Commentary on social work education in Kerala

Anandu J with inputs from Anandhu K S & Vidyapriya R | 2025

I am writing this based on my experience of interacting and working alongside several young social work graduates in Kerala.

Before going into any details, I would like to pose a very simple question for everyone to answer: what does one mean by the term “social work”? And once someone completes a course in social work, what kind of work or sectors are they expected to contribute to?

The most obvious way to understand the term “Social work” is to first break it down to two parts ‘social’ and ‘work’.

Understanding the ‘social’ takes us into the realm of sociology and our ideas of society. What is society? At the most fundamental level, it is a group of individuals living together in more or less ordered communities. But different thinkers define it differently. For a Marxist, for instance, society is a set of relations defined by the underlying economic system, where individuals occupy positions not necessarily by choice, but due to structural issues rather than simple aggregation of people. Durkheim also goes beyond simple aggregation and sees society as a system guided by social facts or shared norms and values that shape behaviour. To cut long story short, all definitions emphasize on common characteristics, interactions, interrelations, and organization among people.

So, with this method of defining, for a layman like me, social work would look like any effort / activity / work that seeks to improve the collective well-being of society, build cohesion among members, and address inequalities. I had always thought a social work course covered these aspects.

With this understanding, I started working with an NGO in Kerala. Due to COVID, I had to work remotely in the initial 2 months. During this period, I had multiple long discussions mostly with the founder and a few senior individuals. I was told that the team included several young social work graduates. After two months, I finally met these young professionals in person. While getting introduced to them, I heard a term repeatedly: Medical and Psychiatry Social Work. This was a new term for me. I had never heard of a separate social work specialisation for the medical and psychiatry fields. I felt a little ashamed of my ignorance about the field.

I realized that almost everyone on my team (except 1 or 2) had this specialisation. My first few task was to start new programmes and hire new social workers to lead these programmes. We put out a job opening for new social workers. I noticed that nearly 95% of applicants had the same qualification. I wondered why such overwhelming interest in one niche area of social work? For me, social work was always a broader idea about facilitating change, addressing inequalities and working on livelihoods, education, health, governance, rights and so on. What I encountered instead was a narrow technical framing of the field.

As I spent more time with the team and with interns from various colleges, I started hearing a series of recurring terminologies such as case work, group work, psycho-social support, home care and so on. These were used often by young graduates in the field. I still doubted their clarity on these terms.

Getting clarity

One day, I finally asked a colleague what exactly she understood by the term ‘social work’ and why there was this particular fixation on psychiatric and hospital settings. My argument was: mental health was an important concern no doubt about that; but it was not necessarily the most pressing issue for many rural and marginalized communities in India. She took my argument well and explained a few reasons for this. She explained that there are multiple reasons to this.

First, the design and orientation of MSW programmes across the world are influenced by the founders of the course. Most of these founders come from psychiatric, institutional or medical backgrounds. Hence, the focus is on clinical and psychiatric aspects. In Western context, it might be relevant. But, it is yet to be fully adapted to the Indian or Kerala context.

Second, the job market in Kerala particularly the service industry, hospitals, rehabilitation centres, elderly homes etc. favours this specialization.

Third (and I feel this is the most important one) is related to Kerala’s migration economy again loosely tied to the second point i.e. the job market. For many, an MSW with a Medical & Psychiatry specialization is a direct ticket to caregiving or allied health roles in the Middle East, Europe, Canada etc. On the other hand, specialisations like community development have little market value in these migration pathways.

All of these contribute to the huge interest in this specialisation. This trend also makes it the most sought-after specialization in Kerala colleges. Also, many MSW colleges are staffed predominantly by faculty from psychology or psychiatry backgrounds. This naturally influences course content, internship design, and student aspirations.

Now this part was clear to me. I had to live with the kind of talent and specialisation available in the market.

After spending more months working with people from all specialisations, I began noticing some other things. There were some glaring gaps with students who come out of MSW, irrespective of specialisation. These gaps were much more prevalent in students from community development and family & child specializations than in medical and psychiatry. The obvious reason could be better faculty, resources, and attention given to the latter. I am trying to summarise below some of these gaps.

Mismatches and Realities

First was the motivation to work in the sector or for a social cause was completely lacking for majority of the students. Of course, there were very few students who joined the course with a genuine interest or with orientation to work for developmental causes. But for most, it was just another postgraduate degree. The reasons for this were largely not their own fault.

Majority of students who join MSW come from economically vulnerable families. They view the MSW as a pathway to a decent job or probably a well-paying one abroad. But, the reality is very disappointing. Only a small fraction are able to achieve what they had planned or dreamed of. Those who enter the course mainly for economic reasons often realize later that they have made a mistake, as salary packages in the social sector are inherently low. After years of stagnation, they begin to desperately look for better-paying opportunities or higher education outside the country. Some do crack it which creates some sort of a loop: when students see their seniors and peers moving abroad after MSW, they too aspire for a better life and better jobs outside the country. They then begin to assume (often wrongly) that MSW is a smoother pathway to overseas studies and employment. And hence, the low motivation for the social sector. Moreover, number of seats available or colleges offering the course far exceeds the number of students genuinely interested. Many MSW colleges in Kerala lack rigorous selection procedures and are unable to distinguish between right candidates and those simply looking for admission into any course.

