Values Building in Social Work Education in Visegrad Countries: Integrated Approach

Abstract

Many key aspects of social work education are not sufficiently researched, and our knowledge of how students build values in social work education, despite its importance for creating concepts about values and their application in practice, is underexplored. The research aims to evaluate the perspective of social work students in the process of values building in social work education in Visegrad countries (V4 countries: Czech Republic (CZ), Hungary (HU), Poland (PL), and Slovakia (SK)) and to determine the implementation for achieving and strengthening an integrated approach in this process. The research was carried out using a qualitative research strategy interviewing 86 students from 10 universities in V4 countries. The research results show that the V4 countries share some common threats to values building in social work education: contextual threats such as an increasing impact of neoliberalism and internal threats, such as a non-existent systemic concept of values building education.

1. Introduction

The building of professional identity starts with professional education. Values of a profession are the cornerstone of its existence, as they support: (a) the creation of social workers’ identity and integrity; (b) setting up a “professional approach to social work” [1]; (c) coping with the (emotionally) demanding nature of the practice and emerging dilemmas.

Despite the fact that values are one of the key aspects of social work education, they are not sufficiently researched [2,3]. The subject of our interest in the area of values building is not only education on values, but also the building of social work values in students. A mere education on values would be an example fitting the literature of the already outdated assumption of a linear relationship between theory, applied theory, and practice. In contrast, we understand values building in social work education as an example of an integrated approach, where the theory both informs and develops from practice [1,4,5]. The emphasis of the research is therefore on values building in social work education, which includes not only students acquiring knowledge about values, but also their understanding of values (through self-experience), strengthening students’ growth in social work through the internalization of values and building their ability to apply values in practice (when solving dilemma situations). This seems to be distinguished in today’s social work by a number of directives, manuals, and codes (whether at the micro-level of practice in a particular organization, the meso-level of a professional association/the state, or the macro-level in the sense of international associations of social workers) which social work graduates are expected to follow, questioning whether values building in social work education is absolutely necessary. These materials are to some extent instructive in terms of phenomena, situations, and risks to be explored, but are less so in terms of values and the methods to interpret them [6]. Thus, it is the social workers themselves who form ideas about what social work is, what role it should fulfill and what its values are [7,8].

Thus, it seems that despite the existence of all these “instructions”, the ability to independently create ideas about the values of social work and apply them in practice is absolutely vital for social work graduates, especially given the growing complexity of the life situations of clients and social work practice, where the moral dimension of work often becomes invisible and, due to the impacts of technical rationality, routine practices predominate in the moral aspects of social work [9,10].

The presented paper therefore aims to evaluate through the perspective of social work students the values-building process in social work education in Visegrad countries, and to determine the implementation for achieving and enhancing an integrated educational approach in this process.

2. Professional Values and Their Building in Social Work Education

Social work is a profession rooted in values. Values thus become the “central pillar of social work’s essence” [11]. Banks [12] notes that values constitute the basis of a practitioner’s behavior and their self-organization; they make it easier for the practitioner to orientate themselves in the job tasks, roles and identities and serve as a kind of control mechanism for the “correct performance” of social work.

As the paper title suggests, the authors emphasize the processual dimension of values-building activity and its complexity. Thus, we reject the fundamental/essentialist positions, in which the axiological references of activity and values are situated externally to the field of activity, in the form of a set of norms and values recognized as worthy. Despite this, the fundamental positions are easier to implement in the project of education for the field of practice, and they are easy to adapt to ready-made patterns and procedures. We tend to a constructivist perspective of shaping values, in the process of education for the field of practice, that requires the acceptance of a position with values agreed in interaction with the Other. Values are referred to as “active”, relational values created in the relational process with oneself and with the Other. We understand them rather as a representation arising in a relationship with ourselves and with others, and not directly as the worth for which we strive and which we want to achieve.

The attractiveness of the constructivist conception is expressed primarily in the possibility of the introduction to action in the field of practice (in this case, social work) elements of creative problem-solving, in agreement and interaction with the Other. It is expressed by an integrated relational process, constituting a set of experiences of actors that are characterized by continuation and interaction [13].

