The Social Work Practice Doctorate

Abstract

This article provides a systematic review of the emerging practice doctorate in social work. Based on the experience of the first such Doctor of Social Work (DSW) program, we provide information regarding the program origins and rationale, development, current structure, and future direction. Such information will enrich the discussion on the role and future of the social work practice doctorates and serve schools that are considering or planning to initiate DSW programs.

Keywords

doctoral education future of social work higher education DSW educational innovation

Introduction

The ivory tower days of higher education, when scholars and the universities that housed them were insulated from the practical realities of the real world, are a thing of the past. While universities still embrace their historical roots and practices they also recognize the need for continual reassessment and adaptation to the needs of students and the society as a whole. At the same time, higher education is not immune to the fiscal imperatives and market pressures that drive competition for students and resources; these are realities of “doing business” in academia today.

In the case of social work professional education, the needs of the profession and the persons who the profession serves require ongoing examination. Changing workforce demands play a role in programming as well, and social work education must adapt to advances in knowledge as well as large-scale changes in policy that affect the scope and nature of social work practice. The drive to remain relevant, responsive, and innovative must be balanced with allegiance to the core educational mission and values of the profession. In short, while staying true to the mission of preparing students for the 21st-century social work practice landscape, social work educational programs must also adapt and change in order to stay relevant and survive.

It was of responsive adaptation, innovation, progress, and practical realities that the University of Pennsylvania resurrected the Doctor of Social Work (DSW) degree as a practice doctorate. In its original incarnation, the DSW was conceived as a degree that would join the few existing PhD programs in social work. The first PhD in social work was granted in 1920 by Bryn Mawr College, followed 4 years later in 1924 by the granting of the first DSW at the University of Chicago (Hoffman et al, 2008). According to Bolte (1971), in 1970, there were 21 doctoral programs in social work, of which 13 offered a DSW (two additional offered both DSW and PhD) and 8 offered only PhD. In the mid-1970s, there were an equal number of DSW and PhD degrees: 17 each (Crow & Kindelsperger, 1975). As Bernard (1977) suggested, up through the 1970s, there was no real difference between the PhD and DSW degrees in terms of course work and program structure. However, in the 1980s, a distinction between the degrees started to emerge. Patchner (1983) noted “that Ph.D. graduates were more oriented toward research and that DSW graduates were more disposed toward practice.” He went on to say that “there were more similarities than differences between the groups, however, and neither was at a disadvantage because of their degree” (p. 98).

For most of their shared history, the social work PhD and the DSW were largely indistinguishable—both research-based doctorates that emphasized “the acquisition of advanced research skills” (Hoffman et al., 2008). Over the years, DSW programs were replaced by the PhD. Social work PhD programs and the institutional recognition and status they conferred became the gold standard for doctoral education and resulted in the eventual phasing out of DSW programs altogether. Cnaan, Draine, and Dichter (2008) contended that the rise of less academic professional degrees, such as the PsyD for clinical psychologists and EdD for school administrators, and the academia puzzlement over and disrespect for any degree but the PhD, were the reasons behind the decline of the DSW. By the late 1990s, all schools of social work offered PhD degrees and the schools that offered the DSW either transformed the degree to a PhD or closed the DSW and opened a new PhD program (Donahoe, 2000). By 2007, the DSW was extinct.

Human capital theory suggests a strong relationship between labor market needs and the expansion of higher education, including graduate and professional study (Boud & Tennant, 2006; Servage, 2009). Proponents of the new professional practice doctorates argue that these programs provide practitioners the knowledge and tools needed to practice in increasingly complex social and technological environments. As such, a decade into the 21st century shows new life for the DSW degree but in a new form. Unlike the mid-1970s, when the DSW and the PhD were similar programs with different titles, a new DSW is emerging as a unique practice degree significantly different from the research-based PhD degree. The new DSW is to a large extent still in uncharted territory. The first program of its kind originated at the University of Pennsylvania in 2007. In the next section, we discuss the rationale for restarting the DSW as a practice doctorate. This is followed by a section discussing the University of Pennsylvania DSW program’s development. The next section is devoted to the program’s structure and curriculum. Finally, we discuss the future of DSW education and offer ideas and suggestions regarding the future of advanced social work education.

