts on public, political and social media discourse, on societal values and on public policy issues such as migration, displacement and migrants including refugees and this is confirmed in the literature (Sengul, 2019).

This shifting from internationalist to nationalist policies also impacts on donor and NGO relationships in the humanitarian system. Traditionally, humanitarian donors have openly provided political and financial support during humanitarian crisis. However, the populist shift in politics seems to have affected the global environment whereby countries who would normally provide funding to enable humanitarian and refugee law are stepping away from this responsibility (Gostin et al., 2020) creating a dearth of understanding of the interconnected relationships from colonisation and globalisation and the lived experience of many communities during a humanitarian crisis.

Here, we continue to make a case for an ICSWC informed by principles from First Nations world views to enable PSSWS to engage in robust critical analysis of the nuances of the global political environment, the factors escalating populist movements such as the depleted and underfunded welfare state of many Nations and the impact of these movements on human rights (Noble and Ottmann, 2018). We believe ICSWC enables PSSWS to commit to social work practice with a human rights agenda, framed through a both-ways approach including First Nations and Western European perspectives, creating the impetus for PSSWS to become more politically and ethically active as practitioners and as future role models (Briskman, 2014).

COVID-19

Situated within this global context of complex humanitarian crises is the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic is still well and truly entrenched in the world’s poorest countries. For example, in the refugee camps in Bangladesh that is home for over one million Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, COVID-19 safety measures are falling short of what is needed because, as previously discussed, poverty, hunger, inequality, violence and displacement in this context, similar to other humanitarian contexts, exacerbate one another in pernicious feedback loops. During the pandemic, the modus operandi has quickly become strained due to impediments to travel and access constraints for international humanitarian staff who are integral to the humanitarian business model. COVID-19 has also exposed the limitations with the top-down business model leading to a much needed sharpened focus on the money and power humanitarian systems generate. The impacts of global lockdowns in localised areas will also inevitably constrain this Western humanitarian model from responding to other, or new crises drivers as they arise.

COVID-19 has also influenced a reversal of long-held assumptions in regard to ‘who needs assistance’ and in this instance ideas around humanitarian responses have drastically been upended. A stark reminder of this divide is occurring in the USA, which is now perceived as an increasingly fragile humanitarian context. Large NGOs like Oxfam are now working extensively in the USA under a social justice humanitarian agenda. Anecdotally we know social work teams deliver free COVID-19 test kits, food and hygiene kits and financial aid to over 400 sites in the USA. These examples demonstrate how the role of social work practice informed through an ICSWC is critical in all geographic locations as COVID-19’s definition of vulnerability includes both North and South hemispheres.

We argue COVID-19’s unequal impacts around the world occur significantly from the pandemic’s interactions with entrenched systems of colonisation. The resulting inequalities of access to health services and best outcomes steers the pandemic’s disproportionate aftermath. For example, poverty experienced by the Rohingya is largely constructed through the context of being denied a deep cultural relationship with their country and culture for centuries and the historical British mismanagement of its colonies (Truelove et al., 2020). Similarly, this social historical context also impacts other First Nations populations, and these people groups are at a heightened risk of mortality compared to Western populations (Power et al., 2020).

While the devastating and unjust effects of the pandemic has intersected with the BLM transnational protest movements, we argue it is a huge wake-up call to the effects and damage from continuing colonisation agenda that have not been reconciled.

The Localisation Agenda: The new global policy framework

The Localisation Agenda introduced in 2016 has been the long overdue shift needed to maximise the role of local, regional and national response systems and it has clearly captured the commitment to be as local as possible and as international as necessary in complex humanitarian contexts (Spiegel, 2017). The policy affirms that local people, services and organisations have always been the first to respond to a humanitarian crisis. The policy directs humanitarian systems to prioritise and lead through local networks and, therefore, it ensures better access to and deeper relationships with communities and a better understanding of the history, cultural and geo-political specifics of the region (Barbelet et al., 2020; Betts et al., 2020; Gibbons et al., 2020; Tull, 2020) The agenda forefronts Indigenous knowledge as a critical source of information in humanitarian contexts (Haque, 2019). The policy has steam rolled ahead since the COVID-19 pandemic and the BLM movements, providing a much needed push in NGOs to recognise the strengths of locally led humanitarian systems, and the letting go of historical power (Spiegel, 2017).

