The editors recruited a remarkably diverse collection of researchers to provide a cross-national comparative perspective on social work academics’ engagement in policy processes beyond their roles as educators and researchers. Researchers from 12 countries on five continents utilized common instrumentation to survey social work academics in each country. Four distinct sampling techniques were used: in seven countries (Finland, Germany, Israel, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Spain, and Sweden) all social work academics were invited to participate; in three countries (Australia, South Africa, and United Kingdom) university administrators requested faculty participation; China used snowball data collection to bypass university administrators in order to avoid the possibility of coerced responses; and stratified random sampling was used in the United States. The online surveys were conducted in 2013 in Israel and in 2014–2015 in all other countries. All told, 1,551 social work academics participated, making this book a unique contribution to the literature, but readers should note that samples varied from a low of 43 in Australia to 396 in Germany. Only Finland and Israel reported response rates in excess of 50%.

The Policy Practice Engagement framework utilized in the national studies was explained in an introductory chapter. This framework has three components: opportunity, facilitation, and motivation, which informed the instrumentation developed for these national studies. In order for social work academics to be engaged in policy practice, they require access to policy formulation institutions (opportunity), support from their academic institution to engage in policy practice (facilitation), and individual preparation to engage in policy practice (motivation). Readers may note that this framework is most compatible with a western democratic style of government and less relevant in China where political participation is more muted. Surprisingly, the high degree of social inclusion in the Nordic states also mitigated the policy practice role for social work academics. Apparently, when social welfare policy is central to national politics and has broad public support, the advocacy role for social work academics wanes.

Following this introductory chapter are twelve country-specific chapters. Each of these chapters begins with a brief description of the welfare state history in the country, how it was changed by neoliberalism, globalization, and austerity, and how the social work profession has interacted in that specific national context with social welfare policy. Readers will learn how academic social work is organized in each country, how large the profession is, and the primary employment settings for social workers. Any variation in instrumentation that was required for the national context is explained fully. A standard research report followed with Method, Results, and Discussion in a repetitious pattern requiring some perseverance from the reader. This structure of the book precluded an ongoing comparative context in the country-specific chapters, which did little to make each chapter relevant and interesting to the reader. All cross-national comparisons are restricted to the concluding chapter.

Among the best features in this book are the social welfare histories of each country and the use of common instrumentation to facilitate cross-national comparisons. Considering the geographical and political diversity of the samples, the differences between national samples were modest. Levels of policy engagement were low to moderate in all countries, but especially low in China, Sweden, and South Africa. The low levels of policy engagement are attributed primarily to differences in the political processes in each country. In general, social work academics strongly supported a major social role in challenging existing power relations and addressing social problems. However, they perceived their influence on policy-makers to be low. Six national samples did report a higher influence on advocacy organizations, which suggests a more indirect influence on policy-makers. Social work academics try to influence policy primarily through public routes (e.g. protests, press interviews, and policy committees) rather than through their traditional academic roles such as preparing publications, writing positions papers, or advising policy-makers. Most social work academics are strongly supportive of social work practice and policy, but academics in Germany, Finland, and Sweden were oriented more toward the role of social critic than they were to practitioner support.

From a research perspective, readers are likely to wish that more care had been taken in development of the instrumentation used in this study. None of the six instruments were counter-balanced and internal consistency varied significantly between national samples. Only two instruments, the 20-item Level of Engagement in Policy Activities and the 5-item Perceived Impact on Policy-Makers and Advocacy Organizations had adequate consistency for valid cross-national comparisons. In the other four instruments, barely half of the variance in responses was explained in at least one country. Although this book is a unique contribution to what is known about international differences in social work and social welfare regimes, it is but a first step toward expanding what is known about the intersection of social work academics and policy practice. Many will appreciate this contribution, but most will still want to know more.