Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 1
Some Impediments to MSW Student Satisfaction
Special Studies (SW598)
University of Michigan
School of Social Work
Ray Woodcock
May 2, 2010
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 2
A master’s degree in social work (MSW), earned in a graduate program accredited by the
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), can offer “a broad range of skills, tools, and
knowledge that prepares [the student] for advanced social work” (University of Michigan, 2009).
The process of completing that (or any) educational program should be subject to regular
examination, to determine whether it can more efficiently or fully achieve its purpose. Student
dissatisfaction can identify particular areas needing improvement.
These are relatively straightforward and noncontroversial propositions; yet they are not
easy to put to use. This paper addresses several barriers to execution. The discussion begins
with a review of a few prominent definitions of the social work profession and of relevant views
of various stakeholders in MSW education, in a bid to identify the central purpose(s) of that
education. In response to the divergent concepts of MSW education stated or implied in those
various perspectives, the paper proposes its own formulation of the purpose of MSW education.
It is then suggested that, in fact and/or in conscious experience, significant portions of the
student body find that, in certain regards, SSWs themselves frustrate the pursuit of that purpose.
The paper concludes with questions for further investigation.
Divergent Views of the Purpose of MSW Education
MSW education is education in the social work profession. It would seem, then, that the
purpose or mission of the profession must be central to the purpose of MSW education. On that
basis, one might consult the opinions of leading social work organizations regarding the mission
of social work. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is one such organization.
According to the NASW (2008),
The primary mission of the social work profession is [a] to enhance human
wellbeing and [b] help meet the basic human needs of all people, with
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 3
[c] particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are
vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty.
The CSWE is another such organization; however, it does not phrase the mission of the
profession in quite the same way. According to the CSWE’s (2010, p. 1) Educational Policy
(sic) and Accreditation Standards (EPAS),
[a] The purpose of the social work profession is to promote human and commun-
ity well-being. [b] Guided by a person and environment construct, a global
perspective, respect for human diversity, and knowledge based on scientific
inquiry, [c] social work’s purpose is actualized through its quest for social and
economic justice, the prevention of conditions that limit human rights, the
elimination of poverty, and the enhancement of the quality of life for all persons.
The NASW (2008) thus states two missions. Its clause (a) arguably matches the CSWE’s
(2010) clause (a); but after that, the best one can say is that the two seem to be talking about
similar concerns and yet not saying exactly the same things about them. For instance, the
CSWE’s clause (c) says that the purpose of the profession is “actualized” through four different
kinds of efforts. Does that mean that promoting human and community well-being (the stated
purpose in clause (a)) means only, and exactly, those four kinds of efforts? And among those
four, what about “the prevention of conditions that limit human rights” – what does that entail?
Human rights lawyers, for example: are they part of the social work profession? It might be
possible to add explanations, caveats, and other verbiage, so as to make these two mission
statements clear and compatible with one another. Doing so would tend, however, to call into
question their quality as mission statements (see Williams, 2008). At best, it could seem that the
two statements are working toward consensus, but have not yet reached it.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 4
Even if the NASW and the CSWE arrive at a consensus definition of the social work
profession, however, there would remain the uncomfortable fact that neither of them, nor even
the two of them collectively, actually represent that profession. By its very name, the CSWE is
oriented toward social work education, not toward the entire profession. It boasts about 3,000
individual members (CSWE, 2009). The NASW (2010), for its part, claims 150,000 members,
but federal government sources indicate that there were at least 642,000 employed social workers
in the U.S. in 2008 (BLS, 2010); elsewhere, the U.S. Census Bureau (2009, Table 603) estimates
729,000 employed social workers in that same year. Even using the lower figure, it seems the
NASW does not speak for even a quarter of the nation’s social workers. Moreover, those who
do become NASW members surely are not representative of the whole. For one thing, NASW
takes positions that many social workers reject (below). NASW memberships also cost money,
and poorly paid social workers seem likely to hesitate for that reason. In addition, people who
are thinking of leaving the profession, or who got social work degrees but never entered it
(possibly because of their educational experiences), as a rule are not going to buy NASW
memberships. How many such people there are is not known, but there is some disturbing
research on the question. Wermeling (2006) found that 44% of the MSWs she surveyed had left
or were considering leaving the profession.1 Given the prospect of better incomes elsewhere, it
is likely that a substantial fraction of that percentage did so; that is, there could easily be 100,000
social workers who are not employed in the profession. Meanwhile, in the mid-aughts (i.e., from
2002 to 2008), the available information seems to suggest an addition of at least 10,000 social
1 Siebert (2005) found that 39% of practicing social workers were experiencing burnout at the time of her
survey, and that 75% had experienced burnout at some point in their careers. Wermeling (2009) indicates, in fact, that the very definitions of these terms (including “social worker”) are unclear, and suggests that “[A] study of social workers not employed within the profession and their possible disaffection with the profession seems long overdue.”
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 5
workers per year.2 Yet NASW membership evidently dropped during that period; it was
reportedly over 155,000 in 2002 (Thyer, 2002, p. 3). Note, finally, that some social workers and
social work organizations have adopted decidedly non-NASW stances (e.g., Rosenwald, 2006;
NABSW, n.d.). In short, it is very unlikely that the NASW’s mission statement represents the
consensus of people trained in social work, or even of people currently employed in social work.
Mission statements typically speak for an organization, not for an entire profession (see
Woodcock, 2008, p. 582). If these statements by the NASW and the CSWE are therefore more
appropriately construed as mission statements for their own organizations, there is no longer a
problem; one would expect different organizations to have different purposes. The NASW’s
(2008) statement of its mission then has only indirect relevance to the purpose of social work
education: its strictures may apply to various interactions within SSWs, but the NASW does not
attempt to regulate MSW education directly. Likewise, if the CSWE’s (2010) statement is
construed as a summary of its own mission rather than of the entire profession, then its
importance derives, not from its present positioning as a preambulatory dictum apropos of
nothing, but rather as an integral component of Educational Policy (EP) 1.0, which is the only EP
that cites it. Further, when translated into the more articulated form of Accreditation Standard
(AS) 1.0, EP 1.0 requires only that an MSW program’s mission and goals “reflect” and be
“consistent with” that preambulatory mission statement.
The CSWE’s 2001 EPAS actually did state the purposes of the social work profession,
and of social work education, in EPs 1.0 and 1.1 – not, that is, in the preamble. The 2001 EPAS
2 This question is not addressed in detail here. BLS reportedly estimated a total of 477,000 employed
social workers in 2002 (Robiner, 2006, p. 608). Even using the lower of the two figures cited in the text (above), a rise from 477,000 to 642,000 over a six-year period implies the addition of 27,500 social workers per year. There would be 10,000 new social workers per year even if the nation’s 400+ programs of social work education averaged only 25 graduates each. Some definitions may include practitioners without degrees in social work, who may or may not have been eligible for NASW membership in any case during those years.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 6
stated, not one, but six purposes of the profession, along with three purposes of social work
education. Collectively, the several EPAS of the early 21st century have inspired a variety of
statements of the purpose(s) of social work education, of which these are a few examples:
• “The purposes of social work education are to prepare competent and effective
professionals, to develop social work knowledge, and to provide leadership in the
development of service delivery systems” (Wagner, Newcomb, & Weiler, 2001, p. 114).
• “The purpose of social work education is the preparation of competent and effective
social work professionals who are committed to social work practice that includes
services to the poor and oppressed, and who work to alleviate poverty, oppression, and
other forms of social injustice” (Shank, 2007, p. 5).
• “[O]ne purpose of Social Work education is, ‘To develop and use research, knowledge, and
skills that advance social work practice’ (Finn & Dillon, 2007, p. 156, quoting the then-
current text of EPAS 1.0).
• “[A] significant purpose of discipline-specific education is to provide socialization to the
profession” (Litten, 2008, p. 36).
• “Currently, the purpose of social work education is to enable students to integrate the
knowledge, values, and skills of the social work profession into competent practice”
(Richardson, 2009, p. 12).