Of course the agenda also comes with its challenges and this includes, defining what the policy looks like on the ground; the need for countries of the North to relinquish their power; the current funding model and reporting requirements which preferences an internationally led response over a locally driven response and the presence of humanitarian principles and standards, which lack the relevance for today’s complex humanitarian contexts (Harris and Tuladhar, 2019).

The social work response to the localisation agenda

The social work profession has historically led important agendas which validate local responses in humanitarian contexts. Examples include the Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development, Millennium Development Goals and the follow-up Sustainable Development Goals (Jayasooria, 2016). People-centred practices are central in the response to COVID-19 and the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) has captured some of the roles of social workers in their domestic environments and this includes: consoling individuals and families; linking survivors to resources; provide training and education; engage in health data collection and analysis; provide sector and program priority setting, work with a range of other professionals and contribute to policy making (IFSW, 2020). In recent years, there has been an increased number of social workers engaging with immigrant and refugee populations in local mental health and protection services (Al-Qdah and Lacroix, 2017; Zaviršek, 2017). To work effectively in this area, social work practitioners apply effective cross-cultural competencies to ensure effective service delivery and a contextualised response, which demonstrates an understanding of global forces at play (Noble, 2018; Payne and Askeland, 2016).

The emerging Critical Localism framework (Roepstorff, 2020) provides an important understanding of how local community networks are dominated by humanitarian responses. Aligning with the social work responses, we have described Critical Localism provides some important foundations in creating conversations with local communities around what local means for them. The author also contends that the term ‘local’ oversimplifies what actually occurs in a humanitarian context. Many local organisations and services are complex, fluid ‘hybrids of local, international and global networks of agency’ (p. 290).

However, despite these specific responses detailed above, we argue more needs to be done by to challenge the systemic challenges of humanitarian responses and their underlying origins. Social work educators must use their influence and expertise to engage in ‘decolonised humanitarianism’ in curriculum design and content. Western authors are pre-dominantly used in the education of PSSWS despite the fact that First Nations authors have been published for decades. This prohibits de-colonisation and intercultural social work from progressing.

Based on current trends of complex humanitarian contexts that we have examined, the next decade will include and is not restricted to the long-term impacts of nationalism on minorities and targeted groups; the shrinking of traditional global institutions such as the UN; the integration of other organisations, which are driven by self-interest rather than social justice; the impact of large-scale forced migration; the impact of global climate change and demographic pressures on communities; the ongoing risks with COVID-19 and future pandemics, and the stalling of more localised responses. To prepare for the future we make a case for an ICSWC informed by more than only Western European perspectives to address these challenges.

Principles of First Nations world views

Fore-fronting principles of First Nations world views in an ICSWC will provide PSSWS an opportunity to shift their mindsets from Western understandings and become critical allies with communities to challenge and dismantle systems of oppressions that exist in humanitarian response systems and practices. Our proposal for ICSWC informed by First Nations world views is to begin PSSWS professionalism through deep listening with local communities which over time and practice, will enable localised change.

The principles we have described are discourses from various First Nation authors (Little Bear, 2000; Steinhauer, 2002; Ungunmerr-Baumann, 2002; Martin, 2007; Moreton-Robinson and Walter, 2009; Anderson, 2011; Ryan, 2011; Cameron et al., 2013; Muir and Bohr, 2019; Pazderka et al., 2014). These principles shift a student’s thinking into relationality with the whole lifeworld. Currently, Western European education is deeply rooted in hierarchal mindsets, which purports all entities as ordered, with humans at the pinnacle of intelligence. Many societies and cultures outside of Europe have not held this hierarchal order, instead of believing in relationship and equality between everything. We wish to note these principles may not resonate with all communities but in light of Western hegemony we have described, the reflective exercises begin the philosophical colonist shift we hope PSSWS make, to prepare for intercultural practice.