The Rationale and Origins of the New DSW

In 2004 at the University of Pennsylvania, the second author noted that social work as a profession was disadvantaged by not having a practice doctorate. He reasoned that in the history of social work there have been many masters-level graduates with PhD potential whose primary interest was direct social work practice. For individuals such as these, who did not want to depart from their clinical work to pursue a life as a researcher or academician, a practice doctorate option in social work did not exist. Furthermore, high-quality PhD programs typically required full-time student status, which was impractical for employed practitioners. For these reasons, Master of Social Work (MSW)-level practitioners who were equipped for and interested in advancing their formal education gave up the idea of a PhD in social work, with some “jumping ship” to pursue nonsocial work practice doctorates in allied fields such as psychology, family therapy, counseling, and education.

The PhD’s emphasis on research over practice knowledge and skill-building pushed a number of disciplines to offer practice-based professional doctorate degrees as alternatives to the PhD. Practice doctorates have been introduced in the fields of: nursing (ND Sc; DNP), chiropractic medicine (DC; DCM), pharmacy (PharmD), psychology (PsyD), physical therapy (DPT), engineering (Eng/D; ESc; DES), education (EdD), public administration (DPA), nutrition (DSN), public health (DPH), and religion (DDiv; cf. Brown-Benedict, 2008; Cronenwett et al., 2011). These professional doctorate degrees emphasize skills and practical knowledge, and in some cases they have become the terminal degree for practice (Harno, 2004). As Zusman (2013) reported, professional doctorate degree programs skyrocketed in the last decade to over 500 programs in at least a dozen fields in the United States today, with over 10,000 degrees awarded just in 2012. Doctor of Physical Therapy programs alone grew from 19 in 2000 to 226 in 2012 (Zusman, 2013).

Social workers often work in interdisciplinary teams in hospitals, nursing homes, community mental health, geriatric care, and schools and other settings (Keough, Field, & Gurwitz, 2002; Parker & Peck, 2006; Van Pelt, 2013). As other professions adopt the doctorate as the terminal degree, the social worker is the only one at the table who is not a “doctor.” Without a practice doctorate of its own, the social work profession risks being left behind, arguably eroding further our professional status and losing an opportunity to bolster our professional identity. Since its beginnings, social work has struggled to craft a clear, unified, and respected professional identity (Austin, 1983; Brown, 1942; Flexner, 1915; Greenwood, 1957; Lubov, 1965); an imperative for all professions but a particularly challenging one for social work, given the expansive range of issues, problems, and populations that are the focus of our research, scholarship, and practice, and the overlap with other professions and disciplines. The social work practice doctorate would produce clinical experts who bring high-level specialized knowledge about practice and the theory and research that informs practice to their roles as multidisciplinary team members, teachers, and practice leaders. Such engagement in the clinical practice and social work educational enterprises would strengthen the credibility of the profession and help to solidify our professional identity.

With respect to teaching, Lubben (2012) noted that the number of social work doctoral graduates seeking full-time academic appointments remains less than the current demand for new faculty. The 69 schools of social work that offer a PhD training combined cannot meet the demand for social work faculty (Austin, 1998). In social work education, there is a severe shortage of qualified instructors, particularly to teach in the practice curriculum. Many BSW program instructors do not possess a doctorate or even an MSW, and in MSW programs the practice courses are often taught by masters-level practitioners or by standing faculty who are far removed from practice (Edwards, 2011). This has created a demand for faculty to teach practice who hold a social work doctoral degree and are advanced practitioners. Many graduates from PhD programs cannot and do not wish to fill this gap. PhD holders are inclined to seek employment as researchers and see teaching practice as a distraction from their scholarly and research agendas. While experienced MSW-level practitioners have much to bring to the classroom, they lack the background and preparation in evidence-based practice, neither do they have the formal teaching preparation that the practice doctorate provides.

Johnson and Munch (2010) found that among social work PhD graduates, a small minority had significant practice experience. Moreover, in the past decade, the methodological rigor of social work dissertations improved but at the same time practice-oriented dissertations graduates could successfully compete with graduates from other doctoral programs in social sciences, their contribution to social work practice became less relevant. The dissertations produced by DSW students would be applied and practical, offering knowledge that is readily accessible and relevant for social work practitioners. Writing about the trend toward practice doctorates in the United Kingdom, Fenge (2009) argues that practice doctorates “develop the capacity and capability of practitioners to undertake research that has direct outcomes for practice development” (p. 173).

Through their exploration and development of practice-based knowledge, social work practice doctors would be in a position to facilitate evidence-based knowledge dissemination that actually reaches frontline practitioners. This knowledge dissemination and use in social work is the process by which new tested and verified knowledge translates research to practice (Procter & Rosen, 2008; Rosen, 1994). A group of advanced practitioners with a practice doctorate education would serve as a bridge between new research and practice knowledge. In the course of DSW education, students would become clinician experts and informed consumers of research, and through teaching, leading, and supervising, they transmit this knowledge to other social work students and professionals.

In most MSW programs, the focus of education is on generalist practice with the option of concentrating on direct or macro practice and sometimes the option of further specializing in a particular content area (Sheafor & Horejsi, 2009). The overarching goal of MSW education is to socialize students to the tenets and values of the social work profession and prepare them for a wide range of social work practice domains. Precisely because the range of practice areas in social work is so broad, it is virtually impossible to thoroughly prepare the Masters student for advanced clinical practice. Many social workers end up pursuing additional training post-MSW that fills the inevitable gaps in knowledge and allows them to specialize in a particular area of practice. The practice doctorate DSW would offer an alternative that arms the social worker with advanced practice knowledge, preparation for teaching, and the doctorate credential.

The practice doctorate would also produce a cadre of social work leaders equipped to take on the administrative roles. In the early years of social work, most social service agencies were headed by social workers. Public and nonprofit agencies were often led by professional social workers and social workers were key participants in policy making. In the past 30 years, fewer and fewer management positions have been occupied by social workers and social work’s impact on policy making has been limited. A key contributor to this situation is the lack of leaders among social workers and the lack of emphasis on leadership in social work education and social service agencies (Brilliant, 1986; Rank & Hutchinson, 2000). Practice doctorate education can identify, encourage, and open doors for future professional leaders.

In view of the rationale laid out previously, it became clear that it would be in the best interests of the social work profession to adopt a practice doctorate. Recognizing that the title DSW was part of social work’s professional history and one that was no longer in use, it made sense to repurpose the DSW as a new practice doctorate.

Developing the Program

In 2004, the second author presented the idea for a practice doctorate to the management team at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy & Practice. The idea was met with excitement but also with skepticism. Concerns were voiced about whether the profession was prepared for such a program and about faculty and fiscal resources required to run it. Ultimately, the decision was made to assemble an exploratory planning committee, which the second author was charged with convening. All standing faculty members of the School holding the MSW degree and several MSW part-time practice instructors were invited to join the planning process. The latter group was invited both as potential students in the program and as key informants who could share their experience teaching practice courses. The committee was given carte blanche to come up with any program model that they saw fit. After a year of deliberation and planning, the committee met for a final intensive 2-day retreat that resulted in a draft proposal that was presented to the School’s faculty.

The faculty raised three key reservations. First, there was concern that the DSW would be a second-rate degree or diluted PhD. It was made clear that this was not a subpar PhD program but a new practice degree with entirely different goals and target audience. Second, there were doubts about whether we had sufficient numbers of faculty with the expertise required to teach and oversee dissertation work. Related to this was the concern that the DSW would drain precious faculty resources from the MSW program. The solution was to design a curriculum and program structure that made it possible to bring in renowned visiting faculty from all over the country to teach courses. Finally, there was a doubt about the demand for such a program and it was suggested that the program should engage in serious public relations and start with a small number of students. Despite these reservations, the program was voted in by a majority of the standing faculty and slated to bring in the first class in fall of 2007.

