PARADIGM SHIFT, FROM MACRO TO MICRO:

PERSPECTIVES OF EMERGING HELPING PROFESSIONALS

A Project

Presented to the faculty of the Department of Social Work

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of

the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK

by

Katherine Nicholas

Katie Perry

SPRING

2015

ii

© 2015

KATHERINE NICHOLAS

KATIE PERRY

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iii

PARADIGM SHIFT, FROM MACRO TO MICRO:

PERSPECTIVES OF EMERGING HELPING PROFESSIONALS

A Project

by

Katherine Nicholas

Katie Perry

Approved by:

__________________________________, Committee Chair

Maria Dinis, Ph.D., MSW

____________________________

Date

iv

Student: Katherine Nicholas

Katie Perry

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University

format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to

be awarded for the project.

__________________________, Graduate Program Director ___________________

S. Torres, Jr. Date

Division of Social Work

v

Abstract

of

PARADIGM SHIFT, FROM MACRO TO MICRO:

PERSPECTIVES OF EMERGING HELPING PROFESSIONALS

by

Katherine Nicholas

Katie Perry

The purpose of this research was to explore the paradigm perspectives of emerging

helping professionals. This quantitative, descriptive survey research study, using a non-

probability purposive sampling, investigated the perspectives of 74 second year Master's

of Social Work students at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS). The results

from the study found that the majority of students identified themselves as

knowledgeable in macro social work, but they lacked confidence in macro practice. Chi

square tests showed significance in the association between CSUS curriculum, and

survey participants' limited education in and understanding of macro practice in the

professional world. Implications for social work practice and curriculum accreditation

policies are discussed.

_____________________, Committee Chair

Maria Dinis, Ph.D., MSW

_________________

Date

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to first and foremost thank Dr. Maria Dinis for her always timely and

succinct feedback. You helped us turn something we feel passionate about into something

readable.

We would also like to thank Dr. Tracy Kent for always advocating for her students, and

encouraging us to follow down the road less traveled. We speak adamantly about

reinstating the social justice and systemic change elements of the social work mission,

and it is because of you we feel that we have taken a small step towards the realization of

our hope.

To all of our friends and family, thank you for putting up with us and encouraging us to

take the time we needed to do this correctly. And mostly, thank you to Layla, the best

therapeutic black lab that ever did live. We could not have done this without you there

making us take breaks so you could have a walk, and we could have a few minutes of

sanity.

In closing, will all the macro social workers please stand up...

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables .................................................................................................................x

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1

Statement of Collaboration ...............................................................................2

Background of the Problem .............................................................................2

Statement of the Research Problem .................................................................4

Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................5

Research Question ...........................................................................................5

Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................6

Definition of Terms .......................................................................................10

Assumptions ..................................................................................................12

Justifications ...................................................................................................12

Delimitations .................................................................................................13

Summary ........................................................................................................14

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................................15

History of Social Work ....................................................................................16

The Evolution of Macro and Micro Level Paradigms .....................................21

Possible Factors Contributing to Paradigm Shift .............................................25

viii

Current Climate of Social Work Education at CSUS ......................................28

Gaps in the Literature.......................................................................................33

Summary ..........................................................................................................36

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................37

Research Question ...........................................................................................37

Research Design...............................................................................................37

Variables ..........................................................................................................39

Study Population ..............................................................................................40

Sample Population ...........................................................................................40

Instrumentation ................................................................................................41

Data Gathering Procedures ..............................................................................42

Data Analysis ...................................................................................................43

Protection of Human Subjects .........................................................................43

Summary ..........................................................................................................46

4. STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS .............................................................. 47

Demographics ..................................................................................................47

Summary ..........................................................................................................63

5. CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................65

Summary of Study ...........................................................................................65

Discussion ........................................................................................................67

Implications for Social Work ...........................................................................70

ix

Recommendations ............................................................................................72

Limitations .......................................................................................................73

Conclusion .......................................................................................................74

Appendix A. Survey Instrument .................................................................................76

Appendix B. Informed Consent ...................................................................................79

Appendix C. Human Subjects Approval ......................................................................81

References ....................................................................................................................82

x

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

1. Table 1 ........................................................................................................................ 49

2. Table 2 ........................................................................................................................ 51

3. Table 3 ......................................................................................................................... 52

4. Table 4 ......................................................................................................................... 53

5. Table 5 ......................................................................................................................... 55

6. Table 6 ......................................................................................................................... 56

7. Table 7 ......................................................................................................................... 58

8. Table 8 ......................................................................................................................... 59

9. Table 9 ......................................................................................................................... 61

10. Table 10 ...................................................................................................................... .62

11. Table 11 ....................................................................................................................... 64

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Throughout their educational experience at California State University,

Sacramento (CSUS) Masters of Social Work (MSW) program, the researchers have

perceived a trend of a more therapeutic focused course structure, as well as a greater

emphasis being put on the necessity for the goal of licensure after graduation. Upon

entering the social work program, it was the researchers’ intention to focus on community

organizing, program and policy work with the intent on impacting future structural

change. This intention seems incongruent with the mentality of many others in the

researchers’ MSW program, and they have been constantly reminded of the ‘necessity’ to

be a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW). While studying the history of social work,

the researchers recognized in the origins of the field an importance of advocacy,

community organizing, and the need for structural change. While there was discussion in

class about recognizing this past pattern of a macro focused goal for societal changes, the

researchers found little instruction on how to go forward with this inherent aspect of the

social work mission. While experiential education has been conducted surrounding

therapeutic techniques, group leading, and supervision, little to no instruction has been

focused on working in a macro field. One thing that distinguishes social work from other

helping professions is its focus on working with the marginalized and oppressed

populations. To help one person on a therapeutic level can be powerfully important for

that person. However, to truly realize the social justice intent inherent in our field, more

attention must be paid to also working towards a call to action about the societal and

2

systemic disparities that will continue to impact our field's clients, even after the

individualized therapy has come and gone. It is the researchers’ hope to understand and

discern this paradigm shift from a macro lens to micro lens of the social work profession

and to use the research findings to inform a macro perspective on the necessity of re-

integrating advocacy, community organizing, and structural social service change into the

field, to both better address the growing absence of macro as well as stimulate future

curriculums’ and social work educational programs on this necessity.