The second issue is regarding the technical competence and overall value an MSW graduate brings to the table. This gap is more pronounced, hence discussed in detail (below!).

There is a general lack of depth and understanding among the young graduates when it comes to various social issues. I used to interact with over 100 young candidates every year, mostly with 0–3 years of experience). Most conversations felt shallow and textbookish. It was very rare to find someone who gives a nuanced perspective or understands the complexities of social problems. For instance, when I asked candidates about the key socio-economic challenges in the communities they had worked in or interned, the answers were almost always the same: “poverty,” “unemployment,” “lack of awareness.” Also, when I asked candidates what they considered their personal strengths, I would almost always receive the same list: “Empathy,” “Communication,” “Listening skills.” Every single one of them answered these auto-button responses, instead of responses grounded in deeper reflection or lived experience. Mind you, these responses are coming from postgraduate students who had, at least on paper, spent two years studying society and engaging in some years of practical work on the ground.

The gaps extended beyond subject knowledge to basic professional competencies. Writing a formal email or even a coherent paragraph was a challenge for many. Standard tools like MS Office, Google Suite, cloud storage, or basic data platforms like Tableau often felt out of reach. Drafting a field report, preparing a proposal, writing a simple letter, or putting together a document for an office, the tasks that should be routine, appeared daunting.

This gets complicated with heavy usage of AI-based writing tools. Many have found this to be an easy method to hide their lack of clarity and ability to think and reflect critically. Almost all written material created by them, including HR applications, letters, project proposals and donor reports, are AI-generated. Well polished and well framed sentences which are emotionless, disconnected, and often conveys no real meaning. I do not have an issue with AI-generated content. The issue begins when it is used without clarity or thought and the final output makes ZERO sense.

Another aspect is analytical skills. Analytical skill from both 1) quantiative analysis perspective as well as 2) general info gathering, logical reasoning and problem solving perspective, appered limited. They were unable to prepare a summary of a simple dataset and generate straightforward insights out of it. They also struggled in identifying right metrics and indicators. Discussions around random correlations & insights generated by some of them, often served as our evening “entertainments” in office.

In the case of professional competencies, there is a positive side. With regular handholding and training, we have seen many improve steadily in the case of professional skills. So, the problem appears to be lack of exposure or space to develop these skills in the curriculum or lack of mentoring during their previous roles.

Thirdly, there was also a clear absence of strategic thinking in the majority of the candidates. If asked to design a simple programme, many would either go blank or immediately ask if there was an existing template or previous example to copy. There was no sense of creativity and no confidence to imagine or initiate something new. They seemed to have been trained to follow instructions rather than solve problems. They had been moulded to fit into narrow roles such as public relations or counsellors in hospitals, HR in factories, support staff in NGOs rather than as community leaders or change-makers. They could not analyse why certain problems persisted, why certain groups were excluded, or what policy levers existed to address these issues. Their training had given them some jargons, terms and techniques, but not a pinch of what those mean or how and where to use those. Most had no idea what to look for in a community, how community groups function, how to mobilize people, or how to engage with bureaucracy.

This leads to my fourth and last point regarding the relevance of MSW graduates in the Indian civil society space.

All the gaps discussed above become more glaring when the young graduates enter the grassroots development work and handle individual responsibilities. NGOs often expect fresh social work graduates to come with at least basic clarity on field realities, some writing and documentation skills, and the ability to coordinate with community stakeholders. What they often get, however, are young people who are technically weak and practically underprepared.

We often see that fresh social work graduates require at least three to four months of time for gaining basic understanding and day-to-day work. Even then, it typically takes another year or more, if we are lucky, for them to fully contribute in the role. I say “if we are lucky” because, in many cases, after a year, they either do not align with the demands of the work or leave for another opportunity before making any meaningful contribution. As someone responsible for leading operations in an NGO that is already financially stretched, this was often frustrating.

So, at times, I have found myself wondering what difference a two-year postgraduate course really makes. If I were to hire a graduate with the right attitude, decent foundational skills and a commitment to stay, I could invest a year in training and handholding and eventually induct them into the role of a fresher. That individual might even acknowledge and value the effort put into their career growth. Many NGOs have tried this and have been successful in retaining talent. For example, in my current role, I have seen many organisations, including some well-known ones, recruiting graduates and training them to become counsellors and social workers instead of hiring MSW graduates. Incidentally, they have fared well. Several NGO leaders across different states have shared similar experiences with MSW graduates, which strongly resonated with my own observations.

Again coming to the point on relevance: what value does an MSW fresher add to an organisation? What difference does he or she bring to the table when compared to a regular graduate? Why do NGO incur high cost of training post graduates of social work? Probably this is why the entry salaries are low offsetting the training and attrition cost.

I feel these questions need to be asked of the system that has trained and molded them. An education system originally designed to create agents of social change is now producing graduates who are disconnected from real communities and real issues and who lack critical thinking and analytical skills.

What could be the issues with the system? What can be improved? I would like to hear more from readers. I have taken inputs from some of my social work colleagues and also have assumed a few things.

Where the system fell short and what needs rethinking

The whole MSW curriculum appears outdated and disconnected from the ground realities of Kerala. It offers limited exposure to the activities and practical experiences of NGOs operating in the state. Its also feels too theory-heavy and often disengaging. I have seen some of my MSW colleagues simply copy assignments or write research papers just to tick a box or credit. Indian social work education also continues to rely heavily on Western theories and iconic religious or spiritual figures. There is limited engagement with Indian authors, Indian social movements, or region-specific issues. Rural livelihoods, poverty indicators, caste-based exclusion, and other structural inequalities receive limited attention.

This pedagogy itself is rigid. Concepts such as empathy or communication or “role of social workers” are taught as predefined answers rather than lived skills. There is little scope for critical thinking, debate, or evaluation. Differences in geography, culture, power structures, or changing local dynamics are rarely emphasised. Students often approach problems with preset interventions rather than contextual analysis. There are no real-life case studies, problem-solving exercises, and open discussions.

Maybe it is time to move away from mandatory written assignments, which, in the age of the internet and ChatGPTs, are becoming less meaningful. Instead, the focus could shift to more engaging formats such as open classroom discussions, creative tasks like evaluating a real programme, or regular field visits. Exams could be open-book or based on classroom debates, reflections on social programmes, or opinion pieces.

There is also very little emphasis in the curriculum on analytical skills, or evidence-based practice. The pedagogy relies heavily on qualitative descriptions, with minimal training in data analysis interpretation. Zero use of technology beyond basic MS office tools.

Also, the faculties responsible for designing and teaching the courses are also academicians with research backgrounds, rather than practitioners with relevant field experience. In many self-financing colleges in Kerala, most of the faculty members are themselves fresh graduates who have cleared NET and moved directly into teaching roles. In many cases, preparation for NET starts from final year or MSW course leaving zero scope for practical exposure. With limited field exposure, teachers also often struggle to bridge theory and practice.

Teachers need to take on the role of facilitators rather than just subject experts, making learning more participatory and grounded in reality. For this, they need to be trained and engaged in regular faculty development activities. Teachers need to get exposed to real grassroots and practical work. There should be mandatory consulting or field engagements for the faculties who work in the space. This should be added as a key parameter in their evaluation.

There is issue with the way internships are structured. Many NGOs today offer internships only for namesake. Students rarely receive meaningful exposure or mentoring. Often, interns are placed in organisations simply because of institutional or religious affiliations of colleges. These organisations tend to use students for activities such as simple day to day data entry / admin work, conducting recreational sessions or lecture-style awareness etc., rather than engaging them in real community processes, planning or analysis. Also, the internship frameworks prescribed by regulatory bodies / being implemented is heavily borrowed from Western models and are poorly adapted to Indian realities.

On the student’s side, internships and field engagements are often just seen as a ritual or as a means to get attendance and submit a report. There is very little critical engagement with complex societal themes like caste, land rights, gender, climate vulnerability, or governance failures.

Silent market pressure and aspirations make colleges focus on the most demanded course rather than the most needed for the local context. We cannot correct what the market demands. But, there can be systematic ways to incentivize good institutions and attract the right talent pool who will be placed at the most relevant locations. There is also need to develop stringent rating mechanisms for colleges rather than depending on inadequate and flawed NIRF ranking. Colleges should be incentivized to train and mold the best students.

Admissions and orientation processes must screen for aptitude, motivation and commitment, not just academic performance. Field placements must be longer, better supervised, and deeply integrated into local development contexts. There should be intense bridge courses for writing, digital tools, and other professionals skills. These are some of the things I can think of. But I welcome others who better understand the curriculum and pedagogy part to contribute to this discussion.

Every professional field has its own challenges when it comes to the quality and preparedness of fresh graduates. However, the concerns surrounding social work education appear more persistent and worrying, as the course seems to be gradually losing both relevance and value to society. In the Kerala context, social work education stands at an important crossroads. On one hand, the state has a long and rich history of social movements, strong community institutions and a vibrant civil society network. All of these will need capable professionals with a strong social work foundation to lead and manage. On the other hand, colleges are struggling to produce graduates who are equipped to respond meaningfully to these local realities and demands.

This article is only one attempt to reflect on and analyze these issues. Reimagining social work education will require wider conversations, honest self-reflection and concrete action at the institutional level. Perhaps this process should begin with professional bodies such as the Kerala Association of Professional Social Workers (KAPS), which may be better placed to initiate such dialogues, build consensus and push for much-needed reforms in the field.