A director was assigned and given a full academic year to implement the program. The proposal provided the general outlines for the program, but it was left to the director and the faculty governance committee to hammer out the details of the program design, structure, and curriculum. With no publicity or recruiting other than a post on the School’s webpage, the program began in fall of 2007 with a full cohort of 15 students.

Program Structure

From its inception, the DSW program at the University of Pennsylvania was intended to educate advanced social work practitioners and instructors who could emerge as leaders in the social work profession. To address the need for doctoral level social work practitioners, the faculty advisory committee designed the program for working professionals. This way, potential clinical doctorate students could continue practicing social work while embarking on a rigorous educational program that immersed them in courses and dissertation work on clinical theory, clinical practice, teaching, and evidence-based practice research.

The DSW program is a 3-year program that continues through summer semesters. Unlike most social work PhD programs, DSW students begin working on the dissertation alongside the coursework. This allows for ongoing development and engagement in dissertation research at the same time that knowledge of clinical theory, practice theory, and research methods is also evolving. This concurrent process creates a dialectic in which students’ coursework informs their research and their research informs their classroom learning and engagement in course material.

A key pedagogical strategy in Penn’s DSW program is the cohort model. Student cohorts are chosen carefully by the faculty members of the admissions committee and each cohort moves through the program together. The cohort members typically mirror the field of social work practice, and those chosen from the applicant pool represent varying areas of practice and diverse clinical and personal backgrounds. The cohort model also has a powerful group process component. Students learn from their cohort members in the classroom and also about their experience of self and others in groups. Group leadership and understanding of group process are critical components of social work practice, classroom leadership, and overall leadership in the social work field.

The DSW Governance Committee is made up of the program faculty, administrators, students, and alumni. The Governance Committee meets monthly to address ongoing needs as the program develops. In the interest of continuous improvement, the committee has made changes in program structure and curriculum. Key changes include adjusting the structure of the comprehensive exam and expanding the methods and formats for clinical dissertation projects. The Governance Committee is attuned to student and alumni feedback, and student representatives from each cohort sit on the committee and alumni are invited to open meetings of the Governance Committee. The consistent input and output of key stakeholders in the DSW program has provided students an in vivo opportunity to practice and hone their leadership skills.

Curriculum

The DSW curriculum, like most University-based curricula, is informed by current practice, research, and professional scholarship. Curriculum decisions are informed by the learning objectives. The Penn DSW program provides high-quality courses by allowing for esteemed faculty from the School of Social Policy and Practice, faculty across other schools at the University, and faculty from other institutions with particular areas of expertise to instruct DSW students. This flexibility and instructor recruitment allows for high-quality learning opportunities.

During the first year of study, students complete core coursework in clinical theory, research, and social statistics. The core courses meet once a week during the late afternoon and evening. Starting in the summer following the first year and thereafter, students attend class one long weekend each month. Taught by Penn faculty as well as renowned faculty and clinician-experts from across the country, these intensive learning experiences, or what we refer to as “modules,” are designed to expose students to the latest developments in evidence-based practice. The curriculum also includes content on teaching, supervision, leadership, and organizational dynamics along with a required ethics course. To maintain the integrity of the cohort model, the curriculum is prescriptive, with the exception of three electives that the cohort chooses as a group. All courses offered in the DSW curriculum are delivered with a lens toward social work ethics, cultural competency, and attention to diversity and oppression—all key tenets of social work practice. The coursework informs the development of dissertation projects from the start of the program. After completion of these aforementioned courses, students must successfully complete preliminary exams before moving forward.

The DSW dissertation options allow for a varied approach to practice based research and requires high-quality academic scholarship. Students can choose to embark on empirical research including human subjects research or they can explore theoretical/conceptual models in the literature through a critical review or practice theory development. Other options include intervention development or adaptation, curriculum development, and treatment/practice manual development. A historical review is another possible method. Students develop traditional book-style dissertations, two scholarly articles, or a scholarly article with a critical review of the literature. The dissertations are published on the University’s open access repository for scholarly work, in this way ensuring the knowledge generation and dissemination that is one of the DSW program goals. The dissertations also provide an opportunity for students to become clinician-experts in a particular substantive area.

Outcomes

The goals of the DSW program were to provide an alternative to the research-based PhD that would prepare social workers to teach in the practice curriculum and take-on leadership positions in the practice arena, and contribute to the social work practice knowledge base. An implicit goal was to address the problem of low doctoral degree completion rates by making the program time-limited and tightly structured. Having graduated four classes of students as of the writing of this article, we are able to assess outcomes and how they articulate with the program’s stated goals.

Admission to the DSW program is selective, with an average acceptance rate of 40% and 91% of those admitted actually matriculating. Although the minimum required post-MSW experience for admission is 2 years, accepted applicants averaged 7.5 years of post-masters social work experience. The program has a 91% retention rate. With regard to completion rates, 71% of the students have completed degree requirements by year 3, and 86% by year 5.

With respect to the program goal of producing clinician-scholars who can teach social work practice, alumni of the program have secured part-time and full-time teaching positions in BSW and MSW programs at universities that include Temple, University of Southern California, Bryn Mawr College, University of Pittsburgh, Stockton College, Rutgers, and City University of New York. In the MSW program at Penn, one DSW graduate was hired as a full-time lecturer, and other DSW alumni are teaching courses part-time, primarily in the practice and HBSE sequences of the curriculum. Teaching evaluations for the DSW alumni who teach in our MSW program are consistently high, with the students commenting on the value of having instructors who bring their practice experience into the classroom. The excellence in teaching award for part-time faculty that is presented annually at the School’s commencement ceremony has been awarded 3 times in the past 5 years to a DSW graduate who is a member of the part-time faculty.

In addition to being desirable candidates for teaching positions, DSW alumni report increased career opportunities and mobility following degree completion. Several alumni have successfully competed for senior administration positions that were posted for doctoral degree holders in other professions (nursing and psychology). DSW graduates have been able to leverage the expertise gained from their dissertation projects to gain attention and open career doors. One graduate’s dissertation on the unmet needs of families of intensive care patients resulted in hospital administrators where the alumna worked asking her to head a taskforce that recommended policy changes that were subsequently implemented at the hospital. Another alumna whose dissertation was on autism was hired as director of a large university autism research center, a job that had been posted for a doctoral level psychologist. The dissertation has been one vehicle for knowledge generation and dissemination, another program goal. All DSW dissertations are published in the University’s repository for scholarly work, “Scholarly Commons,” and at last count, usage reports indicate that the 47 published dissertations have been downloaded nearly 72,000 times. Students and alumni have presented at professional conferences and published scholarly articles in journals including Social Work in Health Care, Clinical Social Work, Psychoanalytic Social Work, and the Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community. DSW alumni have also contributed chapters to edited texts, and one person’s dissertation was published as an electronic book.

Discussion and Conclusion

DSW programs are here to stay. This is no longer a single-school experimentation but a trend that shows every indication of continuing. After the School of Policy & Practice at the University of Pennsylvania opened the first university-based clinical DSW program as a practice doctorate, three other schools began DSW practice doctorate programs and others are planning to follow. As we noted in the previous section, by every measure the University of Pennsylvania DSW program has been successful and has thus far met program goals and expectations. This pioneering DSW program has also opened the door for serious discourse about the future of social work education as we know it.