The educational process of preparing for social work is understood analogously, where the idea of shaping the axiological foundations of professional activity penetrates through all its components. Values are situated in the field of activity, not outside of it. This is the key premise of the concept of an introduction into the world of values in the course of education, to take up an activity in the field of practice presented here. The most important goal of education is to raise awareness of the sense and importance of the adopted orientation of activity. The key is to become aware of the preference of choice. For this reason, we pay attention not only to how we understand values agreed in mediation in relation to the Other but also to valorization, a necessary element of which is the awareness of the preference of choice. In the background to the entire analysis, there is education for social work, understood to a greater extent as a space for exchange and sharing meanings rather than just the transfer of knowledge and values. It is a space of experiences [13,14], constantly subject to a process of reconstruction and reorganization. This process is conducive to building an integrated view of activity in the field of practice (social/societal work).

Such a process requires focusing education not only on shaping skills, competencies, and the transfer of knowledge, but also on individual development, on the person.

3. Legislative Context of the Social Work Profession, and Education in Social Work and Social Care Services in the V4 Countries

In the Czech Republic (CZ), Poland (PL) and Slovakia (SK), the social work profession, considered a “regulated profession”, is covered by the national law that requires a tertiary education-level degree, i.e., from a higher vocational school degree to the Ph.D. level (with the exception of Poland). The social worker’s profession is not a “regulated one” in Hungary. There are several types of job where a social-work B.A. is one of the possible degrees defined by the law (e.g., in mainstream social advice centers, child welfare centers). However, in other types of social services (e.g., homelessness services) the role of “social helper” can be filled by a person with any degree—or even without one. Our research is focused on the university education of future social workers.

The practice of social workers in V4 countries is governed by the National Codes of Ethics (adopted in 1997—Slovakia, 1998—Poland, 2006—Czech Republic, or last revised in 2016 (2000)—Hungary), which refer to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the European Social Charter, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, other national legislation and the IFSW Code of Ethics. The national codes usually rely on their previous version before 2018 (except Hungary), when the Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles was accepted.

The state of values building in social work education is closely connected to the very concept of education in V4 countries. The V4 countries work with an explicitly defined competence model of education, referring to the framework for qualifications for the European higher education area (QF–EHEA) and the standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area (ESG).

At universities, the education of future social workers is implemented in study programs subject to accreditation by the relevant institutions: national ministries of education, national accreditation agencies and/or other relevant subjects as ministries of social affairs (CZ and Hungary (HU)) or national associations of educators in social work. At the declaratory level presented by the accreditation files of social work study programs, knowledge and skills in the area of values are an integral part of the graduate’s profile and learning outcomes.

4. Methodology

The research aimed to analyze the practices of values building in social work education in V4 countries from the perspective of social work students. In order to meet the set research objective, we used comparative research to gain a deeper insight into a specific social reality. As part of comparative research design, we decided to use Bereday’s research procedure, which includes the following stages: (1) the selection of a problem or phenomenon to be analyzed comparatively; (2) collecting and sorting data concerning a particular problem in selected countries; (3) data interpretation with the use of knowledge and competences in the disciplines which are connected to the understanding of the examined phenomenon in its contemporary context; (4) juxtaposition (listing information, pointing at similarities and differences) of the interpreted data to be used as a means to discover the possible sources of comparisons; (5) formulating the hypotheses resulting from the comparative analysis of the interpreted data and drawing conclusions [15] (p. 299). Qualitative research has a strong tradition within comparative research due to its holistic and interpretive nature [16].

To collect data, we used semi-structured interviews focused on the following aspects: the most important values, setup of values-building training (e.g., subjects, training, methods), strengths, development areas, opportunities, threats in values building in social work education and recommendations. The questions were determined on the basis of an effort to comprehensively evaluate the subject of research, within the approach of creative SWAT analysis. The interviews were conducted in the national languages and the data obtained were then translated into a (shared) English language.

To select students, we used intentional criterion sampling: (a) experience in studying in a Bachelor’s degree program in social work (or the equivalent of social work in a given country); (b) having completed at least the first year of the Bachelor’s degree program/enrolment in at least the second year of the Bachelor’s program; (c) active studies at the university; (d) selection of students from at least two universities in each of the V4 countries; e) voluntary participation in research. A total of 86 students (Hungary—29, Poland—20, Slovakia—15, Czech Republic—22) from 10 different universities (Hungary—2, Poland—3, Slovakia—2, Czech Republic—3) participated in the research. A total of 68 Bachelor’s students and 17 Master’s students took part in the research (mostly first-year students who reflected on their completed Bachelor’s degree). All students (except 5 from Poland) were full-time students. Four research teams interviewed students so that students could complete the interview in their native language.