Statement of Collaboration

This project was written through the joint efforts of both researchers, Katherine

Nicholas and Katie Perry. Katherine did the majority of the editing, while Katie found

and researched the sources. Both researchers worked equally on writing the five chapters,

while capitalizing on the verbal and written skills of each individual.

Background of the Problem

This research was in response to the perceived paradigm shift away from an

inclusion and emphasis on the macro level of social work practice, and specifically how

the current education and curriculum standards administered at CSUS may be promoting

the continuation of increasing absence of a macro focus. This shift, which has historically

experienced a repetitive pendulum swing from a macro emphasis to a micro emphasis

and back, is currently promoting a more micro understanding of social work.

It is important to center the current research problem of the perspective shift

pendulum in recent trends occurring in the social work professional workforce. In 2004,

the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) established the NASW Center for

3

Workforce Study to address the limited amount of research that had been done regarding

the make-up of the social worker labor force (NASW Center for Workforce Studies,

2015). The goal of this study was to "... determine trends in employment, to address

professional training needs, to quantify barriers to quality service delivery, and to inform

relevant policy and advocacy efforts" (NASW Center for Workforce Studies).

Essentially, to better inform social work as a field and its emerging professional make-up,

becoming aware of the already established constitution of social workers in the workforce

was necessary. According to the workforce study completed by the NASW in 2008, “...68

percent of social workers indicated that they worked at the micro level” (Haynes &

Mickelson, 2010, p. 33). In that same study only 14 percent of social workers identified

as macro level practitioners. In both of these studies, social workers identifying as

practicing at the macro level reported doing so in a management or administrative

capacity (Haynes & Michelson). This binary workforce representation leaves little room

for practice level diversity outside of merely direct practice vs. indirect practice. This

high percentage is a stark increase from the mid-1990s when a similar study showed that

only 57 percent of social workers indicated working at the micro level (Haynes &

Michelson, 2010). If this trend were to continue, then following the basic amount of

percentage points, in the next (at minimum) ten years, the percentage of social workers

identifying as micro level practitioners could be as high as 79 percent.

This emerging micro focus, not only drastically affects how social work

educational programs design and deliver their curriculum, it also promotes a more

therapeutic and specialized model adopted by social work professionals. As Haynes and

4

Michelson (2010) state,

... as social workers, we have a choice of either affecting change or allowing

policies to affect our ability to help our clients...Unfortunately, what has

happened in the social work profession historically is that we study the history of

policy evolution, we analyze how policy is formulated, and we follow policy.

What social work has done too little of is to develop policy, determine how to

implement policy, or change policy. (p.4).

This perceived growing favorability of a direct practice model in the field has led to an

increasing misconception of the social work field as a profession, as well as an

abandonment of part of the social work mission.

Statement of the Research Problem

There is a lack of understanding regarding the paradigm shift in the social work

field away from a macro level inclusion, to a micro level emphasis. Specifically, there is

limited research on how this shift has impacted the field itself, as well as the populations

the field intends to serve. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence examining how this

pendulum swing between macro and micro continues to shift, and if curriculum delivery

to future social work students has a causal or effectual relationship to the shift. This

research will study second year emerging helping professionals, specifically masters level

social work students at California State University, Sacramento. It is focused on

understanding the impact the change in the social work profession and education and its

emphases on macro and micro level practice has had on the perspectives of students and a

potential disinterest in macro social work practice.

5

Purpose of the Study

Social work is a field that affects millions of people in the United States. The

mission of the field states that social workers work with the marginalized, vulnerable and

underserved populations, which due to recent declining economic and societal changes is

an increasing population. Furthermore, how the field evolves and is perceived by the

public affects past, present and future professionals which work in the field as well as

social work educational systems. The primary purpose of this study is to quantitatively

explore examine how the shift away from an inclusion of macro level social work has

affected the curriculum delivery at CSUS to second year MSW students. The secondary

purpose of this research is to better inform a more balanced curriculum of both macro and

micro level social work paradigms. This research can then lead to opportunities of change

within the educational design of how macro level social work is approached and

emphasized within the social work curriculum, so as to better uphold the social justice

and systemic change that is rooted in the social work mission.

Research Question

This study investigates the following research question: What are the

perspectives of second year graduate social work students at California State University,

Sacramento (CSUS), regarding the social work micro and macro practice paradigms?

Theoretical Framework

This research project will be guided by Ecological Systems Theory. Additionally,

the project will also be informed through the Modernist and Post-modernist theoretical

shifts in the field of social work. Each theory will be briefly explained, followed by an

6

explanation of the application of that particular theoretical framework..

Ecological Systems Theory Framework

A theory that is commonly utilized in the social work field when working with

clients is the ecological systems theory perspective. This theory is helpful when exploring

how various environments affect people and the impact that outside paradigms have on

behavior. Furthermore, there is a reciprocal relationship between individual in society

and their environment (Hepworth, et al., 2010). The societal system environments fit a

variety of characteristics including: inter personal systems (family), subsystems of the

individual (emotional or cognitive), physical environment (housing), and organizations or

institutions (Hepworth, et al.; Rothery, 2001). Looking at how the many different systems

within the social work field interface and react could be beneficial to this research.