One question that emerges as more and more DSW programs are reincarnated or born anew as practice doctorates is: Will the MSW remain the terminal degree in social work or will it be supplanted by the social work practice doctorate? The authors of this article are divided on this issue, as likely is or will be the profession as a whole. Nonetheless, a move in this direction may come from social work practitioners themselves, who want to level the playing field as they interact with doctorate-level colleagues from other disciplines. If the DSW does become the terminal degree, there will be many implications for the profession in addition to the determining the role of the MSW. These should be carefully considered. Intentional ratcheting up of credential requirements to raise status, autonomy, and income potential of the profession may result in unintended consequences such as, pricing social workers out of the market and allowing their roles to be filled by less expensive and less well-trained professionals from other disciplines. Not to mention the potential impact on the educational programs that produce MSWs. Schools of social work may elect, like PsyD programs, offer a direct track from the bachelors to the masters and practice doctorate or a dual MSW/DSW degree option.

While the DSW programs that have been introduced since 2007 are all clinical or direct practice focused, there may also be a place for the macro or administrative DSW. Such programs could focus on issues of management, leadership, strategic planning, supervision, budgeting, accounting, contracting, legal aspects of running an organization, and so forth—knowledge and skills that are important for social workers who rise to administrative leadership roles. Some schools may opt to offer both macro and clinical DSW programs in a combined manner while others specialize in one or the other. It is too soon to assess whether both types of DSW will be of equal value and be regarded equally by the profession and those outside of social work.

Given the possibility of a macro-DSW, a related question is whether all students must have an MSW degree and if the 2-years (or more) of postmasters practice experience should continue to be required. One can argue that to run a social service agency or be engaged in policy earning a DSW without an MSW is sufficient. Among PhD students in schools of social work, only 90% hold an MSW degree and in the future that may be the same for DSW students (Anastas, 2012). If we open the door to non-MSW in macro-DSW programs, it could also open clinical-DSW programs to people who earn the masters in other fields. And if the terminal degree moves from the MSW to the DSW, people without the MSW and/or without practice experience may pressure DSW programs to let them in. Anastas and Videka (2012) warned against such a possibility and concluded that “If a license is granted to someone who received the doctoral degree without such prior practice-related preparation, there is concern about protection of the public” (p. 269).

The projected proliferation of practice doctorate programs in social work will eventually raise the question of whether they should be accredited and if so, by whom. As long as a master’s degree in social work from an accredited institution is required for all DSW applicants, accreditation of DSW programs is redundant and unnecessary and the concerns raised by Anastas and Videka (2012) about protection of the public are essentially moot. However, should the DSW become the practice terminal degree for practice, it would need to be accredited, a role that the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) might well assume.

These are only a few of the possible changes and challenges facing the profession if the DSW is to become social work’s terminal degree. If the trend continues and a critical mass of DSW programs and graduates develops, the practice doctorate may become the de-facto terminal degree in social work. Clearly, the issue warrants continued thoughtful discussion and debate. We add to this important dialogue by offering this description of the first social work practice doctorate: the DSW at the University of Pennsylvania.

Footnotes

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.

References

Anastas

Videka

(2012). Does social work need a “practice doctorate”? Clinical Social Work Journal, 40, 268–276.

Anastas

J. W.

(2012). Doctoral education in social work. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Austin

(1983). The Flexner myth and the history of social work. Social Service Review, 57, 357–377.

Austin

(1998). A report on the progress in the development of research resources in social work. Washington, DC: Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research.

Boud

Tennant

(2006). Putting doctoral education to work: Challenges to academic practice. Higher Education Research and Development, 25, 293–306.

Bernard

L. D.

(1977). Education for social work. In Turner

J. B.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (17th ed., pp. 290–300). Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.

Bolte

G. L.

(1971). Current trends in doctoral programs in schools of social work in the United States and Canada. In Deasy

L. C.

(Ed.), Doctoral students look at social work education (pp. 109–126). New York, NY: Council on Social Work Education.

Brilliant

E. L.

(1986). Social work leadership: A missing ingredient? Social Work, 31, 325–331.

Brown

E. L.

(1942). Social work as a profession, New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

10.