Specifically, we can describe the characteristics of informants by country. Of the total number of 72 women, there were 21 from Hungary, 17 from Poland, 13 from Slovakia and 21 from the Czech Republic. Of the total number of 15 men, there were 8 from Hungary, 3 from Poland, 2 from Slovakia and 2 from the Czech Republic. Of the total number of 68 Bachelor’s students, there were 21 from Hungary, 16 from Poland, 15 from Slovakia and 16 from the Czech Republic. Of the total number of 17 Master’s students, there were 8 from Hungary, 4 from Poland and 5 from the Czech Republic.

Data were analyzed using thematic analysis according to Braun and Clarke [17], where data were subject to open coding and then grouped into specific topics (i.e., content-meaning units in the data) based on their similarity or difference. We used the content analysis by Braun and Clarke [17] because it is based on constructivist principles of working with data that are considered to be interpretively co-created in the interaction between the researcher and the content items communicated by the informants.

The research study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of human research, adopted by the American Psychological Association (APA) [18]. Each informant was informed about the research goals and the use of data. Participation in the research was voluntary. Special attention was paid to preserving anonymity and confidentiality in relation to the informants.

Reflecting on the research limits, we took into consideration that: (a) the research is based on the participant statements, meaning that these statements may be formulated according to possible social desirability (that can be understood as a degree of readiness to behave and act as the communication partner thinks the researcher expects), and the data were acquired within self-reflection of the participants, i.e., the data of their consciousness (e.g., [19]); (b) the researchers also realized the existence of their own pre-understanding of the researched phenomenon, which was given by experience in the field of social workers’ education and the study of the issue in the professional literature. In order to avoid the impact of this pre-understanding on the data generated, the findings were subject to regular reflection (c.f. [20]); (c) the research was carried out using a non-probability sample of participants, which makes it impossible to generalize the data obtained (which is limiting to any qualitative research); and (d) different researchers conducted the interviews—due to the fact that data emerge in the interaction between a researcher and a research participant, and this could affect the nature of the data itself.

The data were also validated by the triangulation of people analyzing the data, where the data were independently analyzed by several researchers and the resulting analysis was the subject of their consensus. The validity was confirmed in the sense of gaining a good understanding from different perspectives of an investigated phenomenon.

5. Data Analysis and Interpretation

Our research intention was to compare the arguments of students from V4 countries, built around the main thematic lines of the interviews. Analytical comparison of the data showed that students from V4 countries came to similar conclusions based on individual arguments. These conclusions are not only useful for the development of values building in social work education, but they also draw attention to many areas to be developed, problems, threats and challenges in the area of values building in social work education that are jointly shared by the V4 countries. The data analysis and interpretation are divided into several topics: the topic of “important” values in social work from the perspective of students; the topic of the non-existent concept of values building in social-work education as the ideal of integrated values teaching and its components; and finally, the topic of neoliberal values and a view of social work from a public perspective as a threat to values building in social work education. We will now progress to the analysis and interpretation of individual topics, while using significant statements of informants to complete the illustration.

5.1. “Important” Values in Social Work from the Students’ Perspective

Firstly, we need to state that the topic of values in social work was perceived by all informants as very important, regardless of their nationality or study at a particular institution, because values determine the quality of social work.

Students were recommended to pay attention to the issue of values, which, through educational classes, allows them to change their own thinking and perceptions of other people, shaping their attitude towards future professional work, transforming themselves, maturing to a critical reflection on values, their own beliefs, and system of values. However, doubts also emerge in this area.

When asked about the importance of social work values, the research informants primarily mentioned the values that social workers should follow when working with an individual client. These were values close to, for example, the principles of Biestek [21], such as individualization, acceptance, a non-judgmental attitude, self-determination, and discretion.