Application of Ecological Systems Theory

There are multiple systems (including subsystems, target systems, and action

systems) in the system of social work education that have a dynamic relationship,

exchange energies and utilize similar resources to maintain a holistic and positive

relationship. These systems include, but are not limited to: the Council on Social Work

Education (CSWE), national social work education departments, CSUS, professors, and

students. CSWE is the sole accreditation organization for social work education programs

throughout the nation (CSWE, 2015). They create the educational guidelines and

assessments on a semi-routine basis. Therefore what CSWE perceives as essential for a

social work education affects how social work departments across the country will tailor

their curriculum. This in turn influences how professors teach as well as what

7

qualifications a professor must posses to perform that education instruction. The

combination of all of this will affect how and what a student learns and that particular

education’s reflection on the field itself. In turn, the proliferation of students in a

particular practice paradigm can affect how the public perceives social workers and the

publics’ needs in which social workers may help. A growing public recognition of that

public perception of the field can consequently lead CSWE to amend certain education

competencies in response. All of these subsystems influence each other and the

reciprocity of those influences are often dictated by a compilation of each other, as

opposed to a direct retaliating change based on one sub-systems mandate.

When looking at the education system as a greater body of smaller subsystems, it

is also essential to recognize how education is in fact its own subsystem in much greater

relation. Social work itself is a system made up of many sub-systems, all working

together and informing one another of what direction to go, mostly on a purely implicit

level. Fluctuating economic times and changing political ideologies have an effect on

what are society’s needs. Subsequently the societal ideologies of what constitutes a

disenfranchised and vulnerable population can shift as well. Social work professionals

and social work educational programs must then shift to be able to teach and practice in

reflection of those evolving ideologies. The interrelatedness of all levels of social work is

expressed through the field as a whole when looking at it through a systems perspective.

Post-modernist and Modernist Theoretical Framework

Post-modernist theories and knowledge based research (modernist) theories are

also applicable to many of the trends seen through the development of this research.

8

There has often been a debate between different schools of thought within the social work

profession between modernism and post modernism (Martinez-Brawley, 1999). Post-

modernists look at ideologies through a variety of world view perceptions, deconstructing

the common belief that there is a singular meaning to everything, and maintaining an ever

flowing and evolving identification of reality (Fook & Pease, 1999). Simultaneously,

modernist theory is more empirically based, relying on common trends and

commonalities among world views to perceive traditional thought about reality

(Martinez-Brawley; Howe, 1994). Schools of social work often offer a combined version

of these theories in order to allow students a both tangible and unorthodox way of

interacting with clients, systems, and various environments. Yet the two theoretical

schools of thought can often be in opposition, and when looking at the declining presence

of a social change macro emphasis in the social work field, the opposition of the two and

the prevailing modernist perspective appears to be edging out the relativity of the social

work field in relation to the importance of a macro level inclusion.

Application of Post-Modernist and Modernist Theory

A modernist theoretical perspective holds that one overriding narrative is the

inherently good one, an implicit acceptance that one particular societal discourse is the

one to work towards (Johnson, Miriam McNown & Rhodes, 2010). By emphasizing

micro level social work and the more therapeutic, individualistic and direct practice

related to a micro level practice, that focuses on individual work becomes about a social

worker helping an individual on a personal level. The hope is that the individual

assistance can help the client better attain the values and aspects of what a current

9

societal ideology says is ideal. This is problematic because as society is constantly

evolving, a sole focus on helping an individual client attain that ideal will have to simply

follow suit with whatever the societal discourse is surrounding what that assistance

should help a client strive to accomplish. Yet one of the most basic elements of the social

work mission is to advocate for social justice for the disenfranchised and vulnerable

populations (NASW, 1996). However, what and who constitutes those populations shifts

over time, and if social work practitioners merely focus on directly helping that

population, they are implicitly allowing the prevailing ideology to define and continue to

marginalize certain populations.

However, by ascribing to a more post-modernist theoretical impetus, the social

work field has a chance, by engaging at a more macro level, to help deconstruct the

prevailing ideology of the populations they serve. Post-modernism theorizes that there is

no universal truth, and that the sense of one's self is defined by constantly evolving

constructs, so the truth of one's self and their place in a system is not a stagnant reality,

but merely a constantly changing creation of the world around them (Johnson, et al.,

2010). By advocating for social justice and systemic change, social workers can act

within this theoretical perspective to help reconstruct the labeling of the populations they

serve, as well as the labels of what it is to be ideal. Similarly, advocacy on a societal level

can help to deconstruct, and then reconstruct the justification of why current societal

ideologies hold certain populations and their advancements in human rights at bay.

Historically, the make-up of what constitutes vulnerable and marginalized populations

have changed. As the ethnic make-up of the country has evolved throughout history, so

10

has the societal acceptance of the emergence of those different ethnicities. Additionally,

societal understandings of individuals such as those impoverished, those that are victims

of abuse and those imprisoned have led to fluidity in how the public perceives those

populations. Social workers operating in post-modernist thought understand that their

work at a macro level could make them participants in that ideological evolution to the

ultimate benefit of the populations they serve.

Definition of Terms

The following terms and concepts are used throughout this project and are

relevant to the different practice levels of the social work field.

Micro Level Social Work: The term used by social workers to identify professional

activities that are designed to help solve the problems faced primarily by individuals,

families, and small groups. Usually micro practice focuses on direct intervention on a

case-by-case basis or in a clinical setting (Barker, 2014).

Macro Level Social Work: focuses on changing larger systems, such as communities

and organizations. It encompasses a broad spectrum of practice, including planning,

program development, community organizing, policy analysis, legislative advocacy,

program evaluation, task-oriented group work, community education, and human services

management (Boston University School of Social Work).

Micro Orientation: In social work, an emphasis on the individual client's psychological

conflicts and on the enhancement of technical skills for use in efficient treatment of these

problems. This perspective is contrasted with social work's macro orientation (Barker,

2014).

11

Macro Orientation: In social work, an emphasis on the sociopolitical, historical,

economic, and environmental forces that influence the overall human condition, cause

problems for individuals, or provide opportunities for their fulfillment and equality

(Barker, 2014).

Social Work Education: The formal training and subsequent experience that prepares

social workers for their professional roles. The formal training takes place primarily in

accredited colleges and universities at the baccalaureate social work (bachelor's degree in

social work) level and in accredited professional schools of social work in MSW, DSW,

and PhD, and other doctoral programs. Social work includes the extensive classroom

activity and direct supervised work with clients (field placement) (Barker, 2014).

Paradigm shift: A fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions (Oxford

Dictionary, 2015).

Direct Practice: Direct practice in social work constitutes one-on-one contact with

people at the micro level and is usually identified as working with people directly at the

individual, group, or family level (Oxford Bibliography, 2015).

Assumptions

The researchers have developed a list of assumptions to be considered in this

study. These assumptions are as follows: 1) The second year MSW students will have a

basic understanding of macro and micro level social work and the respective unique

characteristics of each level. 2) Macro and micro level social work are both equally

important in carrying the mission of the social work field. 3) The second year MSW

12

students will answer as best as possible all survey questions, even when admitting a

limitation in their own knowledge. 4) The education delivered at CSUS follows the

national standards in best practice accreditation implementation. 5) The social work

department at CSUS is delivering curriculum and learning opportunities in way that

follows the national trend of deemphasizing macro level practice.

Justifications

The need for this study becomes evident by the number of students at CSUS

obtaining at degree in social work under the current standards that are centralized on

licensure and client therapeutic practices. In 2012, there were 258 graduate social work

students. If all of these students graduated and earned their degree with a specialization in

micro work and a deemphasized macro valued perspective; that is 258 more social

workers in the profession that are lacking a two-fold education (CSU Sacramento, 2012).

There has not been a current census that is publicly available regarding the number of

second year MSW students enrolled in CSUS. However, last year 115 first year MSW

students were enrolled. If all of these students continued on their track to graduation and

will successfully graduate this year, then that is 115 more MSW level social work

students that have not received a two-fold educational experience.

While micro level practice is in itself an inherent aspect of social work, the

continued growing absence of macro level practice presents an increasingly narrow

ability of social work professionals to perform a balanced depiction of the social work

mission in its entirety. Historically, macro practice has led to community organizing,

social advocacy and surface systemic changes that have impacted society in an important

13

manner. These changes have produced social change that is manifested at the micro level.

These changes have provided an opportunity for micro level professionals to deliver

services to the populations the social work field advocates and centralizes its focus on for

social justice and positive societal impact. There is an undeniable interweaving of both

levels that is imperative for social workers to optimally deliver the social work mission

and duties by following the core values of the National Association of Social Workers

(Code of Ethics, 2008).

Delimitations

This research does not include qualitative data for further exploration in a

narrative form. Additionally, information retrieved was limited as the researchers were

unable to receive consent from all second year students in the MSW program. There is

potential for dishonest answers due to the nature of the survey questioning confidence

and ability of the students to perform specific practice level aspects. There are numerous

specifics of both macro and micro levels of social work practice. However, the

researchers focused on the few over-arching and visible aspects of the practice levels.

Summary

In this chapter, there was an introduction to the study that included the

background of the problem, the purpose for the study, and the research question. The

theoretical frameworks, definition of terms and assumptions were presented as well as

justification for the study. Finally, delimitations were included followed by a summary.

The following chapter will provide a review of the literature, including the history of the

social work field, and the current climate within social work education at CSUS. Chapter

14

three will describe the methodology for the study. Chapter 4 will examine and analyze

the data collected. Lastly, chapter 5 will include a summary and discussion of the major

findings as well as provide recommendations and implications for the social work

profession.

15

Chapter 2

Review of the Literature

The field of social work has its own unique mission and characteristics,

enumerated and defined by the National Association of Social Work (NASW) Code of

Ethics (NASW, 1996). This Code of Ethics does not simply focus on the social work

field's involvement with vulnerable individuals suffering systemic oppression and

marginalization and addressing that population on an individualistic level, it also

emphasizes the field’s dedication to bettering society as a whole. The idea of social

justice and a macro involvement of the field at a policy, program, and advocacy level are

woven throughout the Code of Ethics, as is an acknowledgement of “…the environmental

forces that create, contribute to, and address problems in living” (NASW, 1996). In fact,

it is this social justice and environmental focus that differentiates social work from other

helping professions (Specht & Courtney, 1994). However, as a historical analysis of the

social work field shows, there has been a pendulum swing within the field from a greater

emphasis on this macro inclusion of social justice and advocacy, to a more direct practice

and clinical model (Ritter, 2013).

This review of this literature in chapter 2 will review descriptions and current

status of the social work field, and the presence and growing absence of a macro

paradigm in social work practice. The main sections will include a description of the

historical evolution of the social work field through the lens of political eras in the United

States and the association with how the field, and very role of social work, came to be at

its present day state. Following this historical summary, a brief familiarization of the

16

macro and micro levels will be offered. Literature regarding the current climate of social

work micro and macro level paradigms will then be discussed. Attention will then be paid

to literature regarding the disappearance of the macro paradigm and the present day

emphasis on micro level social work, as well as possible explanations for this paradigm

shift. A brief literary presentation of the California State University, Sacramento’s own

curriculum presentation and assessments will be discussed, as well as the gaps in that

curriculum delivery regarding macro level practice and education. This chapter will end

with a concluding summary.

History of Social Work

The historical beginnings of social work were steeped in religious traditions and

morality. Through the idea of charity, religious institutions promoted an idea of helping

those less fortunate than themselves. In the United States in the nineteenth century, cities

and states had begun to start providing financial benefits for the poor and indigent.

However, this meager assistance led to upper-class families from religious organizations

known as ‘friendly visitors’ to begin to supplement with additional assistance

(Tannenbaum & Reisch, 2001). These friendly visitors were the vestige of what led to the

professionalization of social work. In the late 1900s, settlement houses movement was

formed, a more personalized and professional approach to what is now known as social

work (Karger & Stoesz, 2014). The settlement house movement led to a greater focus on

the causes of poverty and how to help the poor help themselves. Jane Addams and Gates-

Starr created the Hull House in Chicago, arguably the most famous settlement house, in

1889. The ideology behind the work of the settlement house movement was that

17

economic desperation and disparity was the cause of much of the problems in the ghetto,

rather than the previously belief that a moral flaw led to poverty and dis-enfranchisement

(Hansan, 2010). This new movement represented the first presence of macro level change

in what is now known as the social work field (Ritter, 2013). In 1987, the Charity

Organization Society (COS), in partnership with Columbia University created the first

formal training for those willing and wishing to work in this emerging field of social

work. By 1919, there were 17 schools identifying themselves as social work educational

systems; these schools collectively began to identify themselves as the Association of

Training Schools for Professional Social Work, the initial precursor to the Council of

Social Work Education (CSWE), which is now the sole governing body of formal social

work education (Glicken, 2011).

The direct practice and clinical model of individual client work first became

integrated into the field of social work after the end of World War I. Middle-class

individuals began to work individually with not only the poor, but also people who were

dealing with the after-effects and ramifications of the war (Glicken, 2011). This

movement signified a more clinical inclusion in the social work profession. In 1929, the

Great Depression began and a new era of social welfare and the social work field was

ushered in through Franklin D. Roosevelt’s The New Deal.

At its height, the Great Depression bankrupted millions of Americans leaving

them destitute; at one point one in four were unemployed. This disillusionment led to a

societal restructuring of the understanding of the roots of poverty (Ritter, 2013). Before

this era, the federal government had a limited role in providing for its citizens. During the

18

great depression there was serious need for structural change, which was combated by

social work reformers and advocated for the unionization of labor workers, public works

programs, and defining the minimum standard of living (Abramovitz, 1998). Social

workers, who had started to work with those millions of families left demolished by the

Great Depression, began to lobby for federal reform and government action to aid

American citizens (Karger & Stoesz, 2014). Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidential legacy

was the New Deal, legislative reform that focused on providing immediate assistance to

the needy, building a framework that would prevent such rampant financial devastation in

the future, and create jobs for the unemployed (Abramovitz). One of the biggest

achievements in his presidency was the passing of the Social Security Act of 1935.

Through the creation of insurance for the working public, and public assistance programs

for dependent individuals, the Social Security Act of 1935 “...attempted to protect those

most vulnerable in society, including older adults, the unemployed, the poor, the

disabled, widows, and children” (Ritter, 2013, p. 24). Additionally, President Roosevelt

instituted the Economic Bill of Rights in a State of the Union speech in which he

“...stated that people cannot be free without economic security” (Ritter) This Bill of

Rights furthered the growing ideology that the poor were not poor by choice, and that

governmental involvement was an important member in protecting citizens from poverty.

During World War II, many social workers accepted military assignments and

became increasingly involved in war-impacted communities. After World War II, the

academic expansion of the professionalization of social work occurred through several

factors including a push for a core MSW curriculum, the formal establishment of a sole

19

governing body for social work curriculum, the Council on Social Work Education

(CSWE) in 1952, and the establishment of the National Association of Social Workers

(NASW) in 1955 (Tannenbaum & Reisch, 2001). These several decades of movement

towards this professionalization led up to the era in the 1960s highlighted by Lyndon B.

Johnson’s (LBJ) Great Society and War on Poverty (Abramovitz, 1998; Ritter, 2013;).

The social unrest in this era led to social workers re-engaging in social

movements through advocacy, and a push for social change and social justice. Many

social workers found employment in the community based programs initiated due to

LBJ’s Great Society and “...began to view the community as their client” (Ritter, 2013, p.

27). The field of social work found itself as a key player in civil movements that led to

pivotal social welfare legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Voting Rights

Act of 1965, and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. During this era, the United

States saw the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid. Social workers were at the helm of

many of the thousands of Community Action Agencies that were “...grassroots public or

non-profit community organizations that offered an array of programs that were designed

to address the causes of poverty, such as job training and employment services... Head

Start... [and] ...other community programs designed to assist communities in need.”

(Ritter, p. 29).

In what Jessica Ritter (2013) refers to as “The Rise of Conservatism and the

Decline of Social Responsibility,” a conservative trend spread across the country, leading

to limiting restraints on public and federal assistance, and a return to a greater reliance on

the public sector for that assistance. While Presidents Reagan and Clinton froze, stalled,

20

and even shut down federal assistance programs (such as Clinton’s controversial welfare

reform), there was a simultaneously occurring increase in federal financial debt, which

trickled down to the rest of the population. These policy reforms and program shutdowns

had serious ramifications on the field of social work as, “Welfare reform led to the

restructuring of public welfare departments and to greater pressure on nonprofit

organizations to fill gaps in service provision” (Tannenbaum & Reisch, 2001, p. 1). Not

only did this change in employment sector affect the field, subsequent changes in health

care and child welfare provided for an increasing marginalized populations, while

simultaneously drying up the necessary financial resources.

Similar to Franklin Roosevelt’s rise to power during a crumbling economy and

increasing social welfare threats, sitting President Barack Obama came to office amidst a

nation-wide crisis of ballooning unemployment, the bursting of a housing bubble and the

consequent financial ruin of many United States Citizens, as well as increasing economic

disparity and despair for the nation’s most vulnerable citizens (Glicken, 2011). In

response, President Obama has reignited a push towards greater social responsibility,

including such social welfare policies that “...extended unemployment benefits, more

money to education... help to cities and states so that employment of laid-off public

workers can be increased, ... [and]... an already passed health reform bill and further work

towards universal health care” (Glicken, p. 37-38). This recent change reverting back to a

greater social welfare responsibility and conscientiousness may have consequent effects

on how the field of social work continues to evolve.

21

The Evolution of Macro and Micro Level Paradigms

Macro practice was not recognized as an equal practice method to casework until

1962 when it became part of education mandated curriculum (Rothman & Mizrachi,

2014). Historically however, micro and macro practice was a two-fold mission of the

social work profession enforced by Jane Adams and Mary Richmond. However, long

before the institutionalization of a macro level paradigm in the field of social work, the

essence of macro change was present. Some of the greatest successes surrounding

systemic change were due to the advocacy by social workers including: passage of

worker’s compensation, mother’s pensions, protective labor legislation, drafting the

Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933, and support of education (Abramovitz, 1998).

Most of these successes were through coalition building and community organizing, both

of which still exist as common social work practice domains. Thomas, O’Connor, and

Netting (2011) explain various types of strategies and interventions for community

organizing which offer current tangible utilization of community organizing as an

important technique for the social work profession displaying the necessity of a macro

focus. Furthermore, “Social work educators have the opportunity to prepare students to

render this new space for community practice and to reestablish social work education as

the premiere profession for the education and training of community practitioners”

(Thomas et al., 2011, p. 337). Therefore, there is opportunity to shape social work

education to support community practice with theoretical frameworks and intervention

strategies.

22

The beginnings of micro practice social work started with assisting psychiatrists

through client interviews to obtain family histories and expanding on social studies

(Specht & Courtney, 1994). This interest and assistance led to psychiatric social workers

and the 1927 formation of the AAPSW’s Committee on Private Psychiatric Social work.

This Committee lasted for close to ten years helping to provide the framework of private

practices and promoting salary increase in relation to licensure (Specht & Courtney).

This initial impetus of financial emphasis could be largely responsible for the increasing

trend toward a more micro level focus.

Social work as a helping profession has traditionally focused on disenfranchised

populations (as opposed to other helping professions, for example Marriage and Family

Therapists (MFTs)). However, in our capitalistic society, money is often a driving force

behind professional development and agenda. Social workers in private practice often

receive higher wages and have more autonomy than those serving in public or non-profit

positions. While this may make fiscal sense through the lens of a capitalistic ideology,

this focus on independent, private practice seems dissociated from a “…a profession

whose traditional foundation and ethos lies in its commitment to, and expertise in, the

creation of social approaches to solving the problems of individuals and groups”(Specht

& Courtney, 1994, p. 121). Furthermore, the majority of those serviced by private

practitioners are from the middle class, which can exacerbate the disassociation from the

original foundation of social work practice (Specht & Courtney). While social workers

and the field itself constitutes a primary stakeholder vulnerable to this problem, it is also

this increasingly ignored marginalized demographic that is an involuntary bystander in

23

social work’s abandonment of its social justice mission. When initially examining this

shift towards a primarily micro and direct practice paradigm of social work, it is essential

that societal trends be observed to highlight how they might be affecting such a shift.

The current economic climate in our society, particularly the declining economic

circumstances of the lower and working classes, has created a rapidly growing

demographic of our population in need of financial and welfare assistance. According to

the 2013 census, over 15.4% of the population and an egregious 19.9% of children are

living below the poverty line; and this number does not include those living at the

precipice of that line, barely managing pay check to pay check (DeNavas & Proctor,

2014; U.S. Census, 2013). Additionally, the increase in mental health diagnosis and

substance abuse issues, along with the growing inclusion of mental health in many health

insurance plans, has created an increased need for mental health professionals, such as

licensed clinical social workers (LCSW). Much of the population served by the social

work field is on public insurance programs such as Medicaid. For example,

Medicaid is the single largest payer for mental health

services in the United States and is increasingly playing a

larger role in the reimbursement of substance use disorder

services. Individuals with a behavioral health disorder also

utilize significant health care services—nearly 12 million

visits made to U.S. hospital emergency departments in

2007 involved individuals with a mental disorder,

substance abuse problem, or both. (Medicaid, 2015)

24

When the public fiscal infrastructure becomes the largest subsidy for mental

health services, the trend towards addressing those needs becomes intensified.

While these social problems may create bountiful direct practice positions, as

there is a growing vulnerable population, the presence of social workers at the

inception of policies to address these issues is glaringly absent.

Many professionals agree that social work as it exists in our society has moved

away, possibly even abandoned, this major macro aspect of social work; that is an

inherent part of the mission of the field and the work social workers do (Specht &

Courtney, 1994). Additionally, the general public does not seem to have a clear

understanding of what social work is, and the lack of professionalization continues to

foster this ambiguous understanding of the field. The social work field has acknowledged

this problem and as recently as 2013, proposed legislation, Assembly Bill 252 endorsed

by the NASW, called for title protection as a way to define and protect the meaning and

value behind a social work degree (Yamada & Eggman, 2013). Ultimately, this bill was

not passed, which may symbolize a general confusion in regards to the

professionalization of social work as a field. This perpetuates a non-unified

understanding regarding the unique qualities of social work as a helping profession. A

comprehensive public awareness of the field, of the growing absence of macro social

work and the absence of acknowledgment within the field, is in and of itself, part of the

problem.

On a larger, macro level, the social work field and its values are not commonly

represented at a policy or programmatic level. While this invisibility may be due in part

25

to a lack of macro practitioners identifying as social workers, a feeling of un-

preparedness to work at the macro level, or a divisive allegiance to either micro or macro,

it is negatively affecting both the field, and the populations themselves the field is

supposed to serve (Moore & Johnson, 2002; Netting, 2005) Many of the marginalized

and vulnerable populations that social workers primarily work with are not represented

proportionately at that more macro political level, so the absence of social workers (who

have been appointed to advocate for their voice) at that level means that those

populations are not being recognized. Policies that are harsh on the poor, indigent, and

marginalized populations (i.e. California's three strikes law and child welfare reform)

have been passed, to the detriment of our society (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Tyler

& Boeckmann, 1997). Representation via social workers for those affected populations

could have been instrumental in the systemic implementation of such damning policies.

Yet a recent study found that 47 % of social workers felt they were incompetently

prepared for "...work in the legislative arena..." (Ritter, 2013, p. 5). While the day-to-day

assistance social workers perform is invaluable, it is incumbent on social work as a field

to include an education on performance in a more macro social justice arena.

Possible Factors Contributing to Paradigm Shift

A circumstance that could represent causality in the current shift from macro to

micro could potentially be due to the era that many practicing social workers obtained

their education. Schneider and Netting (1999) explain that a vast majority of today’s

social workers were “educated during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, a period of increasing

national conservatism and reluctance to advocate openly on unpopular issues” (p. 354).

26

This paradigm shift in perceived acceptance of more radical approach to problem solving

may have led to a devaluing of a more macro social justice in the political and economic

arenas. This societal emphasis on political level silence may be a potential factor in the

reason behind promotion of licensure and clinical practice influenced by the political

climate. Notwithstanding, this factor is important for social workers to recognize and

justifies the need for “...an understanding of the context of postmodern conditions at a

macro, or global, level [that] is necessary to fully appreciate the dynamics at play in

society and that this contextual understanding is important to all levels of social work

practice...”(Peters, 2009, p. 46). Some of the research completed on understanding and

implementing a macro practice emphasis and reintegration of social justice through

policy structure still maintain the necessity of bridging the gap between micro and macro

practice.

An additional reason for this disparity is explained in a piece by Jarman-Rhode et

al. (1997) that notes the shift to licensure is due to the desire to be labeled as counselors

and therapists instead of social workers in part because of the lack of title protection or

the “...low professional visibility and narrow or incorrect perceptions of the social work

functions...” (p. 31). There is a growing societal implication of not understanding the

social service and advocacy aspect of the field which places a greater visibility and

emphasis on clinical practice. The first state to implement and register social workers was

California in 1945 (Dyeson, 2004). However, the first licensing law was not endorsed by

the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) until 1980 (Donaldson et al, 2014).

Nationally, there is no set standard, identical licensure test, or registration process

27

(Donaldson et al.; Dyeson). Simultaneously only three states: Oklahoma, Missouri, and

Michigan offer an advanced macro license (Donaldson et al.). Statistically, it is

challenging to discern a census of social workers at the national level due to the varying

registration processes. Notwithstanding, Donaldson reports “The total reported number of

social workers who are licensed comprise 201,368 clinical, 3,434 advanced generalist,

and 11,460 macro social workers” (p. 408). From this, a disparity between micro and

macro practices is apparent. Furthermore, Johnson and Huff (1987) did one of the first

studies on the validity of social work licensure and found that “...few people fail the

licensure examination and that education and work experience have little impact on the

test scores”(p. 160). The researchers explored licensing as a means to professionalize as

well as specialize the social work profession but found that the actual test did not signify

mastery of knowledge or practice (Johnson & Huff, 1987). This is an outdated study but

questions the significance of the number of licensed social workers and the drive towards

a clinical practice as it relates to perceived legitimization of the field.

Haynes (1998), Sneider and Netting (1999) and Vodde and Galiant (2002)

explicitly express the undeniable connectedness between micro and macro work, not only

for practice but in the educational structure. Vodde and Galiant explain that the only way

for clinical social work to be effective and promote social justice is through

deconstruction of the bifurcated structure of social work through unification of micro and

macro paradigms. Haynes takes this idea a step further and expresses that the

compartmentalization or specialization of social justice and social change in social work

education had “limited it usefulness for those engaged in direct practice” (Haynes, p.

28

455). This is to say that micro and macro work are so much removed, divided, and

specialized that the end result makes unification difficult and leads to a disconnect in the

energy flow between clients and policy implementation. Furthermore, this shift and

separateness is now structured in the education of master level students, which increases

the divide and promotes a less rounded education.

Current Climate of Social Work Education at CSUS

It is important to review the current standards of the Masters of Social Work

program at CSUS in order to gauge where the curriculum falls on the paradigm spectrum

and how this is shaping the education and areas of practice interest of current students.

The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) is a national non-profit organization that

is the sole accreditor of social work programs in the country. The CSWE outlines the

accreditation standards, known as the Educational Policy Accreditation Standards

(EPAS), which mandate and describe the competencies that must be achieved by the

students and social work programs in the United States (CSWE, 2015). Periodically, at a

minimum of every seven years, a new version of the EPAS is drafted to acknowledge and

reflect societal changes in demographics and needs of both the field itself, as well as

those the field aims to serve. These EPAS are integral in the shaping of social work

education and the direction of the social work profession. The EPAS were created for

standardization of education program accreditation and assessment. As of May 2013,

there were 1,902,000 community and social service workers in the United States

(Department of Professional Employees, 2014). According to the CSWE there are more

than 600 accredited social work programs nationwide (CSWE, 2014). Furthermore, in the

29

2011- 2012 school year, 29,695 students received a bachelor’s degree and 42, 5064

students received a masters or doctoral degree in public administration or social services

(DPE, 2014). For all of these students with a social service degree and every accredited

social work programs nationally, the standards achieved were outlined and administered

by the CSWE. The EPAS define the desirable program design and skills/competencies

necessary for an accredited social work higher education program (White, 2008). The

EPAS have four areas of curriculum design with specific educational policies and

accreditation standards that need to be followed and integrated into the curriculum at

each social work school (both at the bachelors and masters level). The four areas are:

program mission and goals, explicit curriculum, implicit curriculum (which was first

introduced in the most recent 2008 iteration of the EPAS), and assessment. (CSWE,

2015). The policy is set up in such a manner that outlines and describes the four areas

with specific standards that meet the accreditation requirements that are defined as

educational policies.

These accreditation standards are not stagnant, but rather are dynamic and shift in

relation to the field of social works’ ideology. In order to indicate whether CSUS is

meeting the EPAS, a yearly program assessment is completed. The most recent report

published on the CSUS website written by Robin Kennedy is from June 2013. However,

three assessments were found on the department’s website (Kennedy, 2012, 2014;

Kennedy et al., 2013). All three assessments focus on three main areas including: field

placement evaluations, an alumni survey, and an evaluation of courses in relation to core

competencies with regard to curriculum standards. The most recent assessment was for

30

the 2013-2014 school year and took on a different template than the previous two,

utilizing a non-narrative structure. This most recent assessment looked at the Program

Learning Outcomes (PLO’s).

The main PLO assessed was the ‘integrative and applied learning standard.’ This

standard was evaluated based on engagement, assessment, and intervention; each of

which carries individual competencies that are evaluated based on a scale of 1-5 (one

equating to unacceptable performance through five equating to exceptional demonstration

of skill). A four or above is required for a passing mark. These competencies are

discussed and committed to through a learning agreement between the student, field

placement supervisor, and the department with clear and defined expectations and areas

the student must participate in. In this assessment, the students’ learning agreements were

utilized to evaluate if the PLO’s were being covered correctly. The majority of the

outcomes that were evaluated displayed MSWII practice skills at being above benchmark

(Kennedy, 2014).

A few of these assessed categories included: effectively preparing for work with

clients, assessing client strengths and weaknesses, and selecting appropriate intervention

strategies. The only area that MSW II students did not score above the benchmark was in

relation to facilitating transitions and endings for clients. None of the categories included

an area that focused on macro practice. For example a few of the outcomes from this

assessment include: 96% of the students evaluated scored a four or above in establishing

effective working relationships with clients/client systems, 93% have competent skills in

helping clients resolve problems, 92% can assess client strengths and limitations

31

(Kennedy, 2014). From this assessment it could be determined that CSUS social work

department has a low focus on macro practice, client advocacy, and systemic change in

the education of future social workers. Rather than an existing duality of macro/micro

presence in the required competencies, the assessments measured concerned micro level

areas of practice and education. Yet along with the above-mentioned areas, macro

components of social work such as advocacy and policy are definitive and unique factors

of the field and are outlined by the National Association of Social Work (NASW) Code

of Ethics - specifically the mission of social justice.

This Code of Ethics does not simply focus on the social work field's involvement

with vulnerable individuals suffering systemic oppression and marginalization and

addressing that population on an individualistic level, it also emphasizes the field’s

dedication to bettering society as a whole. The idea of social justice and a macro

involvement of the field at a policy, program, and advocacy level are woven throughout

the Code of Ethics. In 2008 the following was added to the Code of Ethics: “Social

workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and

discrimination against any person, group, or class…” (NASW, 2015).

This research is not the first of its kind and the researchers were able to find two

other similar studies that incorporated different aspects of the schools’ curriculum and

assessed the practice paradigm shift in different manners while incorporating the lens of

emerging helping professionals. One study by Mizrahi and Dodd (2013) found that

students with a dual focused (micro and macro) education left the MSW program with the

same commitment to all types of activism due to the type of education delivered. Their

32

study mainly looked at the utilization of the person-in-environment perspective being

taught in their studies and practice which fits the ecological model and focuses on the

systemic effects of individuals within society. This research was done in New York City

and displays that the education of MSW students has a great effect on the type of practice

that is implemented after graduation. Another approach was utilized by Limb and

Organista (2003) by incorporating a more centralized approach and focused on the

demographics of MSW students, mainly focusing on Caucasians, students of color, and

American Indian students’ viewpoints on social work traditions, mission, and practice

preferences. In this study, it was found that 4% of students of color wanted to conduct

private practice as opposed to 27% of Caucasian students (Limb & Organista, 2003). This

study was conducted from secondary data throughout the state of California focusing on

the motivation of entering a MSW program, and practice preferences. From this research,

it can be gauged that the diversity of students also impacts the type of practice students

engage in after graduation with education being a strong implication affecting the

structure of the students’ viewpoints.

The first state to implement and register social workers was California in 1945

(Dyeson, 2004). However, the first licensing law was not endorsed by the National

Association of Social Workers (NASW) until 1980 (Donaldson et al., 2014). Nationally,

there is no set standard, identical licensure test, or registration process (Donaldson et al.;

Dyeson). Simultaneously, only three states: Oklahoma, Missouri, and Michigan offer an

advanced macro license (Donaldson et al.). Statistically it is challenging to discern a

census of social workers at the national level due to the varying registration processes.

33

Notwithstanding, Donaldson (2014) reports, “The total reported number of social workers

who are licensed comprise 201,368 clinical, 3,434 advanced generalist, and 11,460 macro

social workers” (p. 408). From this, a disparity between micro and macro practices is

apparent.

The roots of social work are entrenched in a macro practice, but as time changