Abstract
Relationships are central to the profession of social work; relationships with allied disciplines, among professional social work organizations, and between classroom and field education. However, embedded within these relationships are historical tensions, and contemporary opportunities that can advance both the science of social work and the status of the profession. This article mainly highlights opportunities for advancing professional relationships between Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) and National Association of Social Work (NASW) and provides exemplars for strengthening relationships between the classroom, field education, and practicing social work professionals. We argue that deepening the connections between CSWE and NASW as well as the Society for Social Work Research (SSWR) require parallel efforts to link research, evidence-based practices, and the training and education of future social workers.
Keywords
In January 2011, at the Society for Social Work Research (SSWR) Annual Conference, Dr. John Brekke from the University of Southern California (USC) School of Social Work delivered the Rosen Lecture, which challenged researchers, educators, and members of the profession to define and shape a “science of social work.” Sponsored by the USC School of Social Work, the School of Social Work at the University of Washington, and SSWR, an organization which advances, disseminates, and translates research that addresses issues of social work practice and policy, a roundtable on the science of social work has convened a small group of social work researchers to continue discussions on this topic on an annual basis. The third of these meetings was held in July 2013 during which Jeane Anastas, the Preseident of National Association of Social Work (NASW)t, and Darla Spence Coffey, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), were asked to address the relationship of science in social work and the professions.
Social work has its historical and contemporary roots as a profession dually embedded in classroom and field education. These two elements of social work training are crucial to each other but often exist with inherent tensions. Field education and the field practicum have been viewed by many as the “heart of social work” in terms of the importance of applying knowledge to real-world situations. However, community placements may vary widely among students, providing some with excellent opportunities for learning while other placements, in stark contrast, lack the optimal levels of supervision and student involvement. These contrasts are more striking during times of economic downturn when many agencies lose funding and staff and may confront closure. Examination of the field practicum syllabi may reveal what learning experiences are “expected” in the field placement but few include language about applying science in social work practice. On the other continuum, classroom education often led by academics with an emphasis on research and scientific principles is often esteemed higher by some more so than field education often led by practitioners who are often aligned with agencies. Elements of social work history provide us with some partial insights as to why tensions exist between classroom and field education. The New York School of Philanthropy and the Chicago School of Civics and Philanthropy represent the two oldest social work institutions in the United States. The New York School of Philanthropy was established under the auspices of a practice-based organization, the Charity Organization Society of New York in 1898, when 25 men and women attended a summer class. Its curriculum was primarily focused on field education, practice wisdom, and the conception of social work as an art. The school was established on the philosophy that university-based courses would ruin the natural commitment of social workers to their work. After several incarnations in 1940, this program of study was eventually affiliated with Columbia University and in 1963 renamed Columbia University School of Social Work (Feldman & Cameron, 2001).
In contrast, to this field-based approach to learning, the Chicago School of Civics and Philanthropy was established in 1903. Joined to the University of Chicago, its leading emphasis was on empiricism and the development of scientific knowledge. In 1920, this school was renamed the School of Social Service Administration (SSA) and established the first doctoral program in social work (Muncy, 1991). Attributed to its founders is the unique status of pioneering policy research, the development of new methods in clinical social work practice, and the use and pursuit of science in social work training and practice over the role of field-based methods of education (Muncy, 1991). Founded in 1927 at SSA, the school’s journal Social Service Review purported the goal of advancing “scientific discussion of problems arising in social work.”
Consequently, existing models of classroom and field education, and associated tensions between professional practice and training, can be traced back to the historical roots of social work education. In contemporary times, several aspects of CSWE and NASW, both internally and across these organizations, mirror and reproduce educational traditions and tensions—social work as both art and science. These dimensions of practice are differentially validated in social work training; a field that is often challenged to define its professional identity by competing for social, intellectual, and scientific recognition, status, and merit in relation to allied professions (e.g., psychology and psychiatry) or disciplines (e.g., sociology). A profession predominately founded and staffed by women.
The gendered dimension of social work as a “female profession,” and the gendering of science as a male enterprise cannot be understated. While existing models of professional training can be traced back to historical roots of social work education, they can be traced even further back to the historical roots of science that gender it as male with its opposing field, art, as female. The nascent binary (and resulting hierarchy) persists today with art/nature/subjectivity considered essential and natural female qualities and science/rationality/objectivity considered essential and natural male qualities. This causes the consideration of anything female as by definition, antithetical and inferior to science (Walkowitz, 1990). Indeed, these notions that link science-male-superior are not outdated but have been publically endorsed as recently as 2005, when then Harvard President, Lawrence Summers articulated the gender gap in science and math as rooted in biological inferiorities of women in those fields. It is not a stretch then to argue that social work has long been struggling with itself as an “art or science” (Boehm, 1961; Martinez-Brawley & Mwndez-Bonito Zorita, 1998; Unrau, 2006). These realities have shaped the selection and privileging of methods for training social workers for direct practice as well as the practice of science in social work. Such choices in training methods are at least in part entrenched in social work’s own association with things assumedly female and therefore inferior: the artistic, emotional, healing, nurturing, care, and the relational aspects of human life. Ironically, or perhaps not so ironically as a compensation for being a female-dominated profession, SSA’s founding foremothers unabashedly promoted a science-centric approach as crucial to advancing rigorous education and training for social work and social welfare practice. Their male colleague Graham Taylor’s emphasis of field-based training was overruled.
We argue in this article that over 100 years later, we continue to find our field inconsistently and precariously linked to, and rejecting of, ideas promoting social work as science and art in the training of today’s social workers. We begin by describing two major organizations in our field to respond to the two articles by Coffey and Anastas. Next, we focus more narrowly on how our classroom teaching could, from the bottom-up, model more practice-/science-based approaches to social work education.
CSWE established in 1952, is a nonprofit national association representing more than 2,500 individual members as well as 744 graduate and undergraduate programs of professional social work education in the United States. Though CSWE has both programmatic and accreditation functions, it is the latter for which it is primarily known. As the only accreditation body for bachelor and master levels’ social work programs, it has a close relationship and aligns with universities and academic professionals. Its mission is to promote faculty development by developing international collaborations and by promoting social work education and research (CSWE, 2013). In many respects, CSWE represents the educational and training arm of the profession, regulating how universities train professional and practicing social workers. Nevertheless, the Council has a tension in its relationship to “science” since its conferences are not as strongly about “science/research,” but rather, about practice/teaching and are dominated in attendance by teaching schools and much less by research intense schools.
On the other hand, the NASW is a professional organization of U.S. social workers. As of March 2011, NASW had some 140,000 members (NASW, 2013). The organization provides guidance, research resources, up-to-date information, advocacy initiatives, and other resources for its members and for social workers in general (NASW, 2013). NASW has less of a direct relationship with universities and accredited programs of social work and in some respects represents the professional interest of practitioners and the “art of social work” and practice wisdom.
CSWE and NASW emerged out of complex histories and the amalgamation of existing organizations that may have competed for status and membership but eventually merged in order to advance their common agendas and ultimately the social work profession (CSWE, 2013). Arguably, there are hierarchies among professional organizations; social work is not exempt. CSWE presents the interest of academic programs and though significantly smaller in membership than NASW, it is sometimes viewed as enjoying higher status, perhaps due to this inherent association with universities (i.e., scientific institutions). This raises fundamental questions as to how these two organizations might be better aligned at this historical juncture to advance social work education, science, and the status of the profession. Here we posit several considerations that meet common ground.
Science in Social Work Education
Science has been defined as the construction of facts, theories, and methods that develop through a sequence of shifts in the accumulation of knowledge (Kuhn, 1962). Both organizations in principle share a common view of social work science in the profession and education. We echo the thoughts of others within this special issue. In particular, we feel that any “science” in social work must inform our value system as well as reflect it. It must be flexible and embrace, even illuminate, the complexities of social life. Science must be attuned to addressing social injustice, should advance the applied relevance of our science and enhance our theories and approaches to practice particularly with vulnerable and marginalized populations. Social work students should also be taught to embrace science as part of their professional identity in ways that are applicable to their level of education (bachelors’, masters’, or doctoral levels) and not view or select social work because they perceive it as antithetical to science or rigorous methods. Our professional organizations must hold us accountable to these commitments as practitioners in the field as well as practitioners of science.
Professional Visibility and Collective Impact
Although the vast majority of social workers are direct practitioners, policy analysts, educators and scientists also fall under this professional label. Raising the status and visibility of the social work is a common vision shared by CSWE and NASW. Although the number of U.S. social workers numbering 642,000 far outweighs psychologists (170,200) and psychiatrists (33,070; Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of labor, 2010, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition), social work as a profession has struggled for status and recognition since its inception. In paradox, U.S. social workers make dominant contributions to mental health services, child welfare delivery, and other practice domains. However, such leading practice contributions are not reflected when it comes to social work scholars creating knowledge within those domains. One exception may be child welfare research that is dominated by schools of social work. Additionally, in movies and other portrayals of “social work” the so-called welfare worker and the “child welfare caseworker” are popular dominant images of the typical social worker. Heavy emphasis on social workers as service providers without adequate attention to the scientific contributions of social work scholars and science has in part halted the status and broader social impact of social work. Given our share numbers and our major societal and growing scientific contributions, there are opportunities for CSWE, NASW, and other professional social work organizations to strategically work together to propel social work to greater visibility on national and international platforms. Without question, there are significant opportunities for social work to influence public opinion, policy, and discourse through national and social media and other lobbying efforts with combined and coordinated efforts from CSWE, NASW, and other major social work professional organizations.
Modeling the Value of Heart and Head in Social Work Education
Bridging the divide and managing tensions between research and practice is a dilemma the profession has struggled with for decades. However, in order to harness the dual strengths of social work and advance the profession, it is a bridge that must be narrowed. Next, we highlight a model currently being used, which attempts to privilege the dual strengths of practice and research in social work.
At the University of Southern California, field education faculty have partnered with research faculty to develop evidence-based intervention (EBI) training for first year (foundation) and second year (concentration) students in the master’s of social work (MSW) program to reduce the wide variability of skill development and opportunities to apply skills and knowledge to practice. Field education faculty at USC aim to take on the responsibility of ensuring that science in social work is taught to all students regardless of the community agencies in which they are placed.
Based on the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAs) approved by the CSWE Board of Directors in April 2008, the field practicum syllabi includes training in several EBI’s including motivational interviewing which must be completed by all foundation year students. In the concentration year, a menu of interventions is made available to students depending upon their selected course of study. The “menu” is not fixed but will grow and change as new challenges and research-based solutions inform the program. Currently, the concentration year trainings include problem-solving psychotherapy; core concepts in cognitive behavioral therapy; and core concepts in child and adolescent trauma (including the selection of trauma focused-cognitive behavioral therapy [TF-CBT] or cognitive behavioral intervention for trauma in schools [CBITS]). The EPAs are expressed in 10 competencies, several of which provide the basis for the inclusion of EBI training under the field education umbrella. EBIs are inherently grounded, validated, and replicated using scientific methods or the science of or in social work. Among others, these competencies include:
Competency 3. “…Apply critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgments, distinguish, appraise, and integrate multiple sources of knowledge, including research-based knowledge…”
Competency 6. “…Engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research.”
Competency 7. “…Use theoretical frameworks supported by empirical evidence…which include implementing empirically based interventions.”