“Currently” is right: history suggests that the stated purpose(s) will change and change
again. And yet these changes do not appear to prompt much revision of MSW curricula. It
seems likely, then, that these are changes in the stated purposes of MSW education, as distinct
from the actual purposes. That is, the CSWE’s statements of purpose seem to be general and
descriptive, not specific and prescriptive – recurrently trying primarily to characterize or perhaps
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 7
to idealize MSW education, that is, rather than to dictate particular realities. That interpretation
meshes with the statement by Sowers and Dulmus (2009) that CSWE’s stated views reflect the
preferences of a majority of the CSWE’s members, not empirical findings on what works, nor on
what the public or other stakeholders want from social work education. The CSWE’s members,
says Stoesz (2008, p. 175), are selected on the basis of “identity politics as opposed to traditional
scholarship as a paradigm for professional education.” This arrangement does not appear to
prioritize effective outcomes. Stoesz and Karger (2009, p. 106) calculate that 80% of the
members of the CSWE’s board would themselves be terminated, due to their meager scholarly
publications, if they were up for promotion and tenure within a university.
Such observations suggest that the CSWE’s actual role in accreditation is not one of
providing expertise in the area of educational quality. The accreditation process itself has been
characterized as an “adversarial and bureaucratic” ordeal that “needs radical reform” (Midgley,
2009, p. 119). There are indications, too, that the CSWE is more interested in appearances than
in substance – that, in other words, the subjects that it requires to be presented in MSW curricula
are not covered very well (Karger & Hernández, 2004, p. 60). As one indicator, the Association
of Social Work Boards (ASWB, 2008) states that about one out of four MSWs fails the ASWB’s
licensing exam (Marson, DeAngelis, & Mittal, 2010, p. 98). Thyer (2010) finds that, at some
schools, that rate is an unbelievable one of every two, if not worse:
The MSW curriculum is centered on the CSWE accreditation standards. The
LCSW examination is centered on the ABSW [sic] task analysis. There have
been no formal investigations on the extent to which these two driving forces
governing the profession overlap, supplement, or contradict each other.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 8
Such investigations are hindered, Thyer says, by the ASWB’s withholding of such information.
It appears, in other words, that the divergence between the NASW and the CSWE (above),
regarding the purpose of an MSW education, is joined by a different divergence between the
CSWE and the ASWB, at least for the many MSW students who have a clinical orientation.
As if these differences among the CSWE, the ASWB, and the NASW were not enough,
there are also many differences of opinion among those “large numbers of social work academics
[who] view CSWE as an occupying army” (Stoesz & Karger, 2009, p. 2). Not only do faculty
interpretations of the EPAS diverge from those of the CSWE; some understand the profession
and the purpose of MSW education in ways that are not immediately reconcilable with any of the
above. For instance, Popple (1985) says that “attempts to develop a unified definition of social
work have failed” because “social work is not a unitary profession to which traditional models
can be applied” (p. 568); he suggests that what ties social workers together is “not a shared body
of knowledge and skill but a common social assignment – dealing with dependency” (p. 573).
But Bar-On (1994, p. 65) asserts that social workers’ “essential job is advocacy and brokerage,
where they represent their clients’ unmet needs before other non-client resource controllers.”
Finally, for Butler, Ford, and Tregaskis (2007, p. 295), “[T]he hallmark of a professional social
worker is that she is consciously involved in the dynamic process of self-narration.”
Students, in turn, have their own views of the purpose of MSW education. To the extent
that faculty can be said to share an emphasis on social action, there is “some discrepancy
between what a high proportion of social work students want and what many social work faculty
members are prepared to provide” (Reid & Edwards, 2006, pp. 480-481). It would not be
surprising if students tend to reject what they could construe as the failed vision of e.g., the
NASW (2008) mission statement (above). Reid and Edwards (p. 476) observe that “US social
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 9
work cannot be said to have been a central actor in the formation and implementation of public
policy regarding the poor in the last third of the twentieth century.” “Nowadays,” say Karger
and Hernández (2004, p. 51), “social workers have little influence on the pressing social issues of
the day.” Under such circumstances, it would make sense for students to focus, instead, on
market realities. For example, most who want to work in management appear to consider
graduate degrees in business or public administration more marketable, and similar thoughts
seem to divert many policy-oriented students toward law and related fields. There are also other,
more remunerative fields for those who want to work in hospitals. In short, MSW programs
have little practical choice but to tailor themselves for a clinically oriented majority of students.
As yet another kind of stakeholder, MSW program admissions offices seem to be in the
position, generally, of mediating among these divergent student, faculty, practitioner,
accreditation, and budgetary perceptions of the purpose of social work education. The students
who actually enter such programs may thus not correspond with any constituency’s ideal. An
unfortunate decline in quality of such students seems to be one result. Karger and Stoesz (2003,
p. 283) suggest that a sharp increase in the number of MSW programs nationwide has led
schools to accept less qualified applicants in order to meet their expenses. Sowers and Dulmus
(2009, p. 115) echo this: “Programs are lowering admission standards and graduating marginal
students.” At the same time, they say, practice in a competitive market increasingly demands
empirically oriented knowledge and skills that are not being taught in MSW programs.
Most stakeholders – including some not discussed above, such as the university and the
larger (i.e., supra-NASW) social work profession – are unlikely to benefit from a vicious spiral
of deteriorating MSW educational quality necessitated by students’ increasing numbers and
declining academic capabilities. One possibility is that social work education cannot go much
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 10
lower: it already has a poor reputation and tends to attract among the least competitive students,
in the U.S. and abroad (Sowers & Dulmus; Green, 2006). Another possibility is that budget cuts
and developments in other kinds of programs (in e.g., nursing, public health) will continue to
drive university reorganizations that will combine social work students and faculties, potentially
raising standards and/or erasing at least some of the sense of social work as a distinctive
profession (Reid & Edwards, 2006, p. 479; Robiner, 2006).
Finally, the stakeholders with the most important vote on the purpose of MSW education
are those individuals, families, and other clients who are supposed to benefit from social work
services. Theirs is in some regards a proxy vote, sometimes cast by researchers who are
positioned to gauge actual vs. perceived and longer-term vs. shorter-term outcomes; but it is also
a somewhat market-driven affair, insofar as MSWs’ incomes flow from government agencies,
insurance companies, clients, and others who have a say in the cost-benefit calculation.
Increasingly, social workers who do not wish to be sidelined should be prepared to provide
evidence of efficacy in serving their clients (Sowers & Dulmus, 2009).
There are, in short, a number of divergent views of what MSW education is or should be.
To sum it up: while both the NASW and the CSWE claim to speak for social workers across the
board on at least the purpose of the profession itself, neither those organizations nor their
putative mission statements embody the requisite coherence and representativeness; and yet the
interests of other stakeholders are not uniform either.
A Suggested Purpose for MSW Education
It seems inadvisable to let matters rest with the foregoing statement of divergent
perspectives. An intelligible discussion of student satisfaction with MSW education does call for
a working sense of what that education is supposed to be accomplishing. In the interests of
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 11
simplicity and straightforwardness, it is proposed that the purpose of social work is to develop
and refine the ability to provide services that clients need from social workers, and that the
purpose of MSW (as distinct from BSW) education is to develop and refine that ability at a
relatively advanced level. The list of needed services is not open-ended. If clients needed a
better mousetrap from social workers, that would be part of the calculation; but in practice, that
is not likely. Rather, there is a limited and possibly shrinking list of services that someone is
going to be able and willing to pay social workers to perform, and those should dominate MSW
education as it now exists within the university setting.
In addition to services that someone will pay for, there are also services, needed by large
numbers of clients, that neither government, insurance, or charity can fund on a nationwide
(never mind global) basis. These services seem to have been most notably championed, in the
U.S. and abroad, by people who have not been MSWs (e.g., Jane Addams, Harry Hopkins,
Mohandas Gandhi, Muhummed Yunus) – who, indeed, would not qualify as social workers at all
under current definitions (Karger & Hernández, 2004, p. 56). MSWs can talk at length about the
needs of the poor, and some MSWs do work in agencies that serve the poor. Whether MSW
education does, or can, uniquely enhance students’ inclination and ability to provide such service
is another matter. Given the apparent disinclination and/or financial inability of most MSW
students to devote themselves primarily to such work (especially after incurring the costs of
graduate education), it appears that much of that work will continue to fall to those, with or
without social work degrees, who do have the means to indulge a social conscience (Karger &
Lonne, 2009, p. 34), while the main stream of the social work profession continues in what
appears to be a historical pattern of desultory attention to its ostensible social action heritage
(e.g., De Benedetti, 1984, p. 90; Bisno, 1956, p. 18).