There are two important approaches of intercultural practice. First, it requires PSSWS to critically reflect on ‘self’ in the context of colonisation, socially constructed racial theories, white privilege and dominance of Western systems. (Gardner, 2014). Secondly, we draw on The Getting it Right Framework (Zubrzycki et al., 2014) as a tool that explains the importance of critical self-reflection and not skimming over hidden assumptions or biases. The framework suggests PSSWS explore their families’ ethnic roots, their families experience of Western assimilation and what implications there were for their families’ identity. This process enables PSSWS to understand their beliefs come from a cultural consciousness they have grown up with and their beliefs are not an invisible norm. When PSSWS have reflected on their own identity and positioned themselves in the global environment, they are more ready to learn from others who may be different from themselves. These differences are not situated into a hierarchal order but hold equal status and legitimacy within an intercultural practice, providing a pathway to an innovative and equitable response to complex humanitarian contexts.

The First Nations world views principles we use are derived from relational world views, a view of reality or ontology that all entities; plants, animals, elements, seasons, skies, waterways, the land, the spirit world and humans are in relationship, like a web. Relational ontology creates an infinite number of different epistemologies because it is a localised ontology. Entities of knowledge construction change from landscape to landscape, thus creating different identities, cultures and languages. From these different epistemologies, First Nations peoples have investigated for thousands of years principles for every facet of life, including health and well-being.

In Table 1, alongside each principle, we provide reflection questions which enable conversations about identity, Western hegemony and positioning First Nations ways of knowing as equal but different and this reflection tool is informed by the literature.

Table 1.

Engaging students through First Nations world view principles In an ICSWC

First Nations world views principles Reflection questions
Balance—Relationships exist between all entities, between humans, and between humans, their environment and their spirit world. Health and wellbeing are through balance in an individual’s world. Wellness is holistic not based on individual symptoms

  • After a crisis how do you work with people to enable their return to balance whereby balance includes more than just human relationships?

  • For your own holistic healing, wellness and balance, which entities are important for your healing if you were recovering from a humanitarian crisis?
Equality—All entities of the lifeworld are equal including people, land, seas, seasons, waterways, skies, weather, animals, plants, rocks, elements, the solar system and Ancestors. All entities are equal stakeholders in knowledge construction

  • What are your beliefs about the lifeworld?

  • Do you believe all entities are equal or a does a hierarchy exist?

  • For people groups who believe in equality between all entities, how might your practice need to be changed?

  • What do you feel is the long-term impact of colonial-embedded humanitarian actions on the lifeworld?
Localised—A localised perspective always positions the person in their immediate environment. Interventions come from perspectives, knowledges and experiences from a person’s localised position, including people, the environment, country and localised spiritual beliefs

  • From the definition describe what is your localised position?

  • If someone came into your world, what would they need to consider so that it is ensured that their practice is informed by localisation?

  • Why is a localised perspective critical to sustained recovery from humanitarian crises?

  • Why do you think humanitarian systems have not fully embraced localised responses?
Selfhood—Self is in cyclical relationship to community, country and ancestors. Self does not sit at the centre. Identity is collective and individual. Growth of self is through interdependence and interrelationships with all entities. From conception attachment is relational, seen and unseen. Human and non-human become significant attachment for growth of self

  • If self is interdependent within a collective identity, would you practice differently, or prioritise differently?

  • Do you consider that people can hold meaningful attachments, for growth, love and health to non-human entities?

  • What do humanitarian organisations need to know about self-hood to improve their practices?
Agency—All entities hold knowledge for their life and make decisions. An individual’s agency and equality create confidence, resilience and self-efficacy from conception to death. Humans hold knowledge from their lived experiences, from observing and measuring the world, from Ancestral memory, dreams, Ancestral stories and their intuition. From agency, an individual leads decision making for their life

  • What does agency mean for you?

  • How might you react if someone is making decisions from their own agency in ways that are different to how you make decisions?

  • Do you believe all people, even if they are different than you, should always hold their own agency for decision making, even in a crisis?

  • How can a humanitarian response system ensure agency in a community impacted by a crisis?
Deep listening—A process for learning and decision making, it comes from listening to the whole relational lifeworld. Knowledge is revealed to an individual through deep listening to entities of country, to Ancestors, dreams, visions, ceremony, stories and intuitions. Deep listening requires being still and allowing time before ways of going forward are formulated

  • When making key decisions for your own life, do you include being still, sometimes pausing, deeply listening to those around you, including to the landscape you are on, the weather, animals, waterways, plants, sounds, your dreams or stories you hear to gain insight?