Competency 10: “…Effectively engage with clients, assess, select and analyze interventions…”
Schools of social work prepare social work students by providing opportunities for them to master 10 core competencies and accompanying practice behaviors that CSWE identifies as common to all of social work practice. However, once students leave the academic setting, they often find a lack of corresponding acknowledgment of and concurrence about the 10 competencies, particularly related to research informed and EBIs in the professional practice world. Field education may also serve as a “bridge” between science and the profession. For example, establishing new partnerships with agencies can serve as “teaching institutions.”
As one example of building such bridges, the field education department and research faculty at the USC School of Social Work are engaged in pioneering efforts to build the science of social work through research, the development and implementation of and training in EBIs, and the assessment of intervention outcomes. The School is also interested in building more permanent and progressive career relationships between USC University faculty and agency staff and organizations with long-term affiliations as “field placements.” It is the hope of the School that a redefined connection will build a continuous exchange of ideas between the scientific social work community and the world of practice. In this context, the teaching institution represents a new paradigm within field education that aligns student learning, agency development, university research, and teaching at all levels.
Operationally, the teaching institution signifies a conceptual shift from the individual “apprentice model” of student learning. In the traditional approach to the field placement/practicum, the student immerses himself or herself in the agency culture and is taught how “things are done,” that is, the established modes of practice and procedures. An agency that agrees to become a teaching institution has a vision of new ways of serving a specific population and enters a redefined relationship with the USC School of Social Work to achieve that vision.
At the highest levels of agency administration and the Dean of the School of Social Work and the Associate Dean of Field Education at USC, both parties agree to the following:
The school and the organization will maintain a shared, mutual responsibility and commitment to learning that is multidirectional for student interns, professional social work staff, and university faculty. Agency staffs who lead teaching institution internship placements will be given adjunct faculty appointments in the School of Social Work. University faculty may be granted space for teaching courses at the site of the institution. All stakeholders of this new learning community will work toward achieving the service vision of the agency or organization.
The school and the institution will maintain a shared commitment to the advancement of research and evaluation, advancing the institution’s mission and work to infuse the science of social work into agency practice and procedures. This will be accomplished through training students, field instructors, and staff together in evidence-based practices, fidelity in implementation efforts as well as outcome evaluation. Faculty of the school of social work may be granted space for sabbatical leave or to engage in joint school/teaching institution research projects; staff from teaching institutions will be invited to take education leave or other opportunities for joining scholarly activities at the school.
The school and teaching institution will work over time to identify new and effective ways of serving the target population and to define career tracks beginning with student internship through senior staff positions, with identified learning and skill expectations, and better defined bridges between academic and practice careers, in alignment with evidence-based practices.
The school of social work and the teaching institution will work toward a comprehensive, more clearly articulated coordination of the field practicum curricula with agency-based student intern activities as reflected in a schedule of monthly “grand rounds” and/or specific workshops and trainings that are integrated into the field practicum syllabi for all USC MSW interns.
The teaching institution will offer placements to a minimum of 10 to 20 MSW students year-round, annually which will include a combination of foundation year students and concentration year students representing the schools’ multiple areas of focused learning—health, mental health, families and children, business and social work, community organization, military social work, and school social work.
In closing, we acknowledge the complex history of social work, social work education, the multifaceted tasks of social workers, and the implementation of science in social work. Without question, ongoing tensions exist within the profession, and we are inherently challenged to reconcile our complex history and to bridge the divide between research and customary practice. However, such tensions can give rise to educational innovation such as the examples noted earlier to find new ways in which to train the next generation of social work professionals and new ways to include established professionals in the science-based practice of social work. We believe that deepening the connections and increasing the communication between CSWE and NASW as well as the SSWR require ongoing corresponding efforts to integrate research, evidence-based practices, and the training and education of future social workers to advance the profession and to yield its greatest good to civil society.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
This paper was presented at the Islandwood Roundtable on Science in Social Work, July17–18, 2013, Bainbridge Island, WA. It was invited and accepted by the editor.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.