Brown-Benedict

D. J.

(2008). The doctor of nursing practice degree: Lessons from the history of the professional doctorate in other health disciplines. Journal of Nursing Education, 47, 448–457.

11.

Cnaan

R. A.

Draine

Dichter

M. E.

(2008). Introduction: An overview of the journey. In Cnaan

R. A.

Dichter

Draine

(Eds.), A century of social work and social welfare at Penn (pp. 1–9). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

12.

Cronenwett

Dracup

Grey

McCauley

Meleis

Salmon

(2011). The doctor of nursing practice: A national workforce perspective. Nursing Outlook, 59, 9–17.

13.

Crow

R. T.

Kindelsperger

K. W.

(1975). The PhD or the DSW? Journal of Education for Social Work, 11, 38–43.

14.

Donahoe

J. N.

(2000). Advancing doctoral education in social work: The development of organizations of doctoral programs, 1948–1992 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.

15.

Edwards

R. L

. (2011). The doctorate in social work (DSW) degree: Emergence of a new practice doctorate: Report of the Task Force on the DSW Degree convened by the Social Work Leadership Forum. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=59954

16.

Fenge

L. A.

(2009). Professional doctorates: A better route for researching professionals? Social Work Education: The International Journal, 28, 165–176.

17.

Flexner

(1915). Is social work a profession? Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction (pp. 576–590). Chicago, IL: Hildman Printing Co. Reprinted in Research on Social Work Practice (March 2001), 11(2), 152–165.

18.

Greenwood

(1957). Attributes of a profession. Social Work, 2, 45–55.

19.

Harno

A. J.

(2004). Legal education in the United States. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange.

20.

Hoffman

K. S.

Lubben

J. E.

Ouellette

P. M.

Shaffer

G. L.

Hutchison

E. D.

Alvarez

A. R.

… Colby

I. C.

(2008). Social work education. In: The Encyclopedia of Social Work (20th Ed), (pp. 4, 107–137). Washington DC: NASW Press.

21.

Johnson

Y. M.

Munch

(2010). Faculty with practice experience: The new dinosaurs in the social work academy? Journal of Social Work Education, 46, 57–66.

22.

Keough

M. E.

Field

T. S.

Gurwitz

J. H

. (2002). A model of community-based interdisciplinary team training in the care of the frail elderly. Academic Medicine, 77, 936.

23.

Lubben

(2012, June 12). Demystifying the academic job market. Retrieved from http://gadephd.org/Portals/0/docs/Jim%20Lubben-%20Academic%20Job%20Market%202012.pdf

24.

Lubov

(1965). The professional altruist: The emergence of social work as a career 1880-1930 (Chapter 1, pp. 1–21.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

25.

Parker

O. D.

Peck

(2006). Inside the interdisciplinary team experiences of hospice social workers. Journal of Social Work End of Life Palliative care, 2, 7–21.

26.

Patchner

(1983). The experiences of DSWs and Ph.D.s. Journal of Social Work Education, 19, 98–106.

27.

Procter

Rosen

(2008). From knowledge production to implementation: Research challenges and imperatives. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 285–291.

28.

Rank

M. G.

Hutchinson

W. S.

(2000). An analysis of leadership within the social work profession. Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 487–502.

29.

Rosen

(1994). Knowledge use in direct practice. Social Service Review, 68, 561–577.

30.

Servage

(2009). Alternative and professional doctoral programs: What is driving the demand? Studies in Higher Education, 34, 765–779.

31.

Sheafor

B. W.

Horejsi

C. R.

(2009). Techniques and guidelines for social work practice (8th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

32.

Van Pelt

, (2013). Multidisciplinary child protection teams—The social worker’s role. Social Work Today, 13, 26.

33.

Zusman

(2013). Degrees of change: How new kinds of professional doctorates are changing higher education institutions. Berkeley: University of California, Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/ROPS.CSHE.8.13.Zusman.DegreesofChange.6.14.13.pdf