Values emphasizing people’s social anchoring and working with social structures in which people live (see [22], e.g., Principle 7 and Principle 3.5) were often mentioned only in their response to a supplementary question (and only by adding that they are also important without the informants being able to elaborate on them any further). These mentioned values included the promotion of human rights, dealing with people as holistic beings, and solidarity.

Informants also often differed in interpreting some of the values present in the Declaration of the International Federation of Social Workers on Ethical Principles [22], such as social change and solidarity. Social change as the goal of social work was understood by informants in the sense of the change and self-development of the individual, rather than the initiation of change in social structures. The value of solidarity was often interpreted differently from what is present in IFSW [22]. While according to Principle 3.5, the building of solidarity is more broadly understood as active work: “Social workers actively work in communities and with their colleagues, within and outside of the profession, to build networks of solidarity to work toward transformational change and inclusive and responsible societies”—which informants often reduced to interpersonal relationships—“so that they’re motivated to work on their change and to try to solve their situation” (illustrative statement). Thus, solidarity was not understood as a change-supporting principle in society, in which everyone can actively participate, but as a purposeful means to motivate clients for an individual change.

One interesting phenomenon that has shown up in the informants’ responses is that the values oriented to good practice such as the education and skills of social workers, their efficacy and usefulness, legitimacy, cooperation and responsibility, truthfulness and internal integrity (“the ability to know where I am standing in a situation and why” (CZ1)), which began to be thematized at the turn of the millennium [23], were mentioned as something rather supplementary in relation to the emphasis on cooperation and relationships with other colleagues and organization (employer) and in relation to a possible collision between a social worker’s personal values and the values or interests of the client.

A Non-Existent Concept of Values Building in Social Work Education

Students mentioned four specific types of subject course, where they encountered a focus on building values in social work, including: (a) subjects focused on the theories and methods of social work or directly on the ethics of social work; (b) practical subjects and subjects focused on the reflection of practice (e.g., case studies seminars), where practical subjects connected with reflection were referred to as the “sovereign territory of values”; (c) subjects dealing with specific target groups, such as people with disabilities, substance abusers, or the elderly; and (d) subjects focused on specific forms of social work associated with self-experience (e.g., crisis intervention or socio-psychological training). It was typical for subject courses (b) to (d) that they focused not only on the development of reflexivity in students, but also on the development of an empathetic, sensitive approach to another person and the value of getting to know and trying to understand the point of view of the Other.

The teaching of values thus permeates the entire study of social work. Students presented a certain ambivalent evaluation in relation to values education, where on the one hand they appreciated the integration of values orientation in subjects and the possibility of reflexively applying values within self-experience or practical training experience (while building a certain sensitivity to human dignity and human rights). On the other hand, they stated that the topic of values is not built in coherently and continuously during the educational process, in the sense of a specific concept of teaching values, in which not only is there consensus among teachers, but also that this consensus is regularly reflected and “updated” in order to have a systematic concept of teaching values. Students also often agreed that the values were present in the subjects rather implicitly, without reflecting the fact that value topics emerged within other subject matter (“we also came across it (i.e., the values) without naming it” (CZ1), so that the students had to create a certain connection of the presented subject matter with the values separately in their minds (“It seems to me that it’s present in all subjects—I don’t know if it’s emphasized in every subject that it’s about values—but I sense it there” (CZ4). “In several subjects, from the experience of teachers, I deduced those values, from their storytelling … I don’t remember any specific subjects or situations, but in general, I learn from the experience of our teachers” (SK1). Another common theme in students’ narratives was an ambivalence in relation to the need to memorize values, which was considered ineffective, because the values did not become to be understood, but also were not internalized, and thus the students’ ability to practically implement them in specific situations failed. “There’s a difference between students learning from university study materials compared to dilemma-solving” (CZ2). “It was treated as something to memorize instead of something to internalize” (PL6).

5.2. An Ideal of Integrated Values Teaching and Its Components

In the category of didactic methods, which introduced the values of social work, students distinguished between the form of (a) experience (case studies, model situations, discussions, etc.): “They were mainly examples from practice… I mean teaching through experience, where we were able to try specific techniques in real-life situations, for example, guiding a blind person… I personally prefer practical training rather than austere interpretation… and gaining experience in terms of experience with others, the situation, but also experiencing myself…” (CZ9) or at least the teacher’s shared experience: “We most often talk about cases. These cases appeal to me… our lecturers have extensive experience, precisely in this field of social work, and each of them has a great deal of experience with people”(PL10); and the form of (b) “memorizing” (lectures, reading, essay writing). At the same time, the experiences were seen as something “more than theory” (SK4).