  • If humanitarian practices include processes of deep listening, what could be the benefits to everyone?

  • Deep listening can take time, a moment or even days. If you’re in a crisis is deep listening still relevant to practice?
Relatedness—Relatedness is grown through learning about an entity, growing sets of knowledge over time and then through holding increased responsibility to this entity. Relatedness is a two-way process of knowledge and responsibility across a person’s lifespan. It is with all entities

  • Who is your family?

  • Is it just humans, or do you include animals, plants, country and ancestors?

  • From this definition of family, who makes you feel strong?

  • Do you hold increasing responsibilities to your family as you get older?

  • Do you use this definition of family during your practice?

  • Can people you work with also share with you their experiences about animals, plants, Country and ancestors?
Renewal—All entities exist in a narrow gap of ideal conditions. Renewal is maintaining these ideal conditions. Renewal necessitates the study of flux and patterns; it includes understanding of cyclical time. We exist with our Ancestors, our communities but also with our unborn great grandchildren. Everything exists in cyclical time, seen and unseen, maintaining renewal for all entities

  • Do you consider that humans, like all other entities, need to ethically responsible and maintain ideal life conditions regarding the weather, waterways and soil condition for future generations?

  • Would you practise differently if you included learnings from your ancestors, and the needs of your unborn family members?

  • For a community devasted by a humanitarian crisis, how can their localised understandings of renewal be included in processes and interventions?
Open in a new tab

First Nations world views principles holistically prepare PSSWS to understand themselves better and engage in an intercultural practice with people who do not identify with only Western European perspectives. Within a humanitarian context, the practice also promotes engagement with those we work with, so communities feel heard and positioned as decisionmakers. Currently, social work practice predominantly informed by Western perspectives and processes, inhibits rapport, communication and localised initiatives. From this standpoint, principles from First Nations world views positioned in education carries the core idea that all people, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, can learn to pause, be still, listen, ask more questions and, diversity of thought, perceptions and experiences are deeply appreciated. An ICSWC informed by First Nations world views provides the shift where PSSWS can move to a space where First Nations peoples stand strong in line with the BLM movement, not as marginalised or exotic, but as equal participants of humanity.

Conclusion

We argue COVID-19 and the BLM movement has led to rethinking how we holistically prepare PSSWS for working in current and future global humanitarian complexities. Both events bring to our attention how structural power and privilege have become legitimate ways of responding to humanitarian crises, to the detriment of communities. We provide much needed guidance for social work educators to equip PSSWS with an awareness of continuing colonist structures in an ICSWC, ways to contribute wisely through the Localisation Agenda policy by preparing PSSWS for sensitive practice and to practice more reflectively, effectively and ethically in challenging systems which have been and are still largely Western European in their orientation and function.

We argue COVID-19, and the BLM movements are catalysts for the recognition of how we as social work educators, can identify Western hegemony, injustices, white privilege and oppression and moving social work education to embracing more forward-thinking conceptualisations of engagement. These complex humanitarian contexts demonstrate how social work must represent more than its colonial history and continual colonist agenda. The principles presented reflect the necessity and possibility for change, a space where First Nations world views are located within intercultural practice, framing immediate and future social work practice and shifting our profession onto a de-colonised pathway.

