Download pdf - FACULTY WITH PRACTICE EXPERIENCE: THE NEW DINOSAURS IN THE SOCIAL WORK ACADEMY?

This article was downloaded by: [University of Ulster Library]On: 14 November 2014, At: 02:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Social Work EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uswe20

FACULTY WITH PRACTICE EXPERIENCE: THE NEWDINOSAURS IN THE SOCIAL WORK ACADEMY?Yvonne M. Johnson a & Shari Munch aa Rutgers UniversityPublished online: 16 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Yvonne M. Johnson & Shari Munch (2010) FACULTY WITH PRACTICE EXPERIENCE: THE NEW DINOSAURS INTHE SOCIAL WORK ACADEMY?, Journal of Social Work Education, 46:1, 57-66

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2010.200800050

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uswe20

http://dx.doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2010.200800050

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

57Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Winter 2010).

Copyright © 2010, Council on Social Work Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

FACULTY WITH PRACTICE EXPERIENCE: THE NEW DINOSAURS

IN THE SOCIAL WORK ACADEMY?

THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES two developments, run-ning in parallel, that have potentially uncon-structive consequences for social work educa-tion. First, the Council on Social WorkEducation’s (CSWE’s) mandates on the prac-tice experience of instructors who teach socialwork practice courses have become more lax.Second, in response to calls for the professionto strengthen its research base, scientificallyevaluate interventions (Zayas, Gonzalez, &Hanson, 2003), and embrace evidence- based

practice (EBP; Gambrill, 2006; Zlotnik, 2007),the generation of empirical research currentlycompetes with the transmission of practiceknowledge and skills in the academy. Thisobservation will perhaps resonate more withsocial work faculty at large doctorate- granting“research” institutions than with faculty atprimarily “teaching” institutions but will nodoubt ring true, to some extent, for the latter.

Important to point out at the outset is thatthe arguments set forth in this article are not

Yvonne M. Johnson

Rutgers University

Shari Munch

Rutgers University

Two parallel trends in the social work academy have the potential to threatenthe existence of faculty with practice expertise. First, the Council on Social WorkEducation has significantly lowered the level of practice experience needed byinstructors who teach practice courses. The second trend, related to the empiri-cal practice movement, is the apparent overshadowing of research over practicein social work academe (especially at doctoral-granting institutions). Takentogether, these shifts could result in a paucity of tenured/tenure-track practiceteaching faculty who are involved in decisions related to curriculum develop-ment, tenure and promotion, and research. Consequently, social work educa-tion runs the risk of being disconnected from contemporary practice and unin-tegrated with theory and research.

JSWE-W10-Johnson-3ff:JournalFall2006 Fri/January/15/2010 Fri/Jan/15/2010/ 8:18 AM Page 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:22

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

58 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

based on an antagonism toward research or EBP— quite the contrary. The authors’ con-cerns lie elsewhere and are succinctly summa-rized by Rose Starr, president of the New YorkCity chapter of the National Association ofSocial Workers (NASW). She recently wrote ofsocial work: “practice is our purpose” and the“profession’s survival requires that we notlose our essential value to those we serve”(Starr, 2007, p. 2). At first glance, these state-ments appear uncontroversial and obvious.How ever, Starr’s comments were promptedby her experiences in the academy where,Starr noted, the value of social work practiceappeared questionable. (Like Starr, the authorsdefine practice broadly, and include micro-and macro practice.) The aims of the researchuniversity encompass not only research butalso the education of the workforce of thefuture (Association of American Universities,2001), a mission that is especially pertinent tothe applied profession of social work. Thisarticle addresses the questions of how weought to best educate future practitioners andwho should teach them.

This article traces the history of changesin CSWE’s Educational Policy and Accredi -tation Standards (EPAS) and outlines some ofthe key debates on the importance, or lackthereof, of required social work practice expe-rience on the part of social work practiceinstructors. The authors hope that this discus-sion will spur dialogue and result in moves torevitalize practice in academia.

Background

Social work has historically prized practiceexpertise in the academy. However, much haschanged since the 1930s, when 2-year mas-

ter’s in social work (MSW) programs came tothe fore (Beless, 1995), and 1949 when onlytwo social work doctoral programs existed inthe United States (Frumkin & Lloyd, 1995).

Thyer (2000) describes the shifts in pat-terns of recruitment in social work academe.Initially, experienced MSW practitioners wereemployed as tenure- track faculty. In the sec-ond phase, the criteria for employment werean MSW and a doctorate in addition to prac-tice experience. Currently, an MSW and a PhDare required, but, in addition, particularly inlarge doctorate- granting institutions, a recordof scholarly publications. Undoubtedly, themove away from the reliance on masters’recipients to reliance on PhD-credentialed fac-ulty in social work education was necessaryfor the generation of research for the ultimateuse of serving vulnerable populations. Aresearch base was also needed to legitimize theprofession as an academic endeavor and gar-ner respect from, and to compete favorablywith, other social science and related disci-plines (Midgely, 1999). Furthermore, it is quitecommon today for schools of social work toinclude faculty with doctorates from a varietyof disciplines, but no social work qualification(Kemp, 1998; see also Proctor & Munson, 1996;Shore & Thyer, 1997)—positive additions thatalso reflect the true interdisciplinary potentialof social work education and research (Sirota,Greenfield, Akincigil, & Findley, 2009). Takentogether, however, these shifts might havebrought, albeit unintentionally, the marginal-ization of social work practice knowledge andexperience in the academy.

Also, the wider postsecondary educationalcontext must be taken into account. Theemployment of contingent (also known as non-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:22

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

tenure- track) faculty is increasingly on the rise(American Association of University Pro fes -sors, 2008). On a general note, in 1998, contin-gent faculty, across all disciplines, ac counted forsome 60% of faculty positions in higher educa-tion. Starkly, over the past 30 years (1976–2005),contingent faculty in creased by more than200%, whereas over the same period “full- timetenured and tenure- track faculty grew by only17 percent” (Amer i can Association of Univer -sity Professors, 2008, p. 17).

Klein and Weisman (2001) noted limiteddata on the extent to which contingent facultyteach in social work programs. However,Klein, Weisman, and Smith (1996, as cited inKlein & Weisman, 2001), who surveyed stu-dents in eight social work programs, foundthat “almost 90% of the students had taken atleast one course with an adjunct professor;most had taken two; 20% had four or more”(p. 81). Over and above the financial attrac-tiveness (especially in times of economicdownturn) of hiring adjuncts who earn sub-stantially less than tenured /tenure- track fac-ulty (American Association of University Pro -fessors, 2008), their employment can possiblyalleviate the teaching duties of tenured -/tenure- track faculty and, hence, can give thelatter more time to focus on research.

Proponents of the scientist- practitionerand EBP movements in social work applaudthe focus on social work research becausepractice must be informed by research find-ings. In addition, they advocate that practi-tioners should use research methods to evalu-ate the effectiveness of their practice (Bloom,Fischer, & Orme, 1995; Blythe, Tripodi, & Briar,1994). At face value, these recommendationsare sound: indeed, one way to advance social

work practice is by researching it. Still, socialwork students do not enter bachelor of socialwork (BSW and BASW) and MSW programsto become researchers, nor are they trained tobe. Howard, Allen- Meares, and Ruffolo (2007)noted that “MSW programs exist to train practitioners, not scientists or even scientist- practitioners” (p. 564). Is our educational aimto cultivate BSW and MSW graduates thatview themselves as “re searchers”? Axiomssuch as “scholarship in forms teaching” (Schri -ver, as cited in Williams, 2002) or “researchinforms practice” suggest not only a secondaryrole for practice relative to research (Katz, 2006;Scott, 1990) but also a one- way relationshipbetween research and the practitioners. Onerarely hears an appeal for securing tenure- trackpractice faculty based on the conviction that“practice informs teaching and research.” Run -ning in parallel with calls for a strengthening ofsocial work research in academia (Task Forceon Social Work Research, 1991) and subsequent“historic improvements in the scope and quali-ty of social work research” (Jen son, Briar- Lawson, & Flanzer, 2008, p. 197), there has beena weakening in CSWE’s practice requirementsof practice teachers.

CSWE’s Educational Policy

and Accreditation Standards (EPAS)

for Faculty

CSWE (2008) developed new EPAS— effectiveAugust 2008—for programs submitting a can-didacy application and effective in 2010 for pro-grams whose reaffirmation date is on or afterOctober 2010. In just 15 years, CSWE has pub-lished three EPAS. Before 1994, CSWE, anorganization founded in 1952 (Council onSocial Work Education, 2009), had no standards

59FACULTY WITH PRACTICE EXPERIENCE: THE NEW DINOSAURS?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:22

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

on the level of practice experience required ofpractice instructors (Videka- Sherman, 1998).Close reading of these standards reveals sig-nificant changes in terms of the practice expe-rience required of social work practice instruc-tors. Following are the relevant sections asthey pertain to mandates for teachers of socialwork practice courses.

In 1994 the requirements for teachers ofsocial work practice courses were “[a] mastersdegree in social work from an accredited pro-gram and . . . the equivalent of two years ormore of full- time post- master’s degree experiencein professional social work practice” (CSWEStandard 4.2, 1994, as cited in Thyer, 2000, p.187, emphasis added).

In 2001 “[f]aculty who teach required prac-tice courses have a master’s social work degreefrom a CSWE- accredited program and at leasttwo years postbaccalaureate or post- master’s socialwork degree practice experience” (Stand ard 4.3,2001, p. 15, emphasis added).

In 2008 “[f]aculty who teach social workpractice courses [must] have a master’sdegree in social work from a CSWE- accredited program and at least two years ofsocial work practice experience” (CSWE, Stand -ard 3.3.1, 2008, pp. 12, 13, emphasis added).

The standards have become less stringentover time. Not only has the language becomemore vague but also, more important, thepractice experience mandate has becomemore lax. All of the standards stipulate thatteachers of practice courses have a master’sdegree. How ever, the most notable differencesbetween the standards relate to when thisexperience is acquired. Fifteen years ago, 2years or more post–social work master’s degreeexperience was required of a practice class

teacher. In 2001 a practice instructor did notneed post- master’s social work experience; 2years of postbaccalaureate social work practiceexperience was sufficient. The final and mostrecent standard (2008) simply requires at least2 years of social work experience, without anyreference to its being postdegree experience, ateither the baccalaureate or the master’s level.Missing from the new (2008) standard is theword professional to describe the nature of thesocial work experience required— further evi-dence that it need not be postdegree experi-ence. Practically speaking, the new EPAS al -low bachelor’s and master’s programs toemploy social work practice instructors withonly predegree social work practice experi-ence. Restated, the CSWE criterion for qualifi-cation to teach social work practice courses hasbeen lowered from at least 2 years post- master’s full- time experience to the newlyadopted “at least two years of social workpractice experience” of any kind. The latterwould presumably include experience gainedas a social service employee in a U.S. statewhere the term social worker can be used with-out the possession of a social work degree.This is a problematic change because the newstandard does not require that the practiceteacher has engaged in the essential applica-tion of knowledge and skills obtained during aprofessional education to subsequent real- lifesocial work practice employment.

To Be or Not to Be— Experienced?

Scholars have debated both for and against aminimum practice experience standard forpractice teachers. Kemp observes that a mini-mum standard at the very least “affirms thebelief that faculty with advanced training and



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:22

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

experience in social work are central toaccredited social work education” (1998, p.329). Thyer opines that 2 years of postdegreeexperience is an “embarrassingly minimalistrequirement” (2000, p. 187). Knight (2001)delineates the rationale for encouraging prac-tice faculty to have social work experience.Instructors should competently (a) demon-strate, in class, behaviors and skills taught; (b)serve as role models to students in terms ofprofessional values; (c) link fieldwork to theo-ry and techniques; and (d) bring their ownsocial work practice examples to bear (Knight,2001). Kemp agrees and observes that “prac-tice experience enhances [teaching] compe-tence” (1998, p. 332) and the practice instruc-tor acts as bridge between field, classroom,and research. This comports with the newEPAS delineating the development of 10 corecompetencies in future practitioners (Councilon Social Work Education, 2008).

In contrast, Videka- Sherman (1998) favorsno set requirements on practice experience forthe purpose of teaching, on the grounds thatthey deter promising master’s students fromimmediately entering PhD programs, idealizethe clinician- instructor, and hark back to anoutdated apprenticeship model of learning.Seidl (2000) argues that teaching and socialwork practice are distinct skills. Contrary toThyer (2000), Seidl believes that teachingsocial work practice does not require socialwork practice experience. Seidl further arguesthat practice experience gets in the way ofgood teaching. Seidl writes: “We might rea-sonably expect . . . that those who teach fromtheir own practice base teach practice as theysee it— from their corner of the world” (2000,p. 194). According to Seidl, practice teachers

who focus on practice are “not ‘close enough’to their jobs as faculty,” and this explains their“deplorable lack of scholarship” (p. 195). Seidlobserves that social work education has “thispenchant for ‘experience’” (p. 191).

On a related note, the 2008 (CSWE) EPASdeclares field education to be the “signaturepedagogy [and] represents the central form ofinstruction and learning in which a professionsocializes its students to perform the role ofpractitioner” (p. 8). Stated thus, one might con-clude that little would be lost in the absence ofpractice faculty because the necessary knowl-edge and skills are obtained in the fieldpracticum. However, members of the profes-sion seem to have long agreed that field instruc-tion is indeed a necessary component of socialwork education, but alone it is not sufficient forthe student’s academic and practice proficien-cies. Whether a student is engaged in blockpractice placements or attends practice coursesand field concurrently, CSWE has always madeacademic practice courses mandatory. (Beyondthe scope of this article is an appraisal of theearly historical debates about where socialwork training should take place, namely, uni-versity or field. See Bernard, 1995, for a compre-hensive historical over view.) In addition,although field instructors are often expert intheir particular specialty and their practice wis-dom is vital to field practice education (Bogo etal., 2004), they can be unfamiliar with thebroader current theory and research taught inthe classroom (Fagan- Wilen, Springer, Ambro -sino, & White, 2006; Lesser & Cooper, 2006).

Can empirical research help us resolvethe question of whether practice experiencemakes for a more competent practice teacher?Thyer (2000) notes that researchers have not



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:22

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

definitively answered this question. Fagen-Wilen’s (1995) research on students’ views onteaching suggests that they value instructorswho can integrate social work “real- life” prac-tice with theoretical/research perspectives.There are undoubtedly instructors with excel-lent practice experience who are unable toeffectively convey knowledge in the class-room and instructors with scant practice expe-rience who are very good teachers. Nonethe -less, Thyer (2000) argues, on the basis of logic,common sense, and ethical grounds, that thesocial work practice instructor must havesocial work practice experience in order toteach it. Much in agreement, Gambrill (2001)states that one characteristic of excellent pro-fessional education is that “faculty must pos-sess related knowledge and skills” (p. 419).The strongest argument for requiring practiceinstructors to be experienced in practice them-selves is grounded in ethics. Ethically, “socialworkers should accept responsibility oremployment only on the basis of existingcompetence or the intention to acquire neces-sary competence” (National Association ofSocial Workers, 2008, Standard 4.01).

Thyer’s (2000) and Gambrill’s (2001)observations lead one to consider the follow-ing: Are there professors of music who teachpiano who have had no, or merely a few, les-sons? They could teach the theory of music,perhaps, yet would they be able to teach thecomplex skill of playing the instrument?Would one trust a surgeon whose universityprofessor had never conducted surgery?Finally, does the argument that the social workpractice teacher need not have practice experi-ence suggest that social practice has no expert-ise of its own and that anyone can teach it?

Save the Endangered Dinosaurs

How might the social work profession pro-mote a scholarly culture that values bothresearch and practice expertise? These arecomplex matters about which there are noeasy solutions. The following recommenda-tions are offered in an effort to stimulate fur-ther deliberation.

First, the profession as a whole might reex-amine the place of social work practice in socialwork education and the repercussions for theprofession if social work faculty were to lackpractice experience. This discussion is no doubtcomplicated by the existence of two cultures,namely, the professional and the academic(Liles, 2007). The research and academicdemands placed on faculty potentially lead tothe tenured /tenure- track practice faculty’s jet-tisoning “the direct practice world behind”(Liles, 2007), yet, as Klein and Bloom point out,“sound research questions grow out of the well- nurtured understanding of the contexts inwhich practice exists” (1995, p. 806). Granted,research can be generated by faculty in con-junction with practitioners. Never the less, with-out faculty who have a wealth of social workexperience, the social work academy runs therisk of developing research hy potheses that areincongruent with everyday social work prac-tice and offering recommendations for practicethat are unfeasible or at odds with acceptedagency protocol and procedure (Meyer, 1996).

Second, the new CSWE (2008) EPASStand ard 3.3.1 may deserve reconsideration.To recap, this standard requires no more than2 years’ predegree social work practice experi-ence of a social work practice instructor, thatis, no postdegree experience to teach either



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:22

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

BSW or MSW practice courses. In contrast, themore stringent EPAS standards of 1994 man-dated that practice instructors must have 2years’ post- master’s practice experience.

In making CSWE’s practice requirementsof practice instructors less strict, the organiza-tion may be responding to deans’ justifiedconcerns that the former practice require-ments have overly restricted whom theycould recruit. A 2002 survey (Zastrow & Brem -ner, 2004) of deans and directors of CSWE- accredited BSW, MSW, and combined BSW/MSW programs found that 72% (n=212) of the respondents noted a dearth of job appli-cants who possessed both PhD and profes-sional degrees, either BSW or MSW. Zastrowand Bremner found that “some programs . . .contemplated requesting a short- term ex -ception from CSWE for faculty who did notmeet accreditation standards for teaching”(2004, p. 356). As well, CSWE is no doubtaware of the fiscal constraints in higher edu -cation and the attractiveness of employingcontingent faculty. However, despite thenotable benefits of adjunct instructors (Klein,Weisman, & Smith, 1996), if practice teachingis delegated to part- time adjunct faculty,important voting functions on governanceactivities such as curricula matters, hiringpractices, and tenure/promotion decisions,from which contingent faculty are usuallyexcluded (Amer ican Associa tion of UniversityProfessors, 2008; Fagan- Wilen et al., 2006),will lack a “practice” voice.

Third, the merits of quick succession fromMSW to PhD studies as well as the growth injoint MSW/PhD programs might be exam-ined from the perspective of also ensuringthat faculties have an adequate number of

tenured /tenure- track faculty with practiceexperience. Although such opportunities pro-mote a research momentum without the inter-ruption of social work practice (and therebyre moving the obstacle of practice require-ments in the retention of promising PhD stu-dents; Seidl, 2000), graduates of such pro-grams cannot teach practice classes withoutthe necessary 2 years of social work practice.

The resurgence in interest in clinical doc-torate in social work (DSW) programs, whichare a means to career advancement within thepractice realm (University of Pennsylvania,2008), offer a potential pool of practice faculty.To attract expert practitioners with specificambitions of entering into the academy, PhDsocial work education might offer practice con-centrations along with clinical internships (inaddition to research training); the social workPhD, in contrast to the DSW, in this case, wouldaim to encourage those experienced practition-ers to specifically enter academic careers.Finally, another avenue to consider may be thewidespread creation of clinician- scientist tenure- track appointments, similar to that in somemedical schools, which enable the faculty mem-ber to advance on the strengths of his or herexcellence in client care and research (L. Robins,personal communication, March 1, 2007). Thesocial work clinician–scientist, in contrast to the“research” faculty member, would be requiredto have a heavier teaching load and possiblylicensure and/or to engage in direct practice,with less emphasis on research.

Conclusion

Simultaneous emphases on full- time faculty’sresearch and the weakening of social workpractice experience requirements demanded of



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:22

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

social work practice instructors point to a ten-uous future, if unchecked, for the applied pro-fession of social work. The advancement ofsocial work research is a fine ambition andbrings with it many advantages to social workeducation and practice. However, attractivecandidate pools that show research potentialoften lack substantial social work practiceexperience. This double- edged sword hasimportant repercussions for social work edu-cation. Perhaps more reflection is neededregarding the status and value of experiencedsocial work practitioners with PhDs. Is therefundamental value in recruiting and retaining tenure- track faculty who bring to the class-room a breadth of theoretical knowledge,understand the complexities inherent in thepractice world, and can evaluate the efficacyof interventions?

The results of current shifts towardresearch without an equitable pull towardpractice, if prolonged, not only may be theextinction of tenured /tenure- track practice fac-ulty but also may have adverse effects on socialwork research, education, and ultimately theclients we serve.

References

American Association of University Pro fess -ors. (2008). The annual report on the eco-nomic status of the profession, 2007–08.Academe, 94, 8–86.

Association of American Universities. (2001).America’s research universities: Institutionsin service to the nation (AAU White Paperon America’s Research Universities).Wash ington, DC: Author. Retrieved Feb -ru ary 19, 2008 from http://www.aau.edu/resuniv/WhitePaper1.01.html

Beless, D. W. (1995). Council on Social WorkEducation. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.), Ency -clopedia of social work. (19th ed., Vol. 1, pp.632–636). Washington, DC: National As -so ciation of Social Workers.

Bernard, L. D. (1995). United States. In T. D.Watts, D. Elliott & N. S. Mayadas (Eds.),International handbook on social work educa-tion (pp. 7–22). Westport, CT: Green wood.

Bloom, M., Fischer, J., & Orme, J. G. (1995).Evaluating practice: Guidelines for the ac -count able professional (2nd ed.). Need hamHeights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Blythe, B., Tripodi, T., & Briar, S. (1994). Directpractice research in the human service agen-cies. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

Bogo, M., Regehr, C., Power, R., Hughes, J.,Woodford, M., & Regehr, G. (2004).Toward new approaches for evaluatingstudent field performance: Tapping theimplicit criteria used by experienced fieldinstructors. Journal of Social Work Edu ca -tion, 40, 417–426.

Council on Social Work Education (2001). Edu -ca tional policy and accreditation standards.Alexandria, VA: Author. Re trieved De -cem ber 26, 2007, from http://www. cswe.org/NR/rdonlyres/111833A0-C4F5-475C- 8FEB- EA740FF4D9F1 /0/EPAS.pdf

Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Ed -ucational policy and accreditation standards.Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http://www.cswe.org/NR/rdonlyres/2A81732E-1776-4175-AC42-65974E96BE66/0/2008EducationalPolicyandAccreditationStandards.pdf

Council on Social Work Education. (2009).About CSWE. Alexandria, VA: Author.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:22

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Retrieved March 22, 2009, from http://www.cswe.org/CSWE/About/

Fagan-Wilen, R. (1995). Evaluating effectiveteaching in graduate schools of social work:Cri teria used by graduate students and faculty.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni ver -sity of Texas School of Social Work, Austin.

Fagan- Wilen, R., Springer, D. W., Ambrosino,B., & White, B. W. (2006). The support ofadjunct faculty: An academic imperative.Social Work Education, 25, 39–51.

Frumkin, M., & Lloyd, G. A. (1995). Socialwork education. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.),Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., Vol. 1,pp. 2238–2246). Washington, DC: Nation -al Association of Social Workers.

Gambrill, E. (2006). Evidence- based practiceand policy: Choices ahead. Research onSocial Work Practice, 16, 338–357.

Gambrill, E. D. (2001). Evaluating the qualityof social work education: Options galore.Journal of Social Work Education, 37,418–429.

Howard, M. O., Allen- Meares, P., & Ruffolo, M.C. (2007). Teaching evidence- based prac-tice: Strategic and pedagogical recommen-dations for schools of social work. Researchon Social Work Practice, 17, 561–568.

Jenson, J. M., Briar- Lawson, K., & Flanzer, J.(2008). Advances and challenges in devel-oping research capacity in social work[Editorial]. Social Work Research, 32,197–200.

Katz, S. N. (2006, October 6). What has hap-pened to the professoriate? The Chronicleof Higher Education [The Chronicle Review],p. 8.

Kemp, S. P. (1998). Should two years of practice experience be essential to teach

required practice courses? Yes! [Point/Counterpoint]. Journal of Social Work Edu -cation, 34, 329–334, 341–344.

Klein, W. C., & Bloom, M. (1995). Practice wis-dom. Social Work, 40, 799–807.

Klein, W. C., & Weisman, D. (2001). Adjunctinstruction: A conceptual model for actu-alizing the potential. Journal of Teaching inSocial Work, 21(1/2), 77–93.

Klein, W. C., Weisman, D., & Smith, T. E.(1996). The use of adjunct faculty: An ex -ploratory study of eight social work pro-grams. Journal of Social Work Education, 32,253–263.

Knight, C. (2001). The skills of teaching socialwork practice in the generalist/foundationcurriculum: BSW and MSW student views.Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 507–521.

Lesser, J. G., & Cooper, M. (2006). Theory andpractice: An integrative model linkingclass and field. Journal of Teaching in SocialWork, 26(3/4), 121–136.

Liles, R. E. (2007). Response to “Licensingsocial work faculty: An issue of ethics?”Jour nal of Social Work Values and Ethics,4(1). Retrieved May 3, 2008, from http://www.socialworker.com/jswve/content/view/51/50/

Meyer, C. H. (1996). My son the scientist.Social Work Research, 20, 101–104.

Midgley, J. (1999). Academic merit, professionalneeds, and social work education. Researchon Social Work Practice, 9, 104–107.

National Association of Social Workers. (1999,rev. 2008). Code of ethics. Washington, DC:Author.

Proctor, E. K., & Munson, C. E. (1996). Shoulddoctoral programs graduate studentswith fewer than two years of post- MSW



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:22

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Accepted: 09/09

Yvonne M. Johnson is assistant professor at Rutgers University. Shari Munch is associate profes-

sor at Rutgers University.

The authors wish to thank Richard L. Edwards for comments on an early draft of this article.

Address correspondence to Yvonne M. Johnson, Rutgers University School of Social Work, 536 George

St., New Brunswick, NJ 08901; e- mail: [email protected].

practice experience? Journal of Social WorkEducation, 32, 161–172.

Scott, D. (1990). Practice wisdom: The neglect-ed source of practice research. Social Work,35, 564–568.

Seidl, F. W. (2000). Should licensure be requiredfor faculty who teach direct practice cours-es? No! [Point/Counterpoint]. Jour nal ofSocial Work Education, 36, 190–197.

Shore, B., & Thyer, B. A. (1997). Should non- MSWs earn the social work doctorate? Adebate. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,14(1/2), 127–145.

Sirota, K. G., Greenfield, E. A., Akincigil, A., &Findley, P. (2009). Hiring outside the dis-cipline as a strategy for strengtheningsocial work ed u cation. Manuscript sub -mit ted for publication.

Starr, R. (2007). Life, death, survival: Wheregoes our profession? [Message from thePresident.] Currents of the New York CityChap ter, National Association of Social Work -ers, 52(2), 2, 9, 10, 12.

Task Force on Social Work Research. (1991).Building social work knowledge for effectiveservices and policies: A plan for researchdevelopment. Austin, TX: National Insti -tute of Mental Health.

Thyer, B. A. (2000). Should licensure be requiredfor faculty who teach direct practice cours-

es? Yes! [Point/Counterpoint]. Jour nal ofSocial Work Education, 36, 187–189, 197–200.

University of Pennsylvania. (2008). ClinicalDSW program. Retrieved March 16, 2008,from http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/pro-grams/dsw/index.html

Videka- Sherman, L. (1998). Should two yearsof practice experience be essential to teachrequired practice courses? No! [Point/Coun terpoint]. Journal of Social Work Edu -cation, 34, 334–341.

Williams, C. J. (2002, Fall). A conversationabout research with Joe Schriver, editor,JBSW. BPD Update Online. RetrievedMarch 29, 2008, from http://bpdupdateonline.bizland.com/fall2002/id1.html

Zastrow, C., & Bremner, J. (2004). Social workeducation responds to the shortage ofpersons with both a doctorate and a pro-fessional social work degree. Journal ofSocial Work Education, 40, 351–358.

Zayas, L. H., Gonzalez, M. J., & Hanson, M.(2003). “What do I do now?”: On teaching evidence- based interventions in socialwork practice. Journal of Teaching in SocialWork, 23(3/4), 59–72.

Zlotnik, J. L. (2007). Evidence- based practiceand social work education: A view fromWashington. Research on Social Work Prac -tice, 17, 625–629.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:22

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14