This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 23 October 2014, At: 00:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social Work Education: TheInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cswe20

Studying the Landscape: PracticeLearning for Social Work ReconsideredAvril BellingerPublished online: 06 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Avril Bellinger (2010) Studying the Landscape: Practice Learning for SocialWork Reconsidered, Social Work Education: The International Journal, 29:6, 599-615, DOI:10.1080/02615470903508743

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615470903508743

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Studying the Landscape: PracticeLearning for Social Work ReconsideredAvril Bellinger

This paper offers a critical analysis of the development and erosion of the infrastructure forpractice learning in England over the past two decades. Although specifically focused onsocial work it illustrates the way resources can be eroded and so has implications for other

professions regulated by government. During the first decade under consideration, UKsupport for social work practice learning was characterised by an acknowledged

pedagogical purpose, nationally agreed standards, economic resources and a recognisedstatus distinct from practice. In the following decade, a range of technical and

administrative changes have resulted in the landscape of practice learning shifting withpotentially serious consequences for the profession. At the time of writing, social work

education is facing another review, prompted by the death of a child. The intention of thepaper is to show how changes and improvements may be viewed differently when seencollectively. Announcements of new initiatives can divert attention from erosions that

threaten the integrity of existing provision. The disappearance of frameworks andresources may have a real impact on the education of students to be professionals who can

assess risk, manage uncertainty and uphold the rights of people with whom they work.

Keywords: Practice Learning; Practice Teaching; Standards; Erosion; Analysis

Introduction

This paper offers a critical analysis of the development and erosion of practice learningstandards in England. The research and analysis are situated within the author’s

experience of more than 20 years’ engagement in practice learning. Clearly otherperspectives and counter-arguments may be proposed. The intention of the paper is to

offer an illustration of the way in which changes and improvements may be vieweddifferently when seen collectively and so has relevance beyond the UK and

practice learning. Over the past two decades social work practice learning in England

ISSN 0261-5479 print/1470-1227 online q 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02615470903508743

Correspondence to: Avril Bellinger, Senior Lecturer in Social Work, Centre for Practice Learning, Room 203, 6 Kirkby

Place, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA, UK. Email: avril.bellinger@plymouth.ac.uk

Social Work EducationVol. 29, No. 6, September 2010, pp. 599–615

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

has been characterised by an acknowledged pedagogical purpose, nationally agreed

standards, economic resources and a recognised status distinct from practice (Sawdon,

1986; Doel and Shardlow, 1993; Thompson et al., 1994; Shardlow and Doel, 1996;

Slater, 2007). In this paper I explore the changes that have collectively resulted in

practice ‘learning’ becoming practice ‘experience’ and present my analysis of the

potentially serious consequences of this change for the profession.

There is a tendency to look at particular or individual landscape features and seeonly details, but we need to think more about involved historical and naturalprocesses and look at . . . those aspects of sites and features in the landscape thathave not been fully appreciated—features that are common enough but generallyoverlooked. (Aston, 1997)

This quotation comes from a landscape studies text in which the historical, social,

geographical and political realities that shape a landscape can be studied to establish

new meanings from the available evidence. Here, the term ‘landscape’ is used to

indicate the highly textured nuances of the environment in which practice learning is

situated and the particular features that define it. In order to consider the current and

future situation for practice teaching and learning I will review this landscape in which

we in England are moving. I will then argue that a combination of features may

potentially threaten the integrity of the profession where social work is regulated by

government as in certain provinces in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Whilst

specific to social work, this analysis offers clear messages to other health and social care

professions and I conclude by offering a perspective that is both vigilant and

constructive.At the time of writing, social work education is facing another potential review,

prompted by the death of a child in England (DCSF, 2009). It is imperative therefore

that social work educators are familiar enough with the landscape to ensure that

students are taught to be professionals who can assess risk, manage uncertainty and

uphold the rights of people with whom they work. However, the landscape is one in

which there is much activity but little clarity. Neglect of standards for six years until

students complain about having no contract, supervision or assessment allows the

finger to be pointed at failing higher education institutions (HEIs) (Gillen, 2009) in

the context of government expenditure on daily placement fees. However this

argument, as evidenced by McDonald et al.’s research (2008) in adult services and

Broadhurst and White’s research (2009) in children’s services, fails to acknowledge that

the settings in which students are placed rarely meet the criteria of learning

organisations (SCIE, 2004). At the same time HEIs are increasingly held accountable

for the quality of students’ practice learning experience (Gillen, 2009).The dislocation of programme approval by the General Social Care Council (GSCC)

and good practice dissemination by the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE)

from resources for training the workforce and setting national standards invested in

the national training organisations (NTOs) and all three from delivering good practice

arrangements (HEIs) has left a vacuum. Whilst outcome quality measurements

proliferate, the resources to invest in an infrastructure of learning support have been

600 A. Bellinger

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

withdrawn or dispersed as I shall demonstrate. In this space, student complaints and

employer dissatisfaction can be dealt with by employers assuming increasing

responsibility for practice learning and assessment. The consequence of social work

becoming defined by statutory employers is that it can potentially align social work

activity as purely techno-managerial (Peckover et al., 2008; Ferguson, 2008; White

et al., 2009) and constrained by current political imperatives.

The contention that higher education has failed in its responsibility to produce

graduates fit for practice (Williams, 2009) is commonly expressed through the military

metaphor of not ‘hitting the ground running’, a phrase used throughout job

advertisements and now the title of a child care social worker text (Donnellan and

Jack, 2009). This becomes understandable in the wider context where employers are

unable to induct, support and develop new staff (CSCI, 2005; Brown et al., 2007)

because of the inflexible quantitative performance measurements imposed on

operational teams (Munro, 2004; Peckover et al., 2008).A shift in resources from a professional council to an employer-led body (HMSO,

2000) raises the stakes in the debate about who ‘owns’ social work in England and the

extent to which it is defined by local authority practice. Statutory agencies need newly

qualified staff who can pick up a full and complex caseload. I would argue that this

explains a demand that students are properly trained for the job rather than educated

for the profession. Thus practice learning is constructed as a training ground for

efficient employees. As illustrated by Hudson’s critique of bureaucracy in relation to

agencies’ readiness for the personalisation agenda in the UK (2009), pedagogical

practices beyond knowledge and skills transmission are seen as largely irrelevant

distractions.Some of the current debates that define this landscape include questions about:

what constitutes a valid site of learning for social work; what qualifications are needed

by practice assessors at different stages; how quality is defined and measured and to

what extent that measurement is coterminous with agency status and function. These

debates are situated in a constantly changing policy structure in which local authority

agencies are increasingly disaggregated and provision moves to the diversity of ‘third

sector’ providers (Jordan, 2001; Tanner, 2003; McDonald, 2006; Ferguson, 2007).Many of these debates can be located in the changing discourses about social work

and education for practice. However, the erosions themselves have been embedded in

technical or often administrative absence leaving many of those engaged in delivering

practice learning for students unaware of their implications for education in practice.

With particular focus on the past 20 years, I will now chart the development of

standards for practice learning and assessment and include a tracing of the landscape

in the political context of that period. This is followed by an account of the erosion of

standards with a specific focus on practice learning and assessment with consideration

of the consequences for education and the wider profession.

Social Work Education 601

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Development of a Framework for Practice Learning Standards

Student accounts of practice learning indicate that this element of social work

education has a profound and lasting impact (Papadaki and Nygren, 2006; Lam et al.,

2007). Fook et al. (1997) and Parker (2007) have argued that it is in the practice

learning site where students are supported and challenged to develop their capacity for

reflective and creative practice. Gardner et al. (2006) propose that critical reflection

can enable the development of a professional identity that values uncertainty and

continues to look for alternative explanations and possibilities (Fook, 2007),

characteristics that research by Taylor and White (2006) identifies as fundamental to

good professional practice.Evans (1999) argues that such learning is contingent on a framework that promotes,

encourages and requires a critical stance in relation to both individual practices and

the context in which they take place. Without that educational framework, students

are under pressure to adopt uncritically the culture of the organisation in which they

are placed, as Allen et al. (2008) found in research with medical students.

In operationally demanding environments students will be under pressure to learn to

process work quickly and efficiently and to measure their capacity in those terms that

gain employer approval. Whilst many of the changes in relation to practice learning

have been couched in the language of improvement, I will here direct attention to the

erosions that I believe may threaten the integrity of the profession. I will now review

briefly the development of practice learning infrastructure for social work in the UK.

Before 1987 there were few requirements in place for people who supervised

students in practice. Students were placed with ‘student supervisors’ who produced

reports of very variable quality. The extreme diversity and lack of rigour of these

reports and a culture of academic supremacy meant recommendations were routinely

dismissed or overturned. Practice was very much the ‘poor relation’ (Ford and Jones,

1987).In 1987, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW)

commissioned a number of ‘demonstration programmes’ for training practice

teachers. These pilot courses were evaluated (CCETSW, 1992a) and formed the basis

for the Practice Teaching Award (PTA) (CCETSW, 1989, 1991a, 1992b, 1993), offered

nationally through partnerships of agencies and HEIs. All programmes were subject to

the same standards of inspection and review as the social work qualifying programmes

which they served (CCETSW, 1996a). All accredited providers received infrastructure

funding sufficient to employ teaching and administrative staff as well as an amount per

candidate registered.

The introduction of the Diploma in Social Work in 1991 provided a structure of

formal partnerships between agencies and HEIs (CCETSW, 1991b, 1995). Both sites of

learning were jointly responsible for resourcing the programme, and some agencies

had a shared formal responsibility for practice learning and for the whole programme.

A distinction was made between these ‘programme providers’ who had signed a

memorandum of understanding and ‘placement providers’ who had not entered such

a formal relationship.

602 A. Bellinger

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Assessment of practice was no longer based on opinion but on evidence set against

the published core competencies (CCETSW, 1991b) and that assessment wasundertaken by the practice teacher whose report had to stand in its own right at the

Award Board (CCETSW, 1991b, p. 26). In recognition of the fact that someassessments may need to be moderated, all students were also to be entitled to a second

opinion practice teacher if they were at risk of failure (CCETSW, 1991b, p. 27; Roberts,1998). This provision, which was also intended to be in place by 1996, ensured that

practice assessment was not mediated by academic views and that there was an

emphasis on equality and justice. Such provision, whilst not without critique (Pell andScott, 1995; Ford, 1996) created a robust system in which students could be failed in

practice if they were not performing at an appropriate professional level, whichcontrasted with other professions (Rutkowski, 2007; Shapton, 2007).

Alongside this development was a recognition that agencies were not automaticallysuitable for student learning and that a system of audit and approval was needed.

CCETSW required agencies to demonstrate their suitability as a learning environment(CCETSW, 1989, 1996b). Agencies had to put themselves forward, explain policies and

processes and most put significant resources into supporting student learning, fundedin the main through a central government training support programme, ring-fenced

for social work education. These developments over a period of some eight years raisedsocial work practice learning from a functional apprenticeship model to a recognised,

structured and financially supported teaching and assessment activity of equal value toclassroom-based learning. It included an appreciation of the potential of the voluntary

sector (CCETSW, 1989, p. 11) and of the variation in statutory agency provision,acknowledgement that teaching and assessment has to be learned and does not follow

automatically from a social work qualification, recognition that resources for teachingin practice need to be protected from operational demands, and that the success or

failure of individual students needed to be based on externally demonstrable evidence.The UK led the field with a professional organisation, the National Organisation for

Practice Teaching (NOPT), refereed journals, notably Social Work Education, TheJournal of Practice Teaching in Health and Social Work, national annual conferences

and a wealth of literature to underpin practice learning and assessment. However,none of this has protected the practice learning features that distinguish its quality.

De-regulation and removal of infrastructure have occurred without visibility orcoherent justification.

Whilst new arrangements have resulted in students being placed in a range ofsettings not previously accessed, and there is a great deal of excellent practice and

pockets of some inspirational and visionary work, nonetheless within currentarrangements, social work students in England can be supervised and assessed before

the final point by absolutely anyone. At the point of qualification, assessment must beby someone with a social work qualification. No additional qualifications are required

and direct observations by practice assessors, commonly assumed to be still regulatory,are also optional. Whilst there are consultations and ‘good practice’ publications

(Doel, 2005), the regulatory framework comprises a wilderness for practicelearning standards with the consequent potential for adoption of a ‘pragmatic

Social Work Education 603

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

approach’ (Parker, 2007, p. 772). The de-regulation and, more significantly, removal of

infrastructure resourcing leaves educational space unprotected and exposed tooperational pressures.

Next I give an account of the erosions, some of which may have passed unnoticed,before offering my analysis. I will note the shifts in terminology and language because

of the way it can inhibit our capacity to think about the consequences of change. Thenew degree (DH, 2002) was heralded as a major improvement to social work

education, however there may be benefit in paying particular attention to some of the‘features in the landscape that are common but have frequently been overlooked’(Aston, 1997, p. 8). I record the changing features in order to catalogue the erosion

that has taken place particularly since 2002 alongside the new degree.

‘A Thousand Cuts’

A continuing placement crisis (Weinstein, 1992) and problems of resourcing the

practice teaching role (Lindsay and Tompsett, 1999; Lindsay and Walton, 2000) hadmeant that the aspiration for all students to be taught and assessed by someone with or

undergoing the PTA was never fulfilled. A high turnover of practice teachers wasunderstood in relation to operational pressures and the use of the PTA as a step to

promotion. In 1991, CCETSW decided to retain the PTA but also to allow approvedagencies to accredit their own staff. Agency accreditation of their staff had originallybeen introduced to allow the substantial experience of student supervisors prior to

the introduction of the PTA to be recognised for a transitional period (CCETSW,1989). This produced a two-tier qualification in which agency approval was used as a

quality assurance measurement. The new regulations meant that the term ‘practiceteacher’ could refer equally to someone with the PTA and to someone who had

undertaken (usually five days) agency training which may or may not have beenassessed. These changes rendered the title ‘practice teacher’ unstable, a situation

exacerbated by the diversity of contexts and employment conditions: singleton;specialist; on-site; off-site; freelance; agency or HEI-employed; joint appointments

(Foulds et al., 1991).The requirement for all students in difficulty to be assessed by a second opinion

practice teacher was also removed in 1995 although programmes were able to retain

the provision if they could resource it. An additional five days of daily placementfee could be claimed for those Diploma in Social Work (DipSW) students

until 2004.Whilst this relaxation of the qualification requirements for practice teachers should

have reduced the placement crisis, a number of factors worked against this. First,employers were facing difficulty recruiting and retaining sufficient qualified staff and

so wanted a higher output of qualified workers (Orme, 2001). Second, as a HigherEducation Funding Council (HEFCE) funded programme in HEIs, social workcourses were under pressure by their institutions to increase recruitment. As the

approval and awarding body, CCETSW could have insisted that programmes provethey could resource placements at an appropriate standard before giving approval.

604 A. Bellinger

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Their failure to do so meant that students found themselves on courses where

placements could not be provided until, sometimes after they had completed the restof their studies (Murray, 1992). This produced a crisis of confidence in the education

of social workers as the regulating body did not enforce even the relaxed standards thatstudents would be taught and assessed in approved agencies by practice teachers who

either had the PTA or were accredited by their agency as competent.It is in this context that the new degree was introduced with a 50% increase in time

spent in practice. This was one of a number of highly publicised improvementswhich included the introduction of registration, the degree level qualification as aminimum, replacement of partnerships with a wider stakeholder group and the

funded participation of service users and carers. The Minister of State for Health’sannouncements of a major increase in funding could reasonably have been expected to

resource these areas: ‘The next three years will see unprecedented growth of investmentin social care’ (Smith, 2003).

The removal of CCETSW as a professional body and replacement with the GeneralSocial Care Council (GSCC), Training Organisation for Professional Social Services

(TOPSS) and Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) was heralded as a majorimprovement in standards and accountability. The functions of supporting

development and providing an infrastructure for practice learning moved to thenational training organisation (NTO), TOPSS, which represented employers. Fundingfor practice learning was allocated through the NTO and in the first year only, was

ring-fenced for social work education. From 2004 social work practice learning had tocompete with the much larger social care workforce for development funding, all of

which became short-term and the subject of competitive bidding. At the same time,the Training Support Programme (TSP) allocated to local authorities specifically for

social work education was no longer ring-fenced.What became clear when the funding arrangements were announced was that HEIs

would receive no infrastructure funding beyond an administrative recompense forassuming the disbursement of the daily placement fee, previously undertaken byCCETSW and that £18 and £28 per day, respectively, would be payable for students

placed in statutory and non-statutory practice agencies. This daily placement fee wasallocated for three functions: planning, providing and assessing the placement.

However, because the de-regulation of the role of practice assessor meant that anyonein the agency could undertake the role, in many cases the money followed the student

to the agency. HEIs had limited capacity to exercise their responsibility for qualityunless they had individual contracts with every agency and a definition of quality

standards of each of the three elements.

A Force for Change

Concurrently in 2002 the Practice Learning Task Force (PLTF) was set up to act as a‘short-term change agency’ to increase the quantity and quality of practice learning

opportunities. The head, Michael Leadbetter, was quoted as saying that the problemswith practice learning were now in the open and that:

Social Work Education 605

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

. . . suggestions are being made and acted on in how to improve matters. Theseinclude recognition of the increase in workload, support groups for practiceteachers, extra resources and monitoring by the official bodies. (Hilpern, 2002)

The problems had long been in the open as ones of capacity, retention of qualified

personnel and cost (Lindsay and Tompsett, 1999; Lindsay and Walton, 2000) rather

than of quality per se.Contrary to the reassurances in the above quote, the impact of the PLTF was to raise

the profile of some new practice learning opportunities (PLTF, 2004, 2005) whilst

diverting attention from the loss of agreement about what good support for practice

learning comprised and how people should be equipped to provide it. A stated

intention of the PLTF was to identify new settings for social work practice learning,

specifically those where students may be the only social work presence. Michael

Leadbetter was quoted saying: ‘We’re looking, for instance, at placements in the NHS,

in prisons and in a range of voluntary organisations . . . ’ (Hilpern, 2002).

Much of their success depended on the daily placement fee being used as an

incentive, and assessment being undertaken by the person who supervised the

student’s work. Confirmation that standards had been completely eroded could be

found in the contracts offered by the PLTF and TOPSS to train new practice assessors.

Short-term funding was made available for a non-assessed two-day training (Coleman

and Beverley, 2004, 2005) and agencies sending staff were offered money for back-fill

in 2004 only. There was no restriction on the nature of agency or the qualification or

experience of staff. Thus although many welcomed the opening up of new and rich

sites of learning, the requirement for practice assessors to meet a particular standard

had disappeared almost entirely. A practice assessor could be any individual in any

agency (up to the point of final assessment) who was encouraged to access available

training but would not be assessed on their learning. Anything beyond that was for the

HEI to specify. Whilst each of these changes could individually be seen as a positive

contribution to practice learning, when taken together they failed to protect a space for

what Brookfield terms ‘critically reflective learning’ (2009).In recognition of the changed environment, the Department of Health

acknowledged the need to offer incentives to statutory employers to participate

in programmes. As statutory employers were no longer required to be partners,

incentives comprised two major features. One was the engagement in educating

their future workforce and the development of a culture of learning throughout

their agencies. The second was the inclusion of practice learning provision in the 20

Performance Assessment Framework (PAF) indicators (CSCI, 2005). This indicator

was calculated by the number of placements provided as a proportion of qualified

staff in post to establish agency quality. This ‘ . . . clear driver for further work . . . ’

(Parker, 2007, p. 777) was dropped without public explanation in 2007 as the

frameworks were reviewed, leaving the only incentive to agencies that of investing

in their future staff.

Concurrent changes to the post-qualifying (PQ) framework were an important

‘detail’ in the landscape. The PTA was discontinued in 2007 and replaced by the new

606 A. Bellinger

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

awards in which practice education is embedded. At the ‘specialist’ consolidation level,

the expectation that candidates will learn the skills of ‘enabling others’ and be assessedfor their ability to ‘teach and assess the practice of student social workers and mentor

and support students and colleagues’ was incorporated in all programmes (CCETSW,2001, p. 49viii). However, bursaries and the requirement to complete the old ‘Child

Care Award’ were discontinued with the result that individual employers had toprioritise and fund the new awards in a context of difficulties over recruitment and

retention of qualified staff (Andamp and Garmeson, 2001; GSCC, 2008). For somerelatively newly qualified workers, continuing professional development meantbalancing a caseload with their specialist PQ study and acting as a practice assessor for

a student at the same time. This unrealistic requirement for PQ Specialist candidatesto work with a social work student has now been dropped. Although unspecified in the

guidance (CCETSW, 2001) in most PQ programmes, the teaching of this area ofpractice was the equivalent of five days which was significantly less than in the PTA.

Whilst a Higher Specialist Pathway is available within the PQ framework, any EnglishHEI wishing to develop such a qualification has to do so in the absence of any clear

replacement for the PTA.The shifts in ownership of qualifying programmes leave potential fissures in the

landscape. The rhetoric is one of improvement, service user focus and a substantial(50%) increase in practice whilst the resources underpinning each have been time-limited or targeted. HEIs are placed in the position of assuring quality without a clear

process by which accountability for placement provision can be effected. Individualprogrammes can set standards only if they have local agreements or resources to

underpin them and it is not clear what is in place nationally to ensure that even theminimal standards of assessment by a qualified social worker at the end of

qualification are followed. In a recent regional forum I encountered confusion aboutwhat had changed, to the extent that holders of the PTA who did not have a social work

qualification1 were continuing to be used as final year practice assessors because oftheir experience and expertise. Whilst a decision about the best person to use wouldhave rested with the HEI prior to 2002, the minimal new standard means that this

discretion is no longer allowed. Any HEIs setting higher than minimum standardshave to be able to resource them.

In the absence of a common definition for terms such as ‘practice assessor’, manystill refer to practice teachers as if the term still has meaning and as if the infrastructure

supporting it were still in place (Parker, 2007; Moriarty et al., 2009).

Language and Absence

How then is it possible that we find ourselves in a place of such misunderstanding and

confusion? This is where a focus on language helps us to make sense of what hashappened. In practice learning, there have been a number of changes of terms whichhave been accommodated without major critique. Whilst permitting flexibility of

interpretation, this lack of definition has contributed to erosion of pedagogicalfunction.

Social Work Education 607

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW)

advisors became General Social Care Council (GSCC) inspectors. What appear to beminor changes of term actually shift the expectation from supporting development to

checking that programmes conform to regulations. In summary investment in qualityis no longer a shared responsibility and ongoing resources to support a training

infrastructure are no longer available.The change from ‘student supervisor’ to ‘practice teacher’ in 1989 was accompanied

by definitions of eligibility and function embedded within regulatory frameworks andfollowed by substantial pedagogic activity. In contrast, the changes of language in thenew degree (DH, 2002) replace ‘practice teacher’ with ‘practice assessor’, ‘placement’

with ‘practice learning opportunity’ and ‘partners’ with ‘stakeholders’ withoutredefinition.

Indeed, the Department of Health continued to use the language of practicelearning in promoting the increase in number of days spent in practice whilst pointing

to unspecified problems:

We have increased the practice learning requirement to 200 days. However, for thisincrease in practice learning to be effective we need to change the poor status thatpractice learning has had in the past, resulting in a lack of good learningopportunities and of adequate assessment. (Smith, 2003)

It should be noted, however that the requirements for the Degree in Social Work refer

only to practice (DH, 2002, p. 1) and practice experience (DH, 2002, p. 3). Theycontain no provision to address the ‘poor status of practice learning’ or ‘inadequate

assessment’. Rather the re-naming of practice teachers as practice assessors moves thefunction from enabling the process of learning to measuring the outcome. This is a

highly significant use of language in that the educational or teaching function hasdisappeared. However, the lack of definition of a practice assessor, as previouslyshown, means that these two terms are still commonly used interchangeably. This

inconsistency of common language allows the term practice assessor to carry theinvestment in practice teaching as if it were still in place. It is this confusion of

meaning that prevents even those closely engaged in practice learning from realisingthe extent of the erosion.

Consequences: Looking at Absences and Omissions

The function of the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) is to research and

disseminate best practice and it is important to consider the role of such anorganisation in an environment of de-regulation and short-term funding. In relation

to practice learning specifically, there are a number of publications that are relevantand which deal with patterns of practice assessment (Whittington, 2003; Kearney,

2003), payment for service users and carers (Levin, 2004) and assessing agencies aspotential learning organisations (SCIE, 2004). However, these documents arepositioned outside the frameworks that would resource their common application and

are disconnected from them. Therefore, it could be argued that by offering examples ofgood practice, such publications may divert attention from the almost complete

608 A. Bellinger

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

absence of a supportive infrastructure of centrally provided resources to protect

educational spaces within operational demands.Prior to 2002 there had been a number of funding streams to support practice

learning. Announcements indicated an increase in funding and so HEIs had to plan

while making assumptions about what would be in place. However, as the funding

arrangements for practice learning were not announced until April 2003, HEIs

offering the first programmes in 2002 had to set standards for their programmes

without knowing what government funding would be available and in what form.

Under these conditions, it was reasonable to expect that programmes would continue

as before and for the terms practice assessor and practice teacher; practice learning

opportunity and placement; national occupational standards and core competences

to be used inter-changeably. This lack of information about funding mitigated

against substantial change. Indeed, the focus of those engaged in practice learning

was on maintaining or increasing the availability of practice teachers (Harris and

Gill, 2007). Furness and Gilligan’s paper (2004), based on a consultation exercise,

exemplifies this focus and raises questions and concerns that as yet have not been

addressed by government.

Whilst quantity and quality were identified as targets for the PLTF, there was no

reference to what quality comprised. After all, in the new degree, this feature was the

responsibility of the HEI alone (GSCC, 2002, p. 12). Certainly in south west England,

PLTF activity was too broad to take account of each HEI’s individual structures and

standards. Funded through the NTO to deliver national outputs, the PLTF was

precluded from working in partnerships with any HEI that set a higher than minimum

standard and which did not automatically pass the full fee to the placement provider.

In this way, the new provision identified by the PLTF in some instances undercut the

HEI processes for maintaining standards. Moreover, the effect of the PLTF activity in

some regions was to increase the number of practice learning opportunities within the

new requirements outlined earlier. However, the new requirements eroded the previous

expectation of quality. Forceful marketing of the new organisations where placements

were being set up has diverted attention from a long tradition of practice teaching

development and has emphasised new arrangements with private and voluntary

organisations and with other disciplines. Students have been placed in agencies where

they are the only social work presence. Whilst the increased diversity in provision is a

very positive development, we know that such role emergent placements need high

quality support structures round them (Butler, 2007; Thew et al., 2008). Such

pedagogic considerations however were absent from both regulation and long-term

funding.A growing placement provision crisis, lack of resources and an absence of specified

standards mean that HEIs are in no position to regulate the experience of the

individual student unless they invest in the infrastructure for practice learning. This

could render the HEI, in desperate need of practice learning opportunities, in the role

of impotent critic and provoke distrust and antagonism between the sites of student

learning.

Social Work Education 609

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

De-regulation and changes in the PQ framework assume a learning organisation

culture in agency settings. It is hard to see how these assumptions can be realised in

operational teams that, according to Mulholland (2009), carry substantial vacancies

and rely heavily on agency staff to carry out the work. Working with students is much

more than a financial or contractual relationship and ‘good placements’ are not

defined by the agency type but rather by individual team culture. This view is affirmed

by research undertaken with field educators in Canada whose motivation was

increasingly derived from their agency culture rather than individual factors

(Globerman and Bogo, 2003).The importance of pedagogy in supervision and assessment of learners in practice is

no longer supported by a national framework, consistent guidance or ongoing

resources. Six years after the introduction of the new degree, Skills for Care is

surveying programmes to ask their view about appropriate standards for practice

assessors and GSCC is consulting on possible standards. These consultations

emphasise the need for on-site supervision and assessment to be undertaken by

qualified social workers at the end of the programme. The importance of knowledge of

and capacity for teaching has been dismissed. Individual programmes and regions

have retained some infrastructure (Devlin and Torkington, 2005; Mann and Butler,

2008; Lindsay, 2009), but all are localised and therefore vulnerable.Current quality appears to rely on the legacy of practice learning developments

(Kearney, 2003; Parker, 2007; Moriarty et al., 2009) without an appreciation of their

vulnerability. Erosion has been subtle and within a context of rhetoric about

improvement and it is therefore unsurprising that the extent to which changes in the

practice learning landscape may impact on the profession have not been generally

understood. The level of confusion that currently exists could leave social work

education in a place of high vulnerability. If we remain ignorant of the details of the

landscape, and the significance of the changes, we continue as if infrastructure,

regulation and resources were still in place, and we cannot anticipate how best to

position our practice for the current conditions. This could result in the uncritical

acceptance of a simple apprenticeship model of practice learning in which

organisational efficiency takes precedence over the needs of people using services

(Hugman, 2009).The scale of this erosion is exemplified by the common mistaken belief that the

DipSW requirement for systematic observations of practice (CCETSW, 1995) has

continued into the new degree in England. I have heard external examiners say that the

GSCC requires all three observations of practice to be of work with service users.

Indeed, current literature reflects this myth, wrongly ascribing regulatory control to

the GSCC (Humphrey, 2007). No announcement was made, it was simply omitted

from the requirements. Whilst most programmes retain a requirement of practice

observations, they do so as a local arrangement. In the absence of national minimum

standards, pressure on resources or a change in local conditions could result in a

reduction of observations or some other compromise.

610 A. Bellinger

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Looking Ahead

It is clear that all services experience budgetary pressure and will therefore have limited

resources to support practice learning. We know that organisations vary enormously

in their approach even within the same geographical area. In many cases a gradual

erosion has taken place as HEIs have had to approve whatever arrangements are

available.Practice learning is distinguished by the framework of support, teaching and

assessment in the practice setting. The erosion of the professional infrastructure for

education reduces its capacity for social transformation. It allows the training of

practitioners who will be compliant rather than critical of the existing political and

economic order and so may reduce the whole project to one of service provision rather

than social justice (Hugman, 2009). The landscape is one of disorder posing as order,of reduction and erosion paraded as improvement, and abdication or diffusion of

accountability presented as responsibility. It leaves social work and the education of

future professionals exposed to the same deprofessionalising processes as the

probation service, where within 13 years the identity of officers as social workers has

been replaced by ‘efficient offender management’ (MoJ, 2009). Professional judgement

and discretion have been replaced by targets and micro-management.If student learning in and through practice is no longer constructed as needing a

protected pedagogical space then the distinction between practice learning and

practice experience will have been eroded. Statutory employers may increasingly define

what social work is and assess competence in relation to their particular practice. In

this environment, as Preston-Shoot indicates (2000), broad education that produces

creative autonomous practitioners is replaced with training for compliance,

bureaucratic efficiency and uncritical acceptance of an approved evidence base.Whilst the focus in this paper is on practice learning, the processes outlined of

erosion by stealth are not necessarily restricted to this area of education and practice.

Waiting for announcements would appear to be misguided in current conditions.

Reduction and removal of infrastructure is unlikely to be announced but instead,

allowed to disappear without publicity. Moreover, announcements of new initiatives

can divert attention from erosions that threaten the integrity of social work education

through the disappearance of frameworks and resources. Close attention needs to bepaid to language and its significance as changes in terms substantially impact on

common understandings and may indicate erosion that is hard to detect. It behoves

practice educators and all invested in preserving professional education to watch

patterns and act protectively, to look for alliances and possibilities and to direct

energies towards building capacity and protecting resources.

Note

[1] Entry to the PTA was allowed for ‘unqualified social workers’ who could demonstrate that theyhad ‘ . . . competence in social work practice’ (CCETSW, 1989, p. 11) and so there are a numberof highly experienced qualified practice teachers who can no longer act as practice assessors atthe point of qualification.

Social Work Education 611

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

References

Allen, D., Wainwright, M., Mount, B. & Hutchinson, T. (2008) ‘The wounding path to becominghealers: medical students’ apprenticeship experiences’, Medical Teacher, vol. 30, pp. 260–264.

Andamp, C. E. & Garmeson, K. (2001) Desk Research on Recruitment and Retention in Social Care andSocial Work, Department of Health, London.

Aston, M. (1997) Interpreting the Landscape: Landscape Archeology and Local History, Routledge,London.

Broadhurst, K. & White, S. (2009) ‘Raging against the machine’, Professional Social Work, London,BASW, January, pp. 8–11.

Brookfield, S. (2009) ‘The concept of critical reflection: promises and contradictions’, EuropeanJournal of Social Work, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 293–304.

Brown, K., Immins, T., Bates, N., Gray, I., Rutter, L., Keen, S., Parker, J. et al. (2007) Tracking theLearning and Development Needs of Newly Qualified Social Workers Project, Skills for CareSouth West, Bournemouth.

Butler, A. (2007) ‘Students and refugees together: towards a model of practice learning as serviceprovision’, Social Work Education, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 218–232.

CCETSW (Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work) (1989) Improving Standardsin Practice Learning: Regulations and Guidance for the Approval of Agencies and theAccreditation and Training of Practice Teachers, Paper 26.3, CCETSW, London.

CCETSW (Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work) (1991a) Improving Standardsin Practice Learning: Regulations and Guidance for the Approval of Agencies and theAccreditation and Training of Practice Teachers (Revised), Paper 26.3, CCETSW, London.

CCETSW (Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work) (1991b) DipSW: Rules andRequirements for the Diploma in Social Work, 2nd edn, Paper 30, CCETSW, London.

CCETSW (Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work) (1992a) Report onDemonstration Reports of Practice Teaching Programmes, CCETSW, London.

CCETSW (Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work) (1992b) The Requirementsfor Post Qualifying Education and Training in the Personal Social Services: A Framework forContinuing Professional Development, Paper 31, CCETSW, London.

CCETSW (Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work) (1993) Developing ImprovedNational Standards for the CCETSW Practice Teaching Award, CCETSW, London.

CCETSW (Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work) (1995) Assuring Quality inthe Diploma in Social Work: Rules and Requirements for the DipSW (Revised), CCETSW,London.

CCETSW (Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work) (1996a) Assuring Quality forPractice Teaching: Rules and Requirements for the Practice Teaching Award/Approval, Reviewand Inspection of Practice Teaching Programmes, CCETSW, London.

CCETSW (Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work) (1996b) Assuring Quality ofAgencies Approved for Practice Learning: Approval, Review and Inspection of Agencies Approvedto Provide Practice Learning Opportunities for DipSW Students, CCETSW, London.

CCETSW (Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work) (2001) The PQ Handbook:Guidance on Awards Within the PQ Framework, CCETSW, London.

Coleman, A. & Beverley, A. (2004) Introduction to Work Based Learning and Assessment in Support ofthe Social Work Degree: Workbook for Assessors, Skills for Care, Leeds.

Coleman, A. & Beverley, A. (2005) Introduction to Work Based Learning and Assessment in Support ofthe Social Work Degree: Workbook for Assessors, 2nd edn, Skills for Care, Leeds.

CSCI (Commission for Social Care Inspection) (2005) Guidance on Common Induction Standards,CSCI and Skills for Care, Quality Performance Directorate.

DCSF (Department of Children, Schools and Families) (2009) The Social Work Taskforce [online].Available at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id¼2009_0017, accessed 26 February2009.

612 A. Bellinger

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

DH (Department of Health) (2002) Requirements for Social Work Training, Department of Health,

London.

Devlin, D. & Torkington, C. (2005) We Help Create a Trained and Qualified Workforce: Promoting

Quality in Practice Learning: Setting the Standards for Practice Assessors, Skills for Care, East

Midlands.

Doel, M. (ed.) (2005) New Approaches in Practice Learning, Skills for Care, London.

Doel, M. & Shardlow, S. (1993) Social Work Practice: Exercises and Activities for Training and

Developing Social Workers, Gower, Aldershot.

Donnellan, H. & Jack, G. (2009) The Survival Guide for Newly Qualified Child and Family Social

Workers: Hitting the Ground Running, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.

Evans, D. (1999) Practice Learning in the Caring Professions, Ashgate, Aldershot.

Ferguson, H. (2008) ‘Liquid social work: welfare interventions as mobile practices’, British Journal of

Social Work, vol. 38, pp. 561–579.

Ferguson, I. (2007) ‘Increasing user choice or privatizing risk? The antinomies of personalization’,

British Journal of Social Work, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 387–403.

Fook, J. (2007) ‘Uncertainty: the defining characteristic of social work?’, in Social Work: A Companion

to Learning, eds M. Lymbery & K. Postle, Sage, London, pp. 30–39.

Fook, J., Ryan, M. & Hawkins, L. (1997) Professional Expertise: Practice, Theory and Education for

Working in Uncertainty, Whiting & Birch, London.

Ford, K. & Jones, A. (1987) Student Supervision, Macmillan Education, London.

Ford, P. (1996) ‘Competences, their use and misuse’, in Educating for Social Work: Arguments for

Optimism, eds P. Ford & P. Hayes, Avebury.

Foulds, J., Sanders, A. & Williams, J. (1991) ‘Co-ordinating learning: the future of practice teaching’,

Social Work Education, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 60–68.

Furness, S. & Gilligan, P. (2004) ‘Fit for purpose: issues from practice placements, practice teaching

and the assessment of students’ practice’, Social Work Education, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 465–479.

Gardner, S., Fook, J. & White, S. (2006) ‘Critical reflection: possibilities for developing effectiveness

in conditions of uncertainty’, in Critical Reflection in Health and Social Care, eds S. White,

J. Fook & S. Gardner, Open University, Maidenhead.

GSCC (General Social Care Council) (2002) Accreditation of Universities to Grant Degrees in Social

Work, GSCC, London.

GSCC (General Social Care Council) (2008) Raising Standards: Social Work Education in England

2007–2008, GSCC, London.

Gillen, S. (2009) ‘Colleges struggle to find statutory placements’, Community Care, 9 April, pp. 4–5.

Globerman, J. & Bogo, M. (2003) ‘Changing times: understanding social workers’ motivation to be

field instructors’, Social Work, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 65–73.

Harris, V. & Gill, M. (2007) ‘Practice learning in context’, in Social Work: A Companion to Learning,

eds M. Lymbery & K. Postle, Sage, London.

Hilpern, K. (2002) ‘Social work: practice makes perfect sense’, The Independent, 22 October.

HMSO (2000) The Care Standards Act 2000.

Hudson, B. (2009) ‘Captives of bureaucracy’, Community Care, 9 April, pp. 30–31.

Hugman, R. (2009) ‘But is it social work? Some reflections on mistaken identities’, British Journal of

Social Work, vol. 39, pp. 1138–1153.

Humphrey, C. (2007) ‘Observing students’ practice (through the looking glass and beyond)’, Social

Work Education, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 723–736.

Jordan, B. (2001) ‘Tough love: social work, social exclusion and the Third Way’, British Journal of

Social Work, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 527–546.

Kearney, P. (2003) A Framework for Supporting and Assessing Practice Learning, SCIE Position Paper

no. 2, Social Care Institute for Excellence, London.

Lam, C. M., Wong, H. & Leung, T. T. F. (2007) ‘An unfinished reflexive journey: social work students’

reflection on their placement experiences’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 37, pp. 91–105.

Social Work Education 613

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Levin, E. (2004) Involving Service Users and Carers in Social Work Education, Guide 4, Social Care

Institute for Excellence, London.

Lindsay, J. (2009) Professional Education and Training in Human Services with Management

PgDip/MA, Kingston University, London.

Lindsay, J. & Tompsett, H. (1999) Workforce Planning and Practice Teaching in Approved Agencies in

the London and South East England Region, CCETSW, London.

Lindsay, J. & Walton, A. (2000) Workforce Planning and the Strategic Development in the CCETSW

England Regulation in 1999, CCETSW, London.

Mann, J. & Butler, A. (2008) Maintaining Standards for Practice Learning, SWAP [online]. Available

at: www.swap.ac.uk/docs/casestudies/mann_butler.pdf.

McDonald, A. (2006) Understanding Community Care, 2nd edn, Macmillan, Basingstoke.

McDonald, A., Postle, K. & Dawson, C. (2008) ‘Barriers to retaining and using professional

knowledge in local authority social work practice with adults in the UK’, British Journal of

Social Work, vol. 38, pp. 1370–1387.

MoJ (Ministry of Justice) (2009) Corporate Plan 2009–2011: Creating a Safe, Just and Democratic

Society, MoJ, London.

Moriarty, J., MacIntyre, G., Manthorpe, J., Crisp, B., Orme, J., Lister, P., Cavanagh, K., Stevens, M.,

Hussein, S. & Sharpe, E. (2009) ‘“My expectations remain the same. The student has to be

competent to practise”: practice assessor perspectives on the new social work degree

qualification in England’, British Journal of Social Work, Advanced Access, DOI:

10.1093/bjsw/bcn178.

Mulholland, H. (2009) ‘Tories warn of social work recruitment crisis’, Guardian, 3 February.

Munro, E. (2004) ‘The impact of audit on social work practice’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 34,

no. 8, pp. 1075–1095.

Murray, N. (1992) ‘Crisis? What crisis?’, Community Care, 13 August, pp. 16–17.

Orme, J. (2001) ‘Regulation or fragmentation? Directions for social work under New Labour’, British

Journal of Social Work, vol. 31, pp. 611–624.

Papadaki, V. & Nygren, L. (2006) ‘“I’ll carry this experience with me throughout my studies and

future career”: practice tutorials and students’ views on social work in Iraklio, Greece’, Social

Work Education, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 710–722.

Parker, J. (2007) ‘Developing effective practice learning for tomorrow’s social workers’, Social Work

Education, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 263–279.

Peckover, S., White, S. & Hall, C. (2008) ‘Making and managing electronic children: e-assessment in

child welfare’, Information, Communication and Society, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 375–394.

Pell, L. & Scott, D. (1995) ‘The cloak of competence: assessment dilemmas in social work education’,

Social Work Education, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 38–57.

Practice Learning Task Force (2004) First Annual Report, PLTF, Leeds.

Practice Learning Task Force (2005) Second Annual Report, PLTF, Leeds.

Preston-Shoot, M. (2000) ‘Stumbling towards oblivion or discovering new horizons? Observations

on the relationship between social work education and practice’, Journal of Social Work

Practice, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 87–98.

Roberts, T. (ed.) (1998) To Fail or Not to Fail: The Dilemmas, Processes and Consequences of Dealing

with Failing Social Work Students, Bradford and Ilkley Community College Corporation.

Rutkowski, K. (2007) ‘Failure to fail: assessing nursing students’ competence during practice

placements’, Nursing Standard, vol. 22, no. 13, pp. 35–40.

Sawdon, D. (1986) Making Connections in Practice Teaching: A Student Unit Perspective on Social

Work Education and Community Work, National Institute for Social Work, London.

Shapton, M. (2007) ‘Failing to fail students in the caring professions: is the assessment process failing

the professions?’, Journal of Practice Teaching and Learning, vol. 7, no. 2.

Shardlow, S. & Doel, M. (1996) Practice Learning and Teaching, Macmillan, Basingstoke.

614 A. Bellinger

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Slater, P. (2007) ‘The passing of the practice teaching award: history, legacy, prospects’, Social WorkEducation, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 749–762.

Smith, J. (2003) Speech by Jacqui Smith to TOPSS England, 12 February.SCIE (Social Care Institute for Excellence) (2004) Learning Organisations: A Self-Assessment Resource

Pack, Social Care Institute for Excellence, London.Tanner, D. (2003) ‘Older people and access to care’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 33,

pp. 499–515.Taylor, C. & White, S. (2006) ‘Knowledge and reasoning in social work: educating for humane

judgement’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 36, pp. 937–954.Thew, M., Hargreave, A. & Cronin-Davis, J. (2008) ‘An evaluation of a role-emerging practice

placement model for a full cohort of occupational therapy students’, British Journal ofOccupational Therapy, vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 348–353.

Thompson, N., Osada, M. & Anderson, B. (1994) Practice Teaching in Social Work, 2nd edn, PEPARPublications, Birmingham.

Weinstein, J. (1992) Placement Survey: A Survey of Local Authority Placements and Provision inEngland and Wales 1991/92 and 1992/93, CCETSW, ADSS, AMA, ACC, London.

White, S., Wastell, D., Peckover, S. & Hall, C. (2009) ‘Managing risk in a high blame environment:tales from the “front door” in contemporary children’s social care’, in Risk and Public Services,ESRC Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London & Oxford, pp. 12–14.

Whittington, C. (2003) A Framework for Supporting and Assessing Practice Learning, Position Paper 2,Social Care Institute for Excellence, London.

Williams, C. (2009) ‘Degree needs a reality check’, Community Care, 12 February.

Social Work Education 615

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

53 2

3 O

ctob

er 2

014