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 12
At present, impressions of client needs relevant to MSW education tend to be conveyed
most compellingly, to SSWs, via students’ broad-brush decisions regarding the kinds of training
they need. This is not to say that students know exactly what they need to know, nor that they
are always the best sources of information on how it should be taught to them (see Abrami,
d’Apollonia, & Rosenfield, 2007, p. 414). To some extent, these are things that they are paying
the school to figure out. Generally, though, they will not be inclined to attend a school unless it
offers the credential they think they need in order to get approximately the kind of job they want.
Students’ decisions on such matters are driven by their inevitably imperfect cognizance
of the preferences of potential employers, which conform to varying degrees with inclinations of
the people who pay for the services provided by those employers, which depend in turn upon
those decisionmakers’ politics, research, personally held opinions, and other factors. In this
process of identifying and communicating the needs of end users of social work services back to
teachers, textbook writers, and other providers and facilitators of MSW educations, there are
time lags (often measured in years), informational distortions and opacities, and other (some-
times profound) flaws and impediments. Students unavoidably supplement and revise their
grasp of official knowledge sources, along the way, with their own personal discoveries and
encounters. Some of their amendments to the official story turn out to be premature or faddish;
others prove prescient; and it is generally impossible to know for sure which is which.
Students can thus be viewed as an important source of information on what an MSW
education should entail. They are not an entirely reliable source, but neither can their insights be
rationally disregarded. They are, moreover, an important, paying clientele. When their views
and preferences are overruled, multiple considerations (including good business sense, politesse,
professional ethics, and a desire for logical consistency) call for faculty and administration to
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 13
present a sound rationale, engage in consequent dialogue, gather useful data, conduct follow-up
research, improve the learning process that led the students to their overruled and supposedly
incorrect conclusion, and respond flexibly to further developments (see Elias, 2007, p. 2543). In
contrast to the dismissive environments found outside of higher education and in some other
sorts of higher education programs, these considerations can easily extend, not only to those who
are admitted to the MSW program, but also, as much as possible, to those who are rejected and,
in at least a representative sense, to those who did not even bother to apply – who went, for
example, to programs in public administration or public health instead.
The purpose of an MSW education, as proposed above, is to develop and refine the
ability to provide advanced services that clients need from social workers. The purpose of an
SSW, however, is not exactly to provide that education. That phrasing would make sense if the
SSW, like the student, were engaged in a one-time trip through the process. The proposed
purpose of an SSW is, rather, to develop the nature and quality of that process – to improve, in
other words, the iterative training of people who will provide services that clients need from
social workers. The actual teaching follows from the purpose of the SSW: improved training
implies training. In other words, the rote act of purveying the same material, semester after
semester, is stultifying for students and faculty alike but, fortunately, the SSW is not a factory.
An effective social work educational process should encourage faculty and students not only to
improve upon the subject matter of a course, but also to question that subject matter and,
whenever possible, to restate, supplement, abbreviate, or discard it. In this way, the SSW can
work perpetually toward incorporating valuable new information and skills that students might
not encounter otherwise.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 14
Achieving the Purpose of MSW Education
There are many ways in which SSWs can strive to exemplify best practices in profes-
sional education. Among those suggested or implied above, one is to optimize licensing
processes, so as to improve quality of services without inhibiting access to them (Thyer, 2007, p.
25; Smith, 1989, pp. 94-100). SSWs’ disclosure of ASWB pass rates would help administrators,
faculty, students, and applicants alike to make more informed decisions about licensing-related
aspects of social work education. Given the low academic standing of MSW education, it seems
advisable, in addition, to investigate whether CSWE accreditation processes are helping the
profession. The preceding paragraph suggests that the purpose of an SSW is to make progress
toward these and other possible improvements in education-related matters.
Whatever the case may be at the level of the SSW, the proposed purpose at the level of
the individual MSW student is, again, to develop and refine the ability to provide advanced
services that clients need from social workers. Students seek the MSW degree, as distinct from
an MSW education, as an assurance to employers and clients that they do possess some such
ability. If the quest for a sheepskin is the only reason for a particular student’s involvement with
MSW education, it falls to the SSW to insure that the degree does provide that assurance.
Regardless of whether the student is responding to intrinsic or extrinsic motivations, though, the
SSW should seek to facilitate, and should also seek not to impair, his/her progress toward
developing and refining the ability to provide advanced services that clients need from social
workers. The SSW should try to insure, in other words, that the student could not have arranged
a superior educational experience, for that purpose, elsewhere or on his/her own.
It is suggested, then, that the SSW confronts two overlapping but non-identical duties
with respect to MSW education. First, the purpose of an SSW, as noted above, is to improve
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 15
MSW education. This may entail assorted abstract and concrete measures having present and/or
future impact, determined from the perspective of the SSW’s administrators and faculty.
Second, the pursuit of MSW education depends upon present facilitation and non-impairment of
the student’s learning, from his/her real-time perspective. Where faculty and administrators
seem more attuned to the interests of the SSW than of the student, this second obligation may
tend to become a matter of advocacy or self-advocacy on behalf of the student vis-à-vis the
institution. One could say that the first obligation calls for proactive gestures by the SSW toward
the student, while the second calls for reactive yet constructive responses by the SSW to the
student. From the administrator’s perspective, the second obligation constitutes an extension of
best practices into the area of customer service while, from the student’s vantage, that second
obligation provides an opportunity (possibly his/her first opportunity) to interact with a model
organizational client. What is sketched is thus a picture of reciprocity, in which the SSW reaches
out to students and also allows them to reach out to it.
It may be relatively easy for administrators and faculty to identify and implement
sensible, proactive steps to improve MSW education from their perspective. What remains is to
consider the second, reciprocal obligation to facilitate and not impair the student’s learning.
Since this obligation depends upon the student’s perspective, the following section introduces
issues that seem likely to emerge, within an SSW that commits itself to support for and openness
to student concerns regarding MSW education.
MSW Student Perspectives on Student Satisfaction
Scholars have investigated student satisfaction with various aspects of social work
education. For example, Rogers-Freidenberg (2008) examined MSW student satisfaction with
faculty, faculty availability, field instruction, course variety, advisement services, and career
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 16
counseling. Others have looked into MSW student satisfaction with respect to various
pedagogical devices and possibilities, including portfolios (Schatz, 2004), face-to-face contact
hours (Banks & Faul, 2007), and the use of technology (Coleman & Collins, 2008). Satisfaction
of MSW students could also be studied with respect to other aspects of their experience that have
not yet been developed in the literature, such as their satisfaction with university services
(Gruber, Fuß, Voss, & Gläser-Zikuda, 2010).
Like students across many disciplines, MSW students do commonly fill out semester-end
evaluations of their courses and professors (Abrami et al., 2007, p. 454; Marsh, 2007, pp. 372-
374). Without denying the value of these sorts of investigations for other purposes, in the
present context they tend to be peripheral, to the extent that they characterize areas of potential
student concern from an administrative rather than student perspective. In other words, their
identification of particular issues makes sense if one assumes that things are mostly OK, aside
from perhaps a few areas that may need some adjustment. From a different perspective, however
– that is, without that assumption – such gestures evoke the proverbial rearrangement of deck
chairs on the Titanic. For many MSW students, things are emphatically not mostly OK. For
such students, the canned questions on the evaluation forms (and the environment in which they
are administered) can seem almost laughable. The following paragraphs identify several
significant impediments that these sorts of students (and, through them, their future clients)
encounter in their quest to realize the purpose of an MSW education.
Discrimination against Certain Viewpoints and Identities
There are a number of reasons why students might encounter such impediments. First,
there is the suggestion (above) that SSWs are responding to the pressure to maintain enrollments
by lowering admission standards. Where this occurs, it poses a serious risk of converting
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 17
unqualified applicants into marginalized students. At the same time, it creates the likelihood
that, in at least some academic settings, people who were already among the most qualified will
become impatient, if not bored, with the ensuing deterioration in the learning process (e.g.,
Gallagher & Harradine, 1997; see Peiró, Agut, & Grau, 2010).
Student alienation is also possible if social work curricula seem ideologically narrow-
minded (see Deal & Pittman, 2009, p. 97; Khinduka, 2007, p. 20). Alienation seems especially
likely if students conclude that they cannot express their views safely – that is, they cannot let
their guard down and really become engaged – in classes or other university contexts, but must
instead insure that their views conform with those of the professor (Schrader, 2004). Indeed, not
only conservative, but also moderate and openminded liberal students are likely to distance
themselves from a campus or classroom environment in which people of unfashionable
viewpoint are ridiculed, heckled, or prevented from speaking altogether (NAS, 2007; Sowers &
Patchner, 2007; D’Souza, 2005; Webb, 2005) or are treated condescendingly by social work
professors who are unwilling or unable to see themselves and their own views in context (e.g.,
Fram & Miller-Cribbs, 2008, p. 895; compare Todd & Coholic, 2007).
Students can also feel alienated for reasons related to identity. For instance, non-
traditional students can experience social isolation, can be patronized for the ways in which their
years away from school have shaped their words and thoughts, and can be disadvantaged by
course schedules designed for young people who do not have to work during the day (see
Gordon, 2008, p. 124). Further, while there exist (and apparently will continue to exist) areas of
the university in which male or female students tend to predominate (e.g., engineering, nursing),
the male privilege of previous generations has vanished overall: female students have outnum-
bered male students in graduate schools for the past quarter-century, and the rate of divergence
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 18
has accelerated (Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2009, p. 270). Worse, negative depictions of men
in social work are pervasive, to the point that heterosexual white males in particular are fair
game for sexist and racist statements and assumptions (Britton & Stoller, 1998; Kosberg, Adams,
Wheeler, & Blundo, 2008). Not surprisingly, males, who comprised 43% of all MSW graduates
in 1960, have vanished to such an extent that they constituted only 15% in 2000 (Schilling,
Morrish, & Liu, 2008) – among whom heterosexual whites are a fraction of the fraction.
Bullying
As one might infer from some of the behaviors described above (not to mention this
writer’s personal experiences and private communications with others), bullying plays a role in
alienating actual and would-be MSW students. Generally, bullying takes different forms.
Among children, although the matter is debated, the dominant view at present seems to be that
boys are more likely (and in any event seem to be voted by peers as more likely) to engage in
physical aggression, while girls are seen as more likely to engage in social aggression (e.g.,
malicious gossip, social exclusion, interpersonal betrayal) (Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2009, p. 732;
Hawley, Little, & Card, 2008, p. 77). As boys mature, it seems that they are socialized toward
social rather than physical aggression (Goldstein, Young, & Boyd, 2008, p. 651; Basow, Cahill,
Phelan, Longshore, & McGillicuddy-DeLisi, 2007, p. 90; Kaukiainen et al., 2001).
Acts of relational aggression, which can be difficult to detect and respond to, occur far
more frequently than acts of physical aggression (Kevorkian & D’Antona, 2008, p. 100; see
Pepler, Craig, Yuile, & Connolly, 2004, p. 91). While many people (prominently including
social workers) loudly denounce physical violence, they tend at the same time to be quietly
complicit in many varieties of it (Pilsuk, 2007; Passas & Goodwin, 2004). And yet relational
aggression can also do enormous damage (e.g., Klomek et al., 2009; Vossekuil, Robert, Reddy,
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 19
Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002, p. 21; Goldstein et al., 2008, p. 649) and, especially in the form
some call “mobbing,” can be personally devastating (Hecker, 2007; Varhama & Björkqvist,
2005). Some consider relational aggression more harmful than the physical variety (Waasdorp &
Bradshaw, 2009, p. 740), especially when it takes a “psychopathic” form (Kelly, 2007, p. 113);
but others downplay it (compare e.g., Chesney-Lind et al., 2007, p. 330 with Hegarty, Sheehan,
& Schonfeld, 1999, p. 401). In the latter instance, possibly it is easier for those who, themselves,
have competed effectively in the realm of indirect aggression to excuse it as actually embodying
“higher social intelligence” (compare Chesney-Lind et al., p. 335 with Hawley et al., 2008,
p. 84). There does not appear to have been research on the prevalence of social aggression
among social workers or social work faculty as compared to the general public.
Interestingly, socially dominant boys seem to use relational aggression effectively
(Hawley et al., 2008, p. 84). That raises the possibility (supported by this writer’s personal
experience and by conversations with others) that it may take a certain kind of man to thrive in
social work academia as a professor or administrator. (It is not clear whether this possibility
applies especially to men who have come up through the ranks in what seems to have been a
more established anti-male environment within the past few decades.) The possibility that comes
to mind here is that the kind of man who can succeed in an SSW may be one who uses relational
aggression, not only to interact with his colleagues in a manner consistent with the dominant
organizational culture (see Kelly, 2007, p. 114), but also to maintain a sense of dominance over
other men (including male students) by portraying them, in elite fashion (see Gambrill, 2001,
p. 169), as boors – as, that is, unenlightened or otherwise inferior (e.g., Pease, 2003, p. 135;
Hogan, 1998, p. 19; Neuman & Kreuger, 2003, p. 429).
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 20
Regrettably, these various bullying phenomena tend not to be matters that actual and
would-be MSW students, whether male or female, tend to find open for discussion in SSWs. In
fact, victims of bullies (and males more than females) are evidently least likely, of all
participants in a bullying scenario, to receive social support, despite being most likely to need it
(Holt & Espelage, 2007, pp. 985-986, 991). It tends instead to be expected that MSW students
will acquiesce in social work’s preoccupation with physical aggression, and will accept opacity
(including non-transparency and an absence of accountability for social aggression) as a fact of
life, in the SSW and in the very ethics of the profession (see Kelly, 2007, p. 116; Gambrill, 2006,
p. 60). The point here is simply that those who experience such behaviors within the SSW itself
are not likely to concur with an administrative assumption that things are mostly OK.
Social Work – University Mismatch
Bullying gains traction in circumstances of unequal power (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo,
1973, p. 94). Just as the majority of workplace bullying incidents are perpetrated by supervisors
(Kelly, 2007, p. 119; LaVan & Martin, 2007, p. 149), so also educators abuse students, with
surprising frequency, from elementary school all the way to the Ph.D. (Whitted & Dupper, 2008,
p. 336; Hinchey & Kimmel, 2000, p. 107). But perhaps what should be highlighted here is not
the more obvious instances of overt or covert bullying in which MSW program faculty and
administrators may engage, including forms discussed above, but rather the more taken-for-
granted misuses of power through which MSW education is dragged down to approximately the
level of accounting, dental hygiene, or any other tedious, mercenary field of study.
There is, first and perhaps foremost, the concept that social work should be taught
primarily in a college or university, when that is so obviously not where most of those low-GRE
MSW students think they should be. It is hardly a good practice to infantilize them by forcing
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 21
them to sit in classrooms for the equivalent of at least a solid year, where they may or may not be
reading or otherwise learning very much, and are also being schooled in parochialism rather than
interdisciplinary collaboration (Taylor, 2009). It is absurd, if not downright exploitative, to
oblige those students to forgo a substantial amount of potential income, and often to incur large
amounts of debt (Kim, 2007), knowing that most will not be making very much and that many
will struggle to find employment at any price. Were it not for what appears to be a gender-
related conceit of academic superiority, the indicators would all seem to direct this sort of educa-
tion to a vocational institution. “Social workers often identify the field practicum experience as
the single most important part of social work education” (Ligon & Ward, 2002, p. 63), and with
good reason. Indeed, for the large majority of social work students who want to be practitioners,
an educational experience structured around a high-quality apprenticeship (see Fuller & Unwin,
2007, p. 456) of some type (see Jacoby, 1991; Swisher, 2008) would be far more likely to be
educational, affordable, and responsive to their sense of what is most rewarding in their MSW
education (see D’Aprix, Dunlap, Abel, & Edwards, 2004, p. 274; Carlson, May, Loertscher, &
Cobia, 2003; Sigaut, 1993), and might at the same time teach coping skills for what can be,
today, a startling disconnect between educational theory and practice realities (e.g., Preston-
Shoot, 2003). Such an education could still entail some academic coursework (Strauss, 1968)
and result in a degree (Glover & Bilginsoy, 2005, p. 344), with an MSW option for those on an
academic track.
University education of social workers is objectionable, not only from the student’s
perspective, but also from that of professional ethics. Programs and projects within universities
tend to prioritize the best and the brightest, the highest-earning and the most prestigious. These
elitist orientations (see Khinduka, 2007, p. 18) make sense within the world as the university sees
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 22
it. They are not, however, compatible with social work values. People who (from an elitist
perspective) are the worst and most ignorant, pathetic, and desperate – these are among the
clients who most need social workers’ help. As some of the groups cited above (e.g., victims of
bullying) can attest, years of steeping in the university ambiance do not incline MSW students or
faculty to share or empathize with the situations experienced by needy clients. To cite appren-
tices again as a point of contrast, MSW students are not becoming acclimated to their clients’
environments and are not modeling a form of training to which clients themselves can aspire (see
Pannabecker, 1991, p. 77; Hamilton, 1993). That sort of thing could reduce burnout and, in the
process, might impair the demand for graduates of MSW programs. Instead, social workers are
taught the mentality of an occupying force. One is left with Margolin’s (1997, p. 121)
observation: “[T]he stated goal is to empower clients, but there is at the same time all this talk of
confronting, penetrating resistances, gaining client cooperation.” People are seen, not as
individuals, but as products of systems (e.g., Tam & Coleman, 2009, p. 53). Hence, to cite one
outcome of MSW education, despite growing need, graduates from these programs still eschew
the prospect of working with old people (Cummings & Adler, 2007, pp. 925-926; Simons,
Shepherd, & Munn, 2008), when real-life exposure to such clients could instead have been
generating students’ interest in careers in gerontology (Gutheil, Heyman, & Chernesky, 2009;
Olson, 2007). Another example, evident in the preceding pages, is that of working with male
clients: it will be difficult for the student to do so effectively, if s/he has been trained to
problematize men – has, indeed, been essentially cloistered from them in professional terms.
An additional problem of social work education within the university environment: the
university is hierarchical and authoritarian, with all the drawbacks of such organization from a
social work perspective (e.g., Milgram, 1973; Barney & Dalton, 2006). Over the years, it gives a
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 23
small number of talented, shrewd, or otherwise advantaged individuals a great deal of power
over the lives and futures of hundreds, thousands, in a few instances even hundreds of thousands
of people. Authoritarian organization, at its best, may invite and use feedback from its minions;
but it is not remotely an empowering form of structure, it rarely fosters anything resembling
genuine dialogue, it tends to be unresponsive and burdensome, and at its worst it is, simply put,
the very worst, the most oppressive and destructive, of all forms of human organization. This
sort of thing may sound lovely, from the perspective of those social workers who love
bureaucracy, but it is not very compatible with service, respect, or other commonly cited values
of the social work profession.
These are not abstract issues. One need only compare the functionality and motivation of
MSW students in their field placements against their typically lethargic behavior in the class-
room to reach the conclusion that, far from things being mostly OK, fundamental assumptions
and accepted verities in MSW education are dramatically out of alignment with the needs and
preferences of clients and of MSW students themselves. The purpose of MSW education – to
develop and refine the ability to provide advanced services that clients need from social workers
– is likely to be better served by a radical rethinking of the relationship between the academy and
the profession, beginning with some maturation of an administrative ability and desire to detect
what students themselves need from social work.
Mental Health of MSW Faculty and Students
A peek into the literature suggests that faculty members may experience depersonal-
ization, emotional exhaustion, stress, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances (Shanafelt et
al., 2009; Lampman, Phelps, Bancroft, & Beneke, 2008); gender-differentiated psychological
distress arising from “work and family responsibilities” and “hassles” (Dunn, Whelton, &
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 24
Sharpe, 2006, pp. 519-520); and, for increasing numbers of non-tenured faculty, “pervasive
exclusion, oppression, and devaluation” and “hierarchy, privilege, and oppression” (Purcell,
2007, pp. 122, 130); and also that faculty use recreational as well as performance-enhancing
drugs (Schnake, Fredenberger, & Dumler, 2004, p. 9; Chatterjee, 2008, p. 145). These realities
pose an opportunity: Rasmussen and Mishna (2008, p. 201) suggest, refreshingly, that faculty
make social work concepts more real to students by disclosing their own experiences (involving
e.g., racism, hidden disabilities, sexual attraction to a client). In their understated acknowledg-
ment, “However, sharing such an experience always feels somewhat more risky” (p. 202).
Despite whatever personal issues they bring to the table, social work faculty seem to
consider themselves obliged and able to perform a “gatekeeping” function. According to Grady
and Mr. S (2009, p. 52), this function requires faculty to “balance their personal principles about
being fair to a student who meets the course requirements with their obligations as a gatekeeper
for the profession.” The purpose of the gatekeeping function is “ensuring that students who
graduate from their programs are prepared to be competent practitioners” (Grady & Mr. S., 2009,
p. 51). This concern, sensible enough on its face, is nonetheless ironic in the context of
questions (above) regarding the suitability of CSWE board members, not to mention the very
human faculty foibles just cited.
In the particular case, Grady (2009) gave Mr. S (an unnamed student) an F. When she
later discovered that he was smoking crack cocaine, she felt “more confident in [her] role as
gatekeeper and in the system’s ability to ‘weed out’ [ sic] students who are either not ready to
complete graduate-level work or who are ill suited for the profession” (p. 59). It is an interesting
sentiment, given her admission that “students who are admitted into social work graduate
programs have a higher rate of ‘traumatic factors’ in their early lives compared with graduate
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 25
students in other nonhelping professions” (p. 61). The reader may suspect, not that the system
worked, but that S was unlucky and/or an extreme case, given Grady’s acknowledgments that
this was the first time she had ever given a student an F (p. 56) and that published reports of
gatekeeping are rare (p. 61). Apparently the system does not succeed in weeding out most such
individuals, else she would have flunked and gatekept numerous students previously. What
appears to happen instead is that ill-suited students “screen themselves out of the profession”
(Olson & Royse, 2006, p. 43), sometime after being admitted and paying their tuition. In light of
the foregoing remarks regarding a competition for warm bodies to fill seats, it appears that the
default position of the admissions office is to admit students, of whom a considerable number
will have psychological difficulties that will reduce their likelihood of success within the
environment of the typical SSW.
The exception to that apparent policy arises in the case of students who pose a visible risk
of causing problems. Rather than face potential legal difficulties when ejecting such students,
senior social work professors Urwin, Van Soest, and Kretzschmar (2006, p. 169) recommend
doing it at the point of admission whenever possible. In contrast to earlier years, when social
work applicants are remembered as having had more of a sense of mission, these professors
indicate that SSWs may now find themselves dealing with a variety of problem students. Some
of the categories that they consider problematic are revealing: those with conflicts between their
own views and social work ethical values; those who are “defensive about performance
feedback”; those who display “rigid thinking” or “lack of openness to learning” (pp. 165, 169).
There is, again, a point of comparison vis-à-vis faculty. A disinterested reader might wonder, for
instance, whether one could detect rigid thinking or defensiveness in the social work professor
who sticks stubbornly to a viewpoint despite its implausibility. A lack of openness to learning
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 26
certainly could arise in an academic environment where what counts is not a love of learning nor
an ability to teach, but rather skill in attracting funding – never mind the inbred social work
academic environment in particular, where faculty are required to have earned MSW degrees in
lookalike, “cookie-cutter” programs (Stoesz & Karger, 2009, p. 132) and doctoral degrees mostly
from a smallish number of preferred universities. Despite encouragement to explore “multiple
intelligences” (Matto, Barry-Edwards, Hutchison, Bryant, & Waldbillig, 2006, p. 415), MSW
education is not renowned for its intellectual diversity.
One particularly troubling category of “problem student” that crops up, in the list offered
by Unwin et al. (2006, p. 165), is that of students with “histories of psychosocial trauma” or
“self-preoccupation” or “ability challenges.” It seems that, if there were enough “good”
applicants to fill those seats, these kinds of problem students would be rejected. Confirming a
clear pattern of rejection of students with psychiatric disabilities, GlenMaye and Bolin (2007,
pp. 127-129) state that, “Despite 30 years of disability law,” over two-thirds of the social work
educators who responded to their survey stated that their programs had “counseled out students
who had psychiatric disabilities” (where “counseled out” means “pressured to drop out”) and, in
addition, that 20% of their respondents stated that counseling-out was their program’s most
typical response to students with psychiatric disabilities. The point is not so much the illegality
of those programs’ behavior; it is that this happens in social work, where tolerance and inclusion
increasingly appear to be reserved for just the right kinds of misfits. These are, again, the kinds
of things that will not be OK for some number of MSW students.
The singling-out of those students with psychiatric disabilities raises another concern. It
is not clear what criteria were used to select students for counseling-out. Assuming that
admissions officers did obtain transcripts and other verifications of basic academic ability, it
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 27
appears that those selected for elimination may have been academically capable but were in
some sense unpopular, or may simply have failed to conceal their disabilities. That surmise
emerges from indications that psychiatric disabilities are not uncommon among social work
students. Consider this brief selection of results from studies, done in several SSWs, in which
social work students (mostly MSWs) displayed disturbingly high levels of disadvantageous or
impairing characteristics: 69% indicated that their family histories included problems of
substance abuse, psychopathology, violence, and/or compulsive disorders, with 41% having
problems in more than one such area (Sellers & Hunter, 2005, p. 877); 28% reported having
experienced physical assault, 12% reported having attempted suicide, 50% reported having used
illegal drugs other than marijuana, 34% were at risk for clinical depression, and 75% reported
having sought mental health services (Horton, Diaz, & Green, 2009, pp. 467-469); 31% reported
having been sexually molested, with an atypically high proportion of those incidents occurring in
childhood (Russel, Hill, Coyne, & Woody, 1993); and, in two studies of social work students in
Britain, 42% and 64%, respectively, were identified as having at least a minor clinical
psychiatric disorder (Collins, Coffey, & Morri, 2008, pp. 13, 15).
In other words, the rejection of some students with visible psychiatric disabilities seems
to be an inside joke shared by others with similar disabilities. Since SSWs are emphatically not
in the business of creating an environment in which students can safely “recognize personal
issues” and “work through them” (Sellers & Hunter, 2005, p. 879) with collective support, many
who do have such disabilities may have to endure them in silence if not denial, while those
without such disabilities, deprived of the insight and understanding that transparency and
rapprochement could engender, may have no recourse but to scratch their heads and wonder why
so many of their classmates – and, later, their professional colleagues – behave so strangely.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 28
Recap
This section of this paper suggests that student satisfaction surveys, focusing upon
isolated aspects of the MSW educational experience, appear to rest upon an assumption that the
MSW educational environment is largely satisfactory, such that what is needed is mere tinkering
around the edges. The argument advanced here is, in effect, that a competent qualitative explora-
tion of that environment would reveal major problems in MSW education, even at the best
schools. Those problems include discrimination against unfavored people and ideas, bullying of
students by faculty and by other students, distortions of social work ideals wrought by the SSW’s
location within a seriously incompatible university environment, and execrable attitudes toward
discrimination (regarding e.g., psychiatric disabilities). A question not explored here is whether
this sort of environment may breed, attract, or depend upon infusions of people and attitudes that
are oriented toward and/or capable (through e.g., what some may consider optimism) of
inappropriately disregarding or downplaying the regrettable features of such an environment
(e.g., Crosno, Rinaldo, Black, & Kelley, 2009).
Summary
This paper began with a look at the purposes of MSW education. It did not appear that
putative mission statements for the profession as a whole, as suggested by the NASW and the
CSWE, could provide a basis for deducing the purpose of MSW education. There also appeared
to be considerable disagreement among other stakeholders (including faculty, students, the
university, and consumers of social services) regarding that purpose. In response to that state of
affairs, it was proposed that the purpose of MSW education is to develop and refine the ability to
provide advanced services that clients need from social workers.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 29
It was then noted that students occupy a communicative position in which they convey, to
SSWs, the current cash-on-the-barrelhead interpretation of what clients need from social service
agencies. There seemed to be a distinction between the purpose of an MSW education, as just
defined, and the purpose of an SSW, which was proposed to be the pursuit of progress toward
improved MSW education. That pursuit appeared to call for two forms of endeavor on the part
of the SSW: to seek improvements proactively, and also, in an expansive sense of the term, to
welcome – that is, to take seriously; to treat as vital – the views and needs of MSW students.
If MSW student impressions of a proper MSW education are taken seriously, it quickly
becomes evident that several significant aspects of current MSW educational processes
desperately need reworking. It seems unlikely that social work educators are unaware of all of
the concerns described above. What appears more likely is that they do not find them compel-
ling, else they would long since have implemented appropriate changes. Since those needs are in
fact compelling to many of the students affected, however, one may wonder what should be
inferred from the fact that social work professors, who tend to have some knowledge of research
methods, content themselves with the one-shot semester-end evaluation forms commonly used to
gauge student satisfaction. Perhaps a case could be made that such forms are utilized, not as a
genuine data-collection device, but rather as a shield to deflect calls for serious change. Making
that case is a project for another day.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 30
References
Abrami, P. C., d’Apollonia, S., & Rosenfield, S. (2007). The dimensionality of student ratings of
instruction: What we know and what we do not. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The
scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective
(pp. 385-445). Dordrecht: Springer.
Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB). (2008). FAQs. Retrieved April 27, 2010 from
http://www.aswb.org/SWLE/faqs.asp
Banks, A. C., & Faul, A. C. (2007). Reduction of face-to-face contact hours in foundation
research courses: Impact on students’ knowledge gained and course satisfaction. Social
Work Education, 26(8), 780-793.
Barney, D. D., & Dalton, L. E. (2006). Social work under Naziism: An analysis of the
“profession-in-the-environment.” Journal of Progressive Human Services, 17(2), 43-62.
Bar-On, A. A. (1994). The elusive boundaries of social work. Journal of Sociology & Social
Welfare 21(3), 53-67.
Basow, S. A., Cahill, K. F., Phelan, J. E., Longshore, K., & McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. (2007).
Perceptions of relational and physical aggression among college students: Effects of
gender of perpetrator, target, and perceiver. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(1),
85-95.
Bisno, H. (1956). How social will social work be? Social Work, 1, 12-18.
Britton, J., & Stoller, M. (1998). EnGENDERed disparity: Males in social work. The Advocate's
Forum, 5(1). Retrieved June 17, 2009 from
http://www.ssa.uchicago.edu/publications/advforum/v5n1/v5i1a2.html
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 31
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2010). Occupational outlook handbook, 2010-11. Retrieved
May 2, 2010 from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos060.htm
Butler, A., Ford, D., & Tregaskis, C. (2007). Who do we think we are? Self and reflexivity in
social work practice. Qualitative Social Work, 6(3), 281-299.
Carlson, N. M., May, W. E., Loertscher, R., & Cobia, C. (2003). Apprenticeship: Applications in
adult education. MPAEA Journal of Adult Education, 32(1), 29-43.
Chatterjee, A. (2008). Framing pains, pills, and professors. Expositions, 2(2), 139-146.
Cheney-Lind, M., Morash, M., & Irwin, K. (2007). Policing girlhood? Relational aggression and
violence prevention. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5(3), 328-345.
Coleman, H., & Collins, D. (2008). Technology in social work education: Are we practicing
what we preach? Currents: New Scholarship in the Human Services, 7(2), 1-14.
Collins, S., Coffey, M., & Morris, L. (2010). Social work students: Stress, support and well-
being. British Journal of Social Work, 40(3), 963-982.
Council for Social Work Education (CSWE). (2009). CSWE welcomes seven new board
members with diverse perspectives. Retrieved May 2, 2010 from
http://www.cswe.org/News/PressRoom/PressReleaseArchives/7NewBoardMembers.aspx
Council for Social Work Education (CSWE). (2010). Educational policy and accreditation
standards. Retrieved April 27, 2010 from
www.cswe.org/Accreditation/Reaffirmation/2008EPAS.aspx
Crosno, J. L., Rinaldo, S. B., Black, H. G., & Kelley, S. W. (2009). Half full or half empty: The
role of optimism in boundary-spanning positions. Journal of Service Research, 11(3),
295-309.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 32
Cummings, S. M., & Adler, G. (2007). Predictors of social workers employment in
gerontological work. Educational Gerontology, 33(11), 925-938.
D’Aprix, A. S., Dunlap, K. M., Abel, E., & Edwards, R. L. (2004). Goodness of fit: Career goals
of MSW students and the aims of the social work profession in the United States. Social
Work Education, 23(3), 265-280.
De Benedetti, C. (1984). Peace history, in the American manner. The History Teacher, 18(1), 75-
110.
Deal, K. H., & Pittman, J. (2009). Examining predictors of social work students’ critical thinking
skills. Advances in Social Work, 10(1), 87-102.
Dunn, J. C., Whelton, W. J., & Sharpe, D. (2006). Maladaptive perfectionism, hassles, coping,
and psychological distress in university professors. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
53(4), 511-523.
Elias, S. M. (2007). Influence in the ivory tower: Examining the appropriate use of social power
in the university classroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(11), 2532-2548.
Finn, J., & Dillon, C. (2007). Using personal ads and online self-help groups to teach content
analysis in a research methods course. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 27(1), 155-
164.
Framm, M. S., & Miller-Cribbs, J. (2008). Liberal and conservative in social work education:
Exploring student experiences. Social Work Education, 27(8), 883-897.
Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2007). What counts as good practice in contemporary apprenticeships?
Evidence from two contrasting sectors in England. Education + Training, 49(6), 447-
458.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 33
Gallagher, J., & Harradine, C. C. (1997). Gifted students in the classroom. Roeper Review, 19(3),
132-136.
Gambrill, E. (2001). Social work: An authority-based profession. Research on Social Work
Practice, 11(2), 166-175.
Gambrill, E. (2006). Social work practice: A critical thinker’s guide (2nd ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
GlenMaye, L. F., & Bolin, B. (2007). Students with psychiatric disabilities: An exploratory study
of program practices. Journal of Social Work Education, 43(1), 117-131.
Glover, R. W., & Bilginsoy, C. (2005). Registered apprenticeship training in the US construction
industry. Education + Training, 47(4/5), 337-349.
Goldstein, S. E., Young, A., & Boyd, C. (2008). Relational aggression at school: Associations
with school safety and social climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(6), 641-654.
Gordon, V. N. (2008). Student diversity and student needs. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, & T.
J. Grites (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 119-141). New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
Grady, M. D., & Mr. S. (2009). Gatekeeping: Perspectives from both sides of the fence. Smith
College Studies in Social Work, 79(1), 51-64.
Green, L. C. (2006). Pariah profession, debased discipline? An analysis of social work’s low
academic status and the possibilities for change. Social Work Education, 25(3), 245-264.
Gruber, T., Fuß, S., Voss, R., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2010). Examining student satisfaction with
higher education services: Using a new measurement tool. International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 23(2), 105-123.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 34
Gutheil, I. A., Heyman, J. C., & Chernesky, R. H. (2009). Graduate social work students’ interest
in working with older adults. Social Work Education, 28(1), 54-64.
Hamilton, S. F. (1993). Prospects for an American-style youth apprenticeship system.
Educational Researcher, 22(3), 11-16.
Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison.
International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-95.
Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Card, N. D. (2008). The myth of the alpha male: A new look at
dominance-related beliefs and behaviors among adolescent males and females.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(1), 76-88.
Hecker, T. E. (2007). Workplace mobbing: A discussion for librarians. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 33(4), 439-445.
Hegarty, K., Sheehan, M., & Schonfeld, C. (1999). A multidimensional definition of partner
abuse: Development and preliminary validation of the composite abuse scale. Journal of
Family Violence, 14(4), 399-415.
Hinchey, P., & Kimmel, I. (2000). The graduate grind: A critical look at graduate education.
New York: Falmer.
Hogan, F. (1998). Reflections: On being a man in social work. Irish Social Worker, 16(3), 19-20.
Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and
bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 984-994.
Horton, E. G., Diaz, N., & Green, D. (2009). Mental health characteristics of social work
students: Implications for social work education. Social Work in Mental Health, 7(5),
458-475.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 35
Jacoby, D. (1991). The transformation of industrial apprenticeship in the United States. The
Journal of Economic History, 51(4), 887-910.
Karger, H. J., & Hernández, M. T. (2004). The decline of the public intellectual in social work.
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31(3), 51-68.
Karger, H. J., & Stoesz, D. (2003). The growth of social work education programs, 1985-1999:
Its impact on economic and educational factors related to the profession of social work.
Journal of Social Work Education, 39(2), 279-295.
Karger, H., & Lonne, B. (2009). Unionization: A necessary strategy to arrest professional
decline? Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24(1), 21-44.
Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., Lahtinen, A., Kostamo, A., &
Lagerspetz, K. (2001). Overt and covert aggression in work settings in relation to the
subjective well-being of employees. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 360–371.
Kelly, D. (2007). Workplace bullying, women and work choices. Hecate, 33(1), 113-125.
Kevorkian, M., & D’Antona, R. (2008). 101 facts about bullying: What everyone should know.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Khinduka, S. K. (2007). Toward rigor and relevance in US social work education. Australian
Social Work, 60(1), 18-28.
Kim, D. (2007). The effect of loans on students’ degree attainment: Differences by student and
institutional characteristics. Harvard Educational Review, 77(1), 64-100.
Klomek, A. B., Sourander, A., Niemelä, S., Kumpulainen, K., Piha, J., Tamminen, T., Almqvist,
F., & Gould, M. S. (2009). Childhood bullying behaviors as a risk for suicide attempts
and completed suicides: A population-based birth cohort study. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(3), 254-261.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 36
Kosberg, J. I., Adams, J. I., Wheeler, D. P., & Blundo, R. (2008). Men. In Encyclopedia of
Social Work (T. Mizrahi & L. E. Davis, Eds.). Washington, DC: NASW. Retrieved
December 21, 2008 from http://www.oxford-
naswsocialwork.com/entry?entry=t203.e242-s1
Lampman, C., Phelps, A., Bancroft, S., & Beneke, M. (2009). Contrapower harassment in
academia: A survey of faculty experience with student incivility, bullying, and sexual
attention. Sex Roles, 60(5-6), 331-346.
LaVan, H., & Martin, W. M. (2008). Bullying in the U.S. workplace: Normative and process-
oriented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 147-165.
Ligon, J., & Ward, J. (2002). 10 tips for a successful field placement. In L. J. Grobman (Ed.),
The field placement survival guide: What you need to know to get the most from your
social work practicum (pp. 61-63). Harrisburg, PA: White Hat Communications.
Litten, J. A. P. (2008). A quantitative and qualitative inquiry into the call to serve among non-
traditional undergraduate social work students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation:
Bowling Green State University. Retrieved April 27, 2010 from
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=bgsu1213981151
Margolin, L. (1997). Under the cover of kindness: The invention of social work. Charlottesville,
VA: University Press of Virginia.
Marsh, H. W. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability,
validity, potential biases and usefulness. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The
scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective
(pp. 319-383). Dordrecht: Springer.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 37
Marson, S. M., DeAngelis, D., & Mittal, N. (2010). The Association of Social Work Boards’
licensure examinations. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(1), 87-99.
Matto, H., Berry-Edwards, J., Hutchison, E. D., Bryant, S. A., & Waldbillig, A. (2006). An
exploratory study on multiple intelligences and social work education. Journal of Social
Work Education, 42(2), 405-416.
Midgley, J. (2009). Comments on “Reinventing social work accreditation.” Research on Social
Work Practice, 19(1), 119-120.
Milgram, S. (1973, December). The perils of obedience. Harper’s Magazine, 247(1483), 62-77.
National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW). (n.d.). Mission statement. Retrieved
April 28, 2010 from http://www.nabsw.org/mserver/Mission2.aspx
National Association of Scholars (NAS). The scandal of social work education. Retrieved
October 22, 2008 from http://www.nas.org/polimage.cfm?doc_Id=26&size_code=Doc
National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (2008). Code of ethics. Retrieved May 24,
2009 from http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp
National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (2010). About NASW. Retrieved May 2, 2010
from http://www.socialworkers.org/nasw/default.asp
Neuman, W. L., & Kreuger, L. W. (2003). Social work research methods. New York: Allyn &
Bacon.
Olson, C. J., & Royse, D. (2006). Early-life adversity and choice of the social work profession.
Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 3(2), 31-47.
Olson, M. D. (2007). Gerontology content in MSW curricula and student attitudes toward older
adults. Educational Gerontology, 33(11), 981-994.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 38
Pannabecker, J. R. (1989). Industrial education in the Middle Ages: Apprenticeship in the wool
textile industry in thirteenth-century Paris. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education,
26(4), 39-52.
Passas, N., & Goodwin, N. R. (2004). It’s legal but it ain’t right: Harmful social consequences
of legal industries. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Pease, B. (2003). Men and masculinities: Profeminist approaches to changing men. In J. Allan,
B. Pease, & L. Briskman (Eds.), Critical social work: An introduction to theories and
practices (pp. 124-138). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Peiró, J. M., Agut, S., & Grau, R. (2010). The relationship between overeducation and job
satisfaction among young Spanish workers: The role of salary, contract of employment,
and work experience. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(3), 666-689.
Pepler, D., Craig, W., Yuile, A., & Connolly, J. (2004). Girls who bully: A development and
relational perspective. In Aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence among girls: A
developmental perspective (pp. 90-109). New York: Guilford.
Pilsuk, M. (2007). Who benefits from global violence and war. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Popple, P. R. (1985). The social work profession: A reconceptualization. Social Service Review,
59(4), 560-577.
Preston-Shoot, M. (2003). Changing learning and learning change: Making a difference in
education, policy and practice. Journal of Social Work Practice, 17(1), 9-23.
Purcell, M. (2007). "Skilled, cheap, and desperate": Non-tenure-track faculty and the delusion of
meritocracy. Antipode, 39(1), 121-143.
Rasmussen, B. M., & Mishna, F. (2008). A fine balance: Instructor self-disclosure in the
classroom. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 28(1/2), 191-207.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 39
Reid, P. N., & Edwards, R. L. (2006). The purpose of a school of social work – An American
perspective. Social Work Education, 25(5), 461-484.
Richardson, R. C. (2009). Using motivational systems theory to explore factors that influence the
teaching strategies of undergraduate social work faculty. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation: Case Western Reserve University. Retrieved April 27, 2010 from
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=case1238790333
Robiner, W. N. (2006). The mental health professions: Workforce supply and demand, issues,
and challenges. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(5), 600-625.
Rogers-Freidenberg, C. A. (2008). An analysis of MSW student satisfaction: A comparison of
field instruction and faculty influence. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation abstract.]
Albany: State University of New York. Retrieved April 26, 2010 from
http://gradworks.umi.com/33/19/3319561.html
Rosenwald, M. (2006). A part versus apart: The relationship between social workers’ political
ideology and their professional affiliation. Journal of Social work Values and Ethics,
3(2). Retrieved April 27, 2010 from
http://www.socialworker.com/jswve/content/view/36/46/
Russel, R., Hill, P., Coyne, A., & Woody, J. (1993). Dysfunction in the family of origin of MSW
and other graduate students. Journal of Social Work Education, 29(1), 121-129.
Schatz, M. C. S. (2004). Using portfolios: Integrating learning and promoting for social work
students. Advances in Social Work, 5(1), 105-123.
Schilling, R., Morrish, J. N., & Liu, G. (2008). Demographic trends in social work over a
quarter-century in an increasingly female profession. Social Work, 53(2), 103-114.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 40
Schnake, M., Fredenberger, W., & Dumler, M. P. (2004). Dimensions of student perceptions of
faculty ethical behavior: Refining a measure and relationships with selected outcome
variables. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 8(2), 1-16.
Schrader, D. E. (2004). Intellectual safety, moral atmosphere, and epistemology in college
classrooms. Journal of Adult Development, 11(2), 78-101.
Sellers, S. L., & Hunter, A. G. (2005). Private pain, public choices: Influence of problems in the
family of origin on career choices among a cohort of MSW students. Social Work
Education, 24(8), 869-881.
Shanafelt, T. D., West, C. P., Sloan, J. A., Novotny, P. J., Poland, G. A. . . . Dyrbye, L. N.
(2009). Career fit and burnout among academic faculty. Archives of Internal Medicine,
169(10), 990-995.
Shank, B. W. (2007). The call to justice: Social work in Catholic higher education. Social Work
& Christianity, 34(1), 2-17.
Siebert, D. C. (2005). Personal and occupational factors in burnout among practicing social
workers: Implications for researches, practitioners, and managers. Journal of Social
Service Research, 32(5), 25-44.
Sigaut, F. (1993). Learning, teaching, and apprenticeship. New Literary History, 24(1), 105-114.
Simons, K., Shepherd, N., & Munn, J. (2008). Advancing the evidence base for social work in
long-term care: The disconnect between practice and research. Social Work in Health
Care, 47(4), 392-415.
Smith, S. R. (1989). A crazy system: Mental health care delivery in America. Journal of
Contemporary Health Law and Policy, 5, 75-117.
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 41
Snyder, T. D., Dillow, S. A., & Hoffman, C. M. (2009). Digest of education statistics, 2008.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Retrieved June 6, 2009 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009020
Souza, D. (2005). Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus: Introduction to the
vintage edition. Retrieved July 19, 2009 from
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/books/illiberal-intro.html
Sowers, K. M., & Dulmus, C. N. (2009). Social work education: Status quo or change? Research
on Social Work Practice, 19(1), 114-115.
Stoesz, D. (2008). Social work Agonistes. Academic Questions, 21(2), 164-182.
Stoesz, D., & Karger, H. J. (2009). Reinventing social work accreditation. Research on Social
Work Practice, 19(1), 104-111.
Stoesz, D., & Karger, H. J. (2009). Social work education in wonderland: Stoesz and Karger
reply. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(1), 131-133.
Strauss, G. (1968). Apprenticeship-related instruction: Some basic issues. The Journal of
Human Resources, 3(2), 213-236.
Swisher, V. (2008, June 4). Using the company as the classroom. BusinessWeek. Retrieved June
5, 2008 from
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jun2008/ca2008064_524685.htm
Tam, D. M. Y., & Coleman, H. (2009). Construction and validation of a professional suitability
scale for social work practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(1), 47-63.
Taylor, M. C. (2009, April 27). End the university as we know it. New York Times. Retrieved
April 27, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 42
Thyer, B. A. (2002). Evaluation of social work practice in the new millennium: Myths and
realities. In D. T. L. Shek (Ed.), Advances in social welfare in Hong Kong (pp. 3-18).
Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
Thyer, B. A. (2007). Social work education and clinical learning: Towards evidence-based
practice? Clinical Social Work Journal, 35, 25-32.
Thyer, B. A. (2010). LCSW examination pass rates: Implications for social work education.
Clinical Social Work Journal. DOI: 10.1007/s10615-009-0253-x
Todd, S., & Coholic, D. (2007). Christian fundamentalism and anti-oppressive social work
pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 27(3/4), 5-25.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2010. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved May 2, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/statab/www/
University of Michigan. (2009). MSW program. Retrieved April 26, 2010 from School of Social
Work webpage: http://www.ssw.umich.edu/programs/msw/
Urwin, C. A., Van Soest, D., & Kretzschmar, J. A. (2006). Key principles for developing
gatekeeping standards for working with students with problems. Journal of Teaching in
Social Work, 26(1/2), 163-180.
Varhama, L. M., & Björkqvist, K. (2005). Relation between school bullying during adolescence
and subsequent long-term unemployment in adulthood in a Finnish sample.
Psychological Reports, 96, 269-272.
Vossekuil, B., Robert, A. F., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). Final report and
findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in
the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Secret Service & U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved April 30, 2010 from http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf
Impediments to MSW Satisfaction 43
Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2009). Child and parent perceptions of relational
aggression within urban predominantly African American children’s friendships:
Examining patterns of concordance. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(6), 731-
745.
Wagner, M., Newcomb, P., & Weiler, R. (2001). The 2001 Educational Policy and Accreditation
Standards: Implications for MSW programs. Advances in Social Work, 2(2), 113-118.
Webb, S. H. (2005). Scapegoating and the crisis of higher education. Reviews in Religion and
Theology, 12(4), 599-604.
Wermeling, L. (2006). Why social workers leave the profession: A study in retention
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation] [Abstract]. University of Kentucky. Retrieved May 2,
2010 from http://gradworks.umi.com/32/59/3259210.html
Wermeling, L. (2009). Social work retention research: Three major concerns. Journal of
Sociology, Social Work and Social Welfare, 3(1). Retrieved May 2, 2010 from
http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2009/articles/1442.pdf
Whitted, K. S., & Dupper, D. R. (2008). Do teachers bully students? Findings from a survey of
students in an alternative education setting. Education and Urban Society, 40(3), 329-
341.
Williams, L. S. (2008). The mission statement: A corporate reporting tool with a past, present,
and future. Journal of Business Communications, 45(2), 94-119.
Woodcock, R. (2008). Preamble, purpose, and ethical principles sections of the NASW Code of
Ethics: A preliminary analysis. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social
Services, 89(4), 578-586.