References

  1. Adom D., Osei M., Adu-Agyem J. (2020) ‘ COVID-19 lockdown: A review of an alternative to the traditional approach to research’, Research Journal in Advanced Social Sciences, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Qdah T. A. K., Lacroix M. (2017) ‘ Syrian refugees in Jordan: Social workers use a Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA) methodology for needs assessment, human rights and community development’, International Social Work, 60(3), pp. 614–27. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson K. (2011) Life Stages and Native Women: Memory, Teachings, and Story Medicine, vol. 15, Winnipeg, University of Manitoba Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Anisin A. (2016) ‘ Violence begets violence: Why states should not lethally repress popular protest’, The International Journal of Human Rights, 20(7), pp. 893–913. [Google Scholar]
  5. Balaji M. (2011) ‘ Racializing pity: The Haiti earthquake and the plight of “others’, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 28(1), pp. 50–67. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bantekas I. (2020). Individual responsibility and the evolving legal status of the physical person. In M. Baderin & M. Ssenyonjo (Eds.), International Human Rights Law (First ed., pp. 431-444). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315589404 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Barbelet V., Bryant J., Willitts-King B. (2020) ‘ All eyes are on local actors’: Covid-19 and local humanitarian action’, ALNAP, 5 September. [Google Scholar]
  8. Betts A., Easton-Calabria E., Pincock K. (2020) ‘ Refugee-led responses in the fight against COVID-19: Building lasting participatory models’, Forced Migration Review, 64, pp. 73–76. [Google Scholar]
  9. Briskman L. (2014) Reflections of an activist social worker: challenging human rights violations. In C. Noble, H. Strauss, & B. Littlechild (Eds.), Global social work (pp. 301-310). Sydney University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv1fxm2q.25 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cameron N., Pihama L., Leatherby R., Cameron A. (2013) He mokopuna he tupuna. Investigating Māori views of childrearing amongst iwi in Taranaki, available online at: http://www.communityresearch.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/formidable/Final-Research-Report-He-Mokopuna-He-Tupuna-Investigating-Traditional-Maori-Views-of-Childrearing-Amongst-Iwi-Within-Taranaki.pdf (accessed November 7, 2020).
  11. Cox D., Pawar M. (2013) International Social Work: Issues, Strategies, and Programs, 2nd edn, London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dominelli L. (2018) ‘Green social work and the uptake by the Nepal School of Social Work: Building resilience in disaster-stricken communities’, in Bracken L., Robinson T. and Ruszczyk H. A. (eds), Evolving Narratives of Hazard and Risk, New York, NY, Springer, pp. 141–58. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gardner F. (2014) Being Critically Reflective: Engaging in Holistic Practice, London, Macmillan International Higher Education. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gibbons P., Roughneen D., McDermott R., Maitra S. (2020) ‘ Putting affected people at the centre of humanitarian action: An argument for the principle of humanitarian subsidiarity’, Disasters, 44(3), pp. 499–517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gordon S., Donini A. (2015) ‘ Romancing principles and human rights: Are humanitarian principles salvageable?’, International Review of the Red Cross, 97(897–898), pp. 77–109. [Google Scholar]
  16.  Gostin, L. O., Constantin, A., & Meier, B. M. (2020). Global health and human rights in the age of populism. In B. Mason Meier (Ed.), Foundations of Global Health & Human Rights (pp. 439-458). Oxford Scolarship Online. 10.1093/oso/9780197528297.001.0001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Griswold K., Scates J., Kadhum A. (2020) ‘Transforming well-being for refugees and their communities: Perspectives from medicine, nursing, education, and social work’, in Smith K. H., Ram P. K. (eds), Transforming Global Health, New York, NY, Springer, pp. 35–50. [Google Scholar]
  18.  Grosfoguel, R. (2005). Hybridity and mestizaje: Sincretism or subversive complicity? Subalternity from the Perspective of the Coloniality of Power. In A. Isfahani-Hammond (Ed.), The Masters and the Slaves (pp. 115-129). Springer.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Haque M. (2019) ‘Indigenous knowledge and practices in disaster management: Experiences of the coastal people of Bangladesh’, in Bupinder Z., Akbaruddin K. and Srungarapati A. B. (eds), Disaster Risk Reduction, New York, NY, Springer, pp. 59–72. [Google Scholar]
  20. Harris V., Tuladhar S. (2019) ‘Humanitarian localisation: Can we put values into practice?’, in Harris V. (ed.), Ethics in a Crowded World: Globalisation, Human Movement and Professional Ethics, Bingley, Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 33–55. [Google Scholar]
  21. Healy L. M. (2008) International Social Work: Professional Action in an Interdependent World, Oxford, Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hilton M., Baughan E., Davey E., Everill B., O’Sullivan K., Sasson T. (2018) ‘ History and humanitarianism: A conversation’, Past & Present, 241(1), pp. e1–38. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hugman R. (2010) Understanding International Social Work: A Critical Analysis, London, Macmillan International Higher Education. [Google Scholar]
  24. Human Rights Watch (2019) ‘World Report 2019: Events of 2018’, available online at: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019 (accessed November 7, 2020).
  25. Ife J. (2016) Community Development in an Uncertain World: Vision, Analysis and Practice, 2nd edn, Port Melbourne, VIC, Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. IFSW (2020) The Role of Social Workers Across ASEAN Countries in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, available online at: https://www.ifsw.org/the-role-of-social-workers-across-asean-countries-in-response-to-covid-19-pandemic/ (accessed February 23, 2021).
  27. Jayasooria D. (2016) ‘ Sustainable development goals and social work: Opportunities and challenges for social work practice in Malaysia’, Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 1(1), pp. 19–29. [Google Scholar]
  28. Jolly S., Ahmad N. (2019) ‘Conceptualizing the climate change migration in South Asia’, in Jolly S. and Ahmad A. (eds), Climate Refugees in South Asia: Protection Under International Legal Standards and State Practices in South Asia, New York, NY, Springer, pp. 15–45. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kearney E. (2019) ‘Learning to see core practices in intercultural language teaching: A study of pre-service and in-service world languages educators’, 2019 Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL). Atlanta, Georgia
  30. Little Bear L. (2000) ‘Leroy.. jagged worldviews colliding’, in Battiste M. (ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision, Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lukasiewicz A. (2020) ‘The emerging imperative of disaster justice’, in Baldwin C., Lukasiewicz A. (eds), Natural Hazards and Disaster Justice: Challenges for Australia and its Neighbours, New York, NY, Springer, pp. 3–23. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lukasiewicz A., Baldwin C. (2020) ‘Future pathways for disaster justice’, in Natural Hazards and Disaster Justice: Challenges for Australia and its Neighbours, New York, NY, Springer, pp. 349–59. [Google Scholar]
  33. Madianou, M. (2019). Technocolonialism: Digital innovation and data practices in the humanitarian response to refugee crises. Social media + society, 5(3). 10.1177/2056305119863146
  34. Martin K. (2007) ‘ Ma (r) king tracks and reconceptualising Aboriginal early childhood education: An Aboriginal Australian perspective’, Childrenz Issues: Journal of the Children's Issues Centre, 11(1), p. 15. [Google Scholar]
  35. McIlroy J. (2020) ‘ Slavery endemic to Australian history’, Green Left Weekly, (1269), p. 9. [Google Scholar]
  36. McMahon M. (2012) Personal Experiences as an Aboriginal family Services 2009–2012. Unpublished
  37. Modderman, C., McMahon, M., Threlkeld, G., & McPherson, L. (2020). Transnational Social Workers’ Understanding of Australian First Nations Perspectives in Statutory Child Protection. Australian Social Work, 1-13. 10.1080/0312407X.2020.1771389 [Google Scholar]
  38.  Moreton-Robinson, A., & Walter, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies in social research. In M. Walter (Ed.), Social Research Methods: (4 ed., pp. 1-18). Oxford University Press.  . [Google Scholar]
  39. Muir N., Bohr Y. (2019) ‘ Contemporary practice of traditional Aboriginal child rearing: A review’, First Peoples Child & Family Review, 14(1), pp. 153–65. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nicoson C., von Uexkull N., Haugen-Poljac I., Henriksen T., Syvertsen T., Tønnessen-Krokan M. (2019) Overlapping Vulnerabilities: The Impacts of Climate Change on Humanitarian Needs, available online at: https://www.rodekors.no/globalassets/english-pages/english-content/norwegian-redcross_report_overlapping-vulnerabilities.pdf (accessed November 7, 2020).
  41.  Noble, C. (2018). Social work, collective action and social movements: Re-thematising the local-global nexus. In L. Dominelli (Ed.), Revitalising communities in a globalising world (pp. 95-104). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  42. Noble C., Ottmann G. (2018) ‘ Nationalist populism and social work’, Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 3(3), pp. 112–20. [Google Scholar]
  43. Payne M., Askeland G. A. (2016) Globalization and International Social Work: Postmodern Change and Challenge, London, Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  44. Pazderka H., Desjarlais B., Makokis L., MacArthur C., Steinhauer S., Hapchyn C. A., Hanson T., Van Kuppeveld N., Bodor R. (2014) ‘Nitsiyihkason: The brain science behind Cree teachings of early childhood attachment’, First Peoples Child & Family Review, 9(1), pp. 53–65. [Google Scholar]
  45. Peters M. A. (2019) ‘ The ‘crooked timber’of humanitarianism’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(12), pp. 1179–86. [Google Scholar]
  46. Power T., Wilson D., Best O., Brockie T., Bourque Bearskin L., Millender E., Lowe J. (2020) ‘ COVID‐19 and indigenous peoples: An imperative for action’, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(15–16), pp. 2737–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Przybyla S. M., Kathman J. D. (2020) ‘Understanding violence against civilians by government and rebel forces: Perspectives from political science and health behavior’, in Smith K. H., Ram P. K. (eds), Transforming Global Health, New York, NY, Springer. [Google Scholar]
  48. Purkayastha B. (2018) ‘ Migration, migrants, and human security’, Current Sociology, 66(2), pp. 167–91. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ramachandran V., Walz J. (2015) ‘ Haiti: Where has all the money gone?’, Journal of Haitian Studies, 21(1), pp. 26–65. [Google Scholar]
  50. Roepstorff K. (2020) ‘ A call for critical reflection on the localisation agenda in humanitarian action’, Third World Quarterly, 41(2), pp. 284–301. [Google Scholar]
  51. Ryan F. (2011) ‘ Kanyininpa (Holding): A way of nurturing children in Aboriginal Australia’, Australian Social Work, 64(2), pp. 183–97. [Google Scholar]
  52. Sandvik K. B., Jacobsen K. L., McDonald S. M. (2017) ‘ Do no harm: A taxonomy of the challenges of humanitarian experimentation’, International Review of the Red Cross, 99(904), pp. 319–44. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sengul K. (2019) ‘ Critical discourse analysis in political communication research: A case study of right-wing populist discourse in Australia’, Communication Research and Practice, 5(4), pp. 376–92. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sepúlveda Carmona M. (2017) ‘ Ensuring inclusion and combatting discrimination in social protection programmes: The role of human rights standards’, International Social Security Review, 70(4), pp. 13–43. [Google Scholar]
  55. Spiegel P. B. (2017) ‘ The humanitarian system is not just broke, but broken: Recommendations for future humanitarian action’, The Lancet. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Steinhauer E. (2002) ‘ Thoughts on an Indigenous research methodology’, Canadian Journal of Native Education, 26(2), p. 69. [Google Scholar]
  57. Truelove S., Abrahim O., Altare C., Lauer S. A., Grantz K. H., Azman A. S., Spiegel P. (2020) ‘ The potential impact of COVID-19 in refugee camps in Bangladesh and beyond: A modeling study’, PLoS Medicine, 17(6), pp. e1003144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Tull K. (2020) Responsible Exit from Humanitarian Interventions. K4D Helpdesk Report 791. Brighton, Institute of Development Studies. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ungunmerr-Baumann M.-R. D. (2002) Inner Deep Listening and Quiet Still Awareness, Daly River, Emmaus Productions, p. 14. [Google Scholar]
  60. UNOCHA (2019) ‘Global Humanitarian Overview 2019’, available online at: https://www.unocha.org/publication/global-humanitarian-overview/global-humanitarian-overview-2019 (accessed November 7, 2020).
  61. Vannini S., Gomez R., Newell B. C. (2020) ‘ Mind the Five’: Guidelines for data privacy and security in humanitarian work with undocumented migrants and other vulnerable populations’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(8), pp. 927–38. [Google Scholar]
  62. Yeatman A., Penglase J. (2009) Individualization and the Delivery of Welfare Services: Contestation and Complexity., London, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 142–64. [Google Scholar]
  63. Zaviršek D. (2017) ‘ The humanitarian crisis of migration versus the crisis of humanitarianism: Current dimensions and challenges for social work practice’, Social Work Education, 36(3), pp. 231–44. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zolnikov T. R., Zolnikov T. (2018) ‘ Changing tradition in the humanitarian sector: The business model approach of the Kenya Red Cross’, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 12(1), pp. 3–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Zubrzycki, J., Green, S., Jones, V., Stratton, K., Young, S., & Bessarab, D. (2014). Getting it right: Creating partnerships for change. Integrating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges in social work education and practice. Journal of Ethnic And Cultural Diversity in Social Work,. 9(1), 179–197. 10.1080/15313204.2013.843120 [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Social Work are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES