Building a Community of Sociological Practice: Certifying Practitioners and Accrediting Programs

Introduction

As the market for professionals becomes increasingly international, attention has focused on the credentialing of individuals as well as accrediting courses of study for those seeking to practice in a new country (Allsop et al. 2009). In the United States, the certification of sociological practitioners and the accreditation of sociological practice programs are mechanisms that can address these trends and build a community of sociological practitioners. The purpose of this essay is to clarify, for academics and nonacademics alike, the distinction between certification and accreditation. Most importantly, this essay contributes to the ongoing discussion within the discipline of sociology that emphasizes the importance of linking traditional academic study with professional practice (Dentler 2002; Finkelstein 1994, 2012; Fritz 1989, 2012; Lehnerer 2008; Perlstadt 1998).

In the United States, clinical and applied sociologists find themselves in competition with social workers, psychologists, market/public opinion researchers, mediators, and community organizers, among others. Many of these professionals are certified by their professional associations and in some states, social workers and clinical psychologists must be licensed to practice. While no state licenses sociologists, sociological practitioners perceive the need to be certified. Similarly, most graduate-level social work and psychology programs in the United States are accredited, thereby documenting that their program meets quality standards in terms of faculty, coursework, and resources. In the United States, this is carried out by nongovernmental regional and programmatic or “specialized” accrediting organizations.

This essay covers the history of the certification of individual sociologists and the accreditation of practice-oriented training programs in sociology. It describes the certifying and accrediting organizations, details of their process/procedures, and benefits of each. A closing statement argues that sociology programs should seek accreditation and encourage their graduates to pursue certification.

Certifying Practitioners

Freidson (2001) identified three different ways of organizing work in contemporary societies: the market, the workplace, and the profession. He maintained that organizing work through the profession is most advantageous for practitioners and ultimately their clients. The market is consumer controlled; whereas, the workplace is subject to bureaucratic control. In both instances, worker alienation is increased, and personal investment in one’s work is reduced (Freidson 1992, 2001). Professional control guided by professionalism is a counter to worker alienation because “it is based on commitments to occupation and work as central life concerns” (Brint 2006:102).

Certification is a crucial element of professionalism because the credentialing process creates a community of workers with similar interests and commitments (Brint 2006). Sociological practitioners may offer their services to clients directly through the marketplace as self-employed consultants or clinicians, or through public or private organizations in which they are employed. Regardless of place of employment, sociological practitioners often seek certification as a way of legitimatizing their status compared with their colleagues or competitors in similar professions like psychology or social work.

The certification of sociological practitioners began with the Clinical Sociology Association (CSA) in 1983. The Board of the CSA recognized that a credentialing process would meet many of the association’s goals: (1) legitimating the work of clinical sociologists, (2) protecting the public from unqualified practitioners, and (3) encouraging an upgrade of skills through continuing education (Clark 1990). Most importantly, credentialing would move sociological practitioners from self-labeling to a professional identity. This professional identity would be based upon “competency in the practice of clinical sociology through the mastery of sociological theory and methods, and through appropriate skills” (Clark 1990:106). Those sociologists who demonstrated this competency would be awarded the designation of Certified Clinical Sociologist (CCS).

In 1986, CSA voted to change its name to the Sociological Practice Association (SPA) to include both clinical and applied sociologists, thus reflecting the changing makeup of the membership (Clark 1990). The base of the membership remained clinical sociologists who were engaged in improving the quality of people’s lives (Fritz 2012). The newer members were involved in applied work with government agencies, for profits, and nonprofits. They were doing policy-oriented, needs assessment, evaluation, market/public polling, and action-directed research (Britt 2000).

The SPA continued the credentialing of sociologists—both clinical and applied. In 2005, the SPA merged with the Society for Applied Sociology (SAS) to establish the Association for Applied and Clinical Sociology (AACS). This merger recognized the benefits of combining resources and efforts (Perlstadt 2006). The AACS remains committed to the certification of individual practitioners—applied, clinical, and public. Certified practitioners include family therapists, mediation specialists, mitigation experts, program evaluators (profit and nonprofit), and community organizers (Fritz and Rheaume 2014).

The current certification process involves the submission of a portfolio, letters of assessment, university transcripts, and documents that verify applied, clinical, or engaged public practice (Fritz 2012). Within the portfolio, the applicant identifies an area of specialization and level of focus. An applicant’s specialization may be family mediation (micro), community development (meso), or advising on international social policy (macro/global). Crucial components of the portfolio are the statements of competency in regard to theory, method, skills, and ethics.

After examining the portfolio and determining that the competencies are met, the AACS peer reviewers schedule a certification demonstration (AACS 2017). As stated above, the key is to illustrate competency in the use of theory and methods to bring about positive social change in an area of specialization. The formal demonstration is followed by a question and answer period. This is a vital part of the demonstration because it allows the applicant to move outside the formal demonstration by interacting with peers and bringing in the passion that is so often a part of sociological practice. At the end of a successful demonstration process, the applicant is awarded certification.

Benefits of Certification

Certification is a rigorous process that has been established to ensure that only the most competent become a CCS or Certified Sociological Practitioner (CSP). One’s work has been made public, scrutinized by peers, and judged effective. Certification is a marketing tool that enhances the credibility of practitioners in business/industry and the social services (Ellis 2000). Certification supports the legitimacy of the practitioner in claiming an occupational jurisdiction and area of practice expertise (Abbott 1988). Most importantly, certification creates a sense of confidence on the part of clients. Specifically, clients know that the practitioner is knowledgeable, skilled, and will adhere to ethical standards of practice. Certification can also enhance the practitioner’s stature when working with interdisciplinary teams composed of licensed professionals such as medical doctors, lawyers, or social workers. This particular benefit is quite relevant in light of recent research on “postprofessionalization.” Postprofessionalization refers to role change from autonomous expert to collaborative facilitator (Fielding 2016). Collaboration involves the practitioner, other professionals, and those receiving services.

To some extent, certification reflects the quality of the practitioner’s academic training program, which often has a sociological practice emphasis. As Dentler (2004) has pointed out, traditional sociology programs seem to have a culture of “trained incapacity” to value the application of theory and method to the real world. The accrediting of practice-oriented programs in sociology challenges that culture.

Accrediting Practice-oriented Sociology Programs

Accreditation of programs, like certification of practitioners, expands sociology from a discipline to a profession that engages with “publics” outside of academia. The Commission on the Accreditation of Programs in Applied and Clinical Sociology (CAPACS) was established in 1995 to develop, promote, and support quality education in applied sociology, clinical sociology, and public sociology at the undergraduate and graduate levels. CAPACS (formerly the Commission on Applied and Clinical Sociology) was a joint initiative of the two professional organizations mentioned above—the SAS and the SPA. The Commission is incorporated as an independent entity from the founding organizations. The Commission consists of 16 members of whom at least two but not more than six are from accredited programs. CAPACS accredits programs (domestic and international), and disseminates program models and resources that will support the growth of sociological practice programs—applied, clinical, and public.

Accreditation assures the quality of an educational program that has met or exceeded a set of standards. Similar to the process in social work and clinical psychology, accreditation begins with a program self-study report. The program reviews the CAPACS standards and writes a narrative that describes how the program meets these standards. The self-study allows a program to highlight its strengths, including innovative ways of training and preparing students while still meeting a set of standards in the areas of sociological theory, knowledge, methods, skills, and professional orientation and ethics.

Key to any program’s narrative is the way in which students are required to have a meaningful practice experience, such as an internship or practicum placement. Regardless of the degree level, this is the mechanism by which the program engages students in applied social research, social change activities, and/or contributing to debates over public policy and social institutions. It is this standard/requirement that distinguishes a practice program from a more traditional program in sociology (CAPACS 2015).

Practice settings include community internships/service learning, practicum placements, and university consulting and research centers (Lehnerer 2008). An internship or service learning experience encompasses an off-campus experience under the supervision of an approved advisor. Internships may be paid or unpaid and can occur in a variety of settings such as a nonprofit organization, a for-profit business, or a government agency.

A practicum is distinguished from an internship in that the student works with a practitioner who clearly identifies with the field of sociology, such as a sociotherapist. A practicum may take place on or off campus. University-based research centers create an environment in which students can either assist faculty in conducting in-house research for the institution, or participate in a community-based research or service project. A university-based research center often can coordinate the practice experience with student coursework. By meeting the practice experience standards, graduates from accredited CAPACS programs understand the basic theoretical perspectives and levels of analysis and how they relate to social action, change, and intervention; they are familiar with research methods particularly relevant to sociological practice (Perlstadt 1998).

The Commission’s Accreditation Review Committee (ARC) examines the self-study and, if a preponderance of the standards appears to be met, schedules a site visit. The main objective of the two-day site visit is to verify the self-study and to follow up on any concerns the ARC has noted. The Commission then considers the self-study and site visit reports in its decision to accredit a program, for five to seven years.

Benefits of Accreditation

Accreditation provides several benefits. First, accreditation benefits students by providing a professional identity as sociological practitioners. This in turn helps them find their place in the job market through internships, practicum, and alumni contacts. Students who graduate from accredited sociological practice programs are able to fulfill their personal commitment to public service and social change (Spalter-Roth et al. 2012).

Second, a program can use accreditation in its marketing to students, parents, and potential employers (Capece 2002). Employers, in particular, know what accreditation means in the allied helping professions and will understand that program graduates have been trained in a program that meets national standards of sociological practice (Ballard 2007). Most importantly, as colleges and universities encourage and support accreditation of programs, an accredited sociology program is more likely to receive needed resources to improve its faculty and facilities.

Third, accreditation benefits educators by providing a means by which like-minded sociologists can pursue common educational interests. The standards contain guidelines for tenure and promotion of faculty involved with the program that recognize applied and clinical research as well as community outreach and service projects.

Last, accreditation revitalizes the discipline of sociology by returning it to its action-oriented roots to address social problems. From the beginning, sociology sought to study society and develop insights to bring about positive social change (Perlstadt 2006). Sociology features a critical perspective that emphasizes praxis, social action, and an ongoing questioning of social organization in terms of power differences (Fritz 1989). This critical perspective has been given renewed interest by the public sociologist whose role is to bring sociology to “publics beyond the academy to promote dialog about issues that affect the fate of society” (Burawoy 2005:104).

Conclusion

Recent research findings in the United States indicate that sociological practice is experiencing renewed vigor at both the departmental and individual levels (Van Vooren and Spalter-Roth 2011). In 2009, a number of major research universities in the United States were reducing the size of their PhD programs, especially in the social sciences (Jaschik 2009). This reduction was due to falling endowments and concerns for job market opportunities. These same institutions, however, began to focus on practice-oriented programs to maintain graduate student enrollment. In this context, the American Sociological Association (ASA) guided by ASA Task Force recommendations began to look more closely at the viability of graduate programs in sociology using two criteria: (1) remaining open in an era of cutbacks, and (2) preparing graduates for careers in the nonacademic workforce (Van Vooren and Spalter-Roth 2011). Survey data were collected from directors of graduate programs in sociology to compare sociological practice, applied, clinical, and traditional master’s level programs; this comparison was based on the criteria mentioned above.

When looking at success in terms of remaining open, survey data revealed that those programs engaged in sociological practice and preparing students for the nonacademic job market were more successful than those traditional programs preparing students for a doctorate in sociology (Spalter-Roth and Van Vooren 2011). The survey also revealed that many terminal master’s graduates joined the workforce as social science researchers; a direct result of their training in research skills (Van Vooren and Spalter-Roth 2011). Those graduates who were unemployed were unwilling to relocate. This finding led to a recommendation that faculty in terminal master’s programs need to connect students to the local labor market through mechanisms such as internships.

Another ASA research brief (Spalter-Roth et al. 2012) focused on the views of sociology majors and further points to the importance of sociological practice. It emphasized that of the top five reasons students chose sociology, two were linked to social change: (1) learning how social forces affect people, and (2) knowing how sociology can change society. Another very promising finding was that students chose sociology for such vocationally oriented reasons as career preparation and research skills.

Based on student interest, the authors of this research brief suggest the following strategies for recruiting and retaining students. First, programs should emphasize the conceptual power of sociology for understanding the changing social world as well as students’ experiences in it. Second, programs should make clear how conceptual understanding can help bring about social change. Third, programs should have as a part of their curriculum the ways in which sociology can prepare students for careers outside of academia. Accredited programs in sociological practice are in a position to capitalize on these research findings and suggestions. Most importantly, accredited programs can assure a quality education that supports the certification of individuals (Perlstadt 1998).

The U.S. experience with certification and accreditation can both develop a community of sociological practitioners and contribute to the ongoing discussion within sociology on the relationship between discipline and profession. For example, Philip Abrams (1968, 1985) wrote that sociology could be useful if it attempted to close the gap between social knowledge and social action. Similarly, Andrew Abbott (1988) distinguished between scientific research that develops a body of abstract knowledge and professionals/practitioners who attempt to interpret and apply that knowledge. Recently, Finkelstein (2009, 2012), a labor relations applied sociologist, reiterated the need for disciplinary sociology to recognize the “practicality” of sociology.

Using sociological theory and methods, applied, clinical, and engaged public sociologists are bridging the gap between discipline and profession. Applied and engaged public sociologists test and challenge the assumptions embedded in government, community, and organizational policies, initiatives, and demonstration projects. They use their “evidence based” insights to influence public policy and contribute to the common good (Perlstadt 2006). Clinical sociologists and practitioners build trusting relationships with clients (individuals, communities, global organizations) who believe that the practitioner has the knowledge and skill to address their problems both effectively and ethically. In particular, clinical sociologists engage in “rights-based” interventions that improve the social life of individuals and collectivities (Fritz 2008). In short, certification and accreditation “become the bridge between academia and the broader labor market” (Perlstadt 1998:204).

Related Resources

Association for Applied and Clinical Sociology, http://www.aacsnet.net/.

Commission on the Accreditation of Programs in Applied and Clinical Sociology, http://www.sociologycommission.org/index.shtml.

Radford University—Program in Public Sociology BA, https://www.radford.edu/content/chbs/home/sociology/about.html.

St. Cloud State University—Concentration in Critical Applied Sociology BA, https://catalog.stcloudstate.edu/Catalog/ViewCatalog.aspx?pageid=viewcatalog&catalogid=7&chapterid=571&topicgroupid=1941&loaduseredits=False.

University of Tampa—Concentration in Applied Sociology BA, http://ut.smartcatalogiq.com/en/current/catalog/College-of-Social-Sciences-Mathematics-and-Education/Department-of-History-Sociology-Geography-and-Legal-Studies/Sociology/Sociology-degree-with-a-Concentration-in-Applied-Sociology.

Valdosta State University—Master of Science in Sociology, http://www.valdosta.edu/colleges/arts-sciences/sacj/sociology/ms-grad-program/.