Students considered the integrated teaching of values to be an ideal, which in their minds seemed like teaching in the form of experience acquired in practice or a model situation followed upon by discussion and reflection, where they were given the opportunity to apply values and their own self-reflection. From the students’ point of view, theoretical acquaintance with the values (what they are and what they are about) was not enough; they needed a practical demonstration of the application of these values when dealing with unfavorable situations. “I consider it important to connect theory with practice—I perceive it as a strength that we have a practical training…that we’re not just reading the code of ethics and pondering about it”. (CZ3) “Most of my courses touched on values, but unfortunately I don’t recall it getting any special attention”. (HU1) Students looked to the teaching of values in social work to engage them not only intellectually but also emotionally.

The teacher, as a certain mediator of knowledge and experience, an instigator of the atmosphere in teaching, and a value model was perceived as an important element in education about values. “The most important thing for me is not the particular teaching methods, but rather the teachers’ approach to students… that they’re role models… for example in communication with students… that they treat them as equals. Students know that if there’s a problem, they can come to the teacher and they’ll solve it together… this becomes then inscribed in the student’s personality and he/she can then go and deal with clients… What I mean is that teachers are in a certain position of power with us… and we as future social workers will also be in a position of power… and here comes a positive model how to behave in such a position…” (CZ11). “The teachers are role models for us as well. Me personally, I like most listening to the experience of the teacher; especially when it is very interesting, and the story is really captivating, more than theory” (SK4). The teacher’s attitude, distinguished by understanding rather than labeling, was especially appreciated (students thus pointed out the importance of consistency between the conveyed educational content and the teacher’s behavior).

At the same time, the teachers’ experience from practice was evaluated very positively, when, from the students’ perspective, there was a connection between “know that” and “know how”. “We’re taught by educators who have practical experience, so we can try to practice dealing with clients during our practical training. Experiencing the practice is the most important thing. Certainly, for example, we like to study model situations where we don’t know what we’re going into and our teachers are trying to model them for us as they have experienced it, so we become ready for the actions and behaviors of those clients” (CZ17). “I had a teacher who worked with people with mental problems. Because of him, I look at these people differently” (HU2). Students also stated that they would appreciate the possibility of personal consultations with a teacher regarding values, in the form of a certain supervision which created a space for them to have an extensive discussion with the supervisor about the situations, even problematic ones, that they have experienced in practice, and about the ethical dilemmas they face in acquiring practical skills.

In the context of the above, informants considered it would be ideal to create a special course entirely devoted to discussing cases in terms of the issue of values. According to the students’ perspective, this subject course should be anchored in the axiology of values (the study of the nature of values, their place in the structure of social reality, interrelations and hierarchy, and their function in the process of human activity), where specific practical experiences would be discussed from the perspective of theoretical concepts and led by a teacher with practical experience in the field of social work. However, the students themselves reflected that such teaching places high demands on a teacher (i.e., teacher’s communication skills—especially the ability to prepare arguments, integrity, but also the knowledge base) and on a teaching format, where somewhat smaller groups are more suitable for such teaching. In a subject with more than fifty students in full-time study, this is quite demanding both in terms of time, personnel and organization. However, in such a form of teaching, students highly appreciated the opportunity to try the application of values in solving complex problems from practice, thus building their own value integrity as social workers, and avoiding possible mistakes in real life with a client. The emphasis was therefore placed on building self-knowledge: “There should be a much higher emphasis on awareness-raising, to help students find their own sensitive spots and work with these. For example, why do some students feel they cannot work with certain target groups? Their self-knowledge often is very poor, it would be good to work on it more, develop it within their studies” (HU3).

At the same time, students perceived the opportunity to learn to communicate about values and build argumentation skills as a benefit of such teaching, which could eventually help to defend the practice of social workers based on the values of social work: “the subject course where we will learn to talk and argue those opinions. As of now, we don’t know how to stand up for these values” (CZ14).

Research informants also considered it appropriate to further develop didactic methods in building values, so that their learning was not just about the creativity of a particular teacher. Therefore, it is not enough only to find agreement on key values and codes of ethics amongst the teachers of a certain institution, but it would also be appropriate to pay attention to the teaching methods. If this does not happen, there is a risk that the teaching will tend to be more theoretical, as pointed out by CZ16: “We often learn only the code of ethics, but we see no continuity with practice. They often ask us to memorize a code of ethics and values, but there is no continuity with the practice…they don’t say that a particular value leads to what the client is like and how he/she would change his/her situation. We know this in theory but don’t know how to use it practically”. What we certainly found interesting was that students, regarding the development of didactic methods, positively evaluated methods that allowed them to gain experience with values in environments other than the compulsory practical training within the study. In this context, students mentioned not only the provision of administrative support in arranging volunteer activities by the university, but also the possibility of going on a practical training exchange abroad, where they could gain perspective in the field of values through sharing experiences of practice in different environments and countries. Some students also considered their participation in debate nights, discussions, socio-camps, and protests to be a part of their practical education.

The last area that students reflected in their narratives was the number of hours of practical training and the quality of organizations that allow students to practice. Several informants agreed that there should be “more of a practical training” (SK3), e.g., one month per semester, plus practical training should be adjusted so that students can encounter a wide range of target groups to help make a decision on which ones to work with in their future career, but also which not to work with. Regarding the selection of quality organizations, students related their need to receive practical training in organizations where it is possible to meet “good examples of the application of values in practice” (CZ7) This topic was also associated with the need to be actually involved as students in the organization’s life, and to receive an opportunity to interact with clients, not merely serving as an auxiliary labor force and “for sorting client files”.

In conclusion, we need to add that students have repeatedly reflected in their narratives on the COVID-19 pandemic and its threatening impact on teaching, with reference to the creation of integrated value teaching. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, education was transferred to the online environment, and practical training was limited by the restrictions of the V4 governments or banned altogether. Students described the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on teaching as a threat to teaching values, because there is a lack of direct contact with lecturers and other students, and a lack of the interactive education that students considered to be the most appropriate method for values education. Personality development training is not particularly successful online: “… the current pandemic situation. How can we acquire values when everything related to study and practice is restricted? And who knows how long it will take. That’s a big threat right now” (SK6). “If you do not have practical contact with another person, you will not practice these values, you will not practice all the things that have been learned…” (PL5).

5.3. Neoliberal Values and a View of Social Work from a Public Perspective as a Threat to Values Building in Social Work Education

In their narratives, many students feared that social work values would change in a way that could be described as neo-liberalization. In particular, they feared the prevailing idea of individualism, which is typical of neoliberal states: “I’m quite afraid that due to the era in which we are living…how people think due to individualism…that those values will disappear…because of the state. We can already see in practice that those practitioners prefer different values. It’s important to remember what the original ideas of social work were, and that a code of ethics exists is nice, but no one will follow it anymore” (CZ15). Students therefore reflected the values of social work in the context of social values. The important social processes that they mentioned included the growing individualism corresponding to the values of neoliberalism. At the same time, their answers indicate a clear tension between the values of contemporary neoliberal society and contemporary social work, namely, between the declared professional values and the values of practitioners. Neoliberal values are perceived as a threat that can result in a change in the nature and values of social work.

Other students also reflected on threats that can be considered attributes of neoliberalism, such as the inclination of social work toward a controlling role or the standardization of social work. According to CZ13, social pressure on a controlling role of social work can be a threat to its values: “…and the values of social work will change completely, for example, we will move from the concept of help to the role of ‘soft cops’; we will become social workers similar to those at an employment office, who serve mainly society by controlling their clients, but I hope that academia will not allow this”. Therefore, students feared that social work would become an agent of society (a passive control instrument mitigating the problems of individuals and social groups) assigned to the need for social change and, in the case of academic research, also for critical reflection, which should be the role of academia.

Another consequence of the neo-liberalization of society that has been emphasized by students is the possible impact of economic cuts or underfunding of values building education in social work. The lack of funding for education may result in a lack of experts teaching at universities, and in social work practitioners no longer receiving training in social work values but instead training in areas that are affordable for their employers. They may also prefer “hard skills”, which are easier to grasp by employers without a professional identity—for example, software handling at the expense of social work values.

In their discussions, students talked about two further consequences, or rather the categories of feared consequences that the above-described application of neoliberal ideals to social work could have. It was a negative perception of social work as a field of study and profession, and the associated lack of interest of students in values.

Students often stated that social work values may be also threatened in the future by a negative perception of social work by the public and politicians. The lack of appreciation and respect for social work could lead to an increasingly bigger devaluation of social work and a departure from its key values. For example, CZ14 or SK2 were afraid that social workers could give up on some social work values under the influence of this negative view: “…that it’s not viewed as a super work position…that they’re not well paid and are underappreciated…it poses a great threat in that social workers may have a seed of doubt about themselves, e.g., ‘So, I work with such a target group, so why I do actually take them for what they are, when I know much better what their lives should look like. So, I’ll do it my way, I won’t take them as they are. Maybe the public will respect me more that I managed the situation and didn’t involve the client in it’”. The value of respect for the client therefore seemed to be under threat for this student.

The acceptance of values may also be jeopardized by the students’ lack of interest in values. According to some informants, some students may be motivated to choose a field only to receive a university degree, but they do not really identify with the profession and understand social work only as a source of livelihood, not really caring about it. They are not interested in values, only in learning the necessary information by heart. Several informants believed that the values of study applicants were changing—similarly to society as a whole, they resigned themselves to promoting solidarity. It is then difficult to teach them the value of solidarity when applied in professional practice. The students associated similar difficulties with the value of empathy, which weakens due to the development of social networks. “There are a lot of fellow students who study for a degree and don’t want to be social workers… these are the ones who often profess values other than the values of social work. In my opinion, students should be selected differently than according to test results. You should be able to recognize who is appropriate for the field…” (CZ4).

In this context, students stated that values education in social work, in the clash of perspectives between society’s values and the values of social work, would be beneficial for them. “For example, teaching as part of the debate about dilemmas, the differences in the values of society and social work, but also about some limits in those values, such as the fact that a professional social worker must also have some limits when adhering to those values… I mean, the respect has its limits too…” (CZ12). Another recommendation was to focus on teaching values through the clash of value perspectives of different individuals and interest groups: “I would like to be educated in values through the clash of different values… for example, in discussions with colleagues with different values on a particular topic … Values are not facts… they need to be discussed… it’s also about the fact that I have my values, my classmates have theirs… and I expect some values from them and they expect the same from me, so it’s interesting to sometimes see and learn from the clashes… The values need to be developed in students through a conflict of opinions…” (CZ5).

The students also recommended the need to reorganize values education, which in contemporary practice focuses on values as an ideal. As a result, there is a common practice that students confuse this ideal with real working life and then they are disappointed. “Everything is connected with ‘good’ and with the fact that everything must lead to good… for me it was surprising that throughout the whole study it’s been suggested that the social worker is the one who is good, has good values … and then we start working in the practice and learn that they’re ordinary people” (CZ2). Overall, informants consider the transition from theoretical to practical education to be extremely burdensome. It is because students try to achieve the ideal under all circumstances, which by its definition cannot be fulfilled. They therefore consider the ideal to be the norm. The consequence, which poses a threat not merely to education in social work, is the disconnection of theory and practice, because “it’s not always in our power to preserve values—there are some organizational settings that don’t allow us to preserve our values and force us to bend our values a little” (CZ6). Therefore, according to the students’ suggestions, it would be appropriate to talk preventively in the values education sessions that social workers are also just human, and that includes making mistakes: “I would stress more that people are not just… black and white… and can make mistakes, so that there’s some room for doing things that don’t always lead to the absolute good” (CZ7).

6. Discussion and Conclusions

The answers to some of the questions showed that students are often not entirely clear about social work values, tending to confuse them with client rights, communication with the client, or attitudes toward the client. This points to the need in the teaching to clarify in more detail the relationship between values and frameworks, in which the values are implemented, or key relational concepts. This corresponds to the fact that social work is beginning to lose an understanding (shared in the profession) of how social work works and what values it considers important [24].

Despite this, the “know that” and “know how” division still applies in student education, in universities versus practice settings, and in academics versus practitioners. These oppositional dualities create a misconception among social work students that there is a duality of critical thinking (which is developed within university education) and practice wisdom, which is exclusively a matter of real-life practice (and can be defined as the competence to apply practical knowledge and update the social work values through a process of engagement with clients [25].

Glumbíková et al. [1] point out that practice wisdom is created precisely due to reflective thinking about the practice of social work, of which the ability to think critically is certainly a condition. Likewise, the wisdom of practice cannot be excluded from the educational process of social workers. On the contrary, the integration of both critical thinking and practice wisdom creates the potential for the development of quality social work graduates who are equipped both theoretically and practically.

In the paper by Thompson and Craft [5], the authors assume (and also try to verify) that it is due to the duality described above that social work students consider the development of personal values and abilities aimed at casework with an individual client more important than the development of social values, i.e., focused beyond the student, on the society and achieving of social change (e.g., development of social policies).

This was also related to how professionalism in social work is defined and when, in seeking a definition of professionalism, the definitions of personal professional skills related to individual values prevail over skills aimed at promoting social values. Thus, there is a superiority of individual values over supra-individual (group or social) values, which affects the concept of professionalism in social work. The logic of students in thinking about the need to develop their own values is then clear, assuming that the student who will meet the definition of a professional is more applicable in the labor market: the development of personal values is more important.

This can lead to two undesirable situations. First, the educational system prepares future social workers purposefully for the market-defined requirements of social work performance. Second, the educational system prepares graduates who are not willing to adjust social work to match market requirements, which makes them undesirable for a market-oriented system.

The need for integrated education, where “know that” and “know how” and the intellectual and emotional components of education (“memorize” vs “internalize”, “experience” vs “memorizing”) are not detached, can also be demonstrated by the fact that contemporary theory in social work is often anchored outside a social worker, where the theory is defined as a certain “authority” or a social identifier (the specifics of the profession), or in opposition to everyday practice as “no practice”. If the theory is perceived as an authority, it is given to a social worker from outside as something legitimate and unchangeable; something that can provide the social worker with guidance and that is superior to the worker’s own experience or knowledge [26].

The theory is supposed to clearly explain what values are, what their resources are, to interpret their content and to explain their relationship to the process of working with the client, to communication with the client, to human rights and other key aspects of social work. At the same time, this theory should be connected with the practicing of values application, emphasizing an experiential form of learning (practical examples, model situations, analysis of case studies, self-reflection exercises, practice). Thanks to an integrated approach in values teaching, students could become reflective co-creators of values and knowledge in social work and not just passive receivers of knowledge (c.f. [27]).

Moreover, the integrated approach in education may result in the support of a social worker’s autonomy not to blindly follow the rules without any reflection, as well as in the support of reflective perception of an error in social work as an opportunity to learn and develop (c.f. [28,29]). Therefore, the educational process of social workers should not be based only on a mere explanation or mere practical experience through compulsory practice, but on their interconnection through experiential learning, case-based (fictional cases, dilemma cases, etc.) stories, and on problem-based learning (which requires decision-making by a student) (similarly, see [30]).

The key variable of successful education appears to be teachers who have practical experience in the application of both values and didactic teaching methods. This can lead not only to the requirement of systemic support of teachers’ practice at universities, for example, in the form of active support of their work in a practical sector, but also to the requirement of financial and time support of teacher education (not only toward the values themselves, but also toward the teaching didactics). It would also be appropriate to support the involvement of practitioners in the teaching process. This can be problematic at some universities because faculty management does not understand the requirement, or see why it should financially support practitioners while employing their own lecturers with university degrees.

All of the above should be part of a comprehensive program of values education, which would be created and regularly updated through values education teachers’ discussion and their regular meetings in cooperation with teachers of all subject courses where values can be projected, so that values are not just the “un-named”, implicit content of teaching, but they receive a solid place in teaching corresponding to their importance in social work.

The presented research will be followed by a quantitative research survey, in which the topics created within the framework of qualitative research will be measured (in all countries together and in individual countries separately). The aim of this procedure is to obtain the most comprehensive knowledge in relation to the studied phenomenon using the synergy of qualitative and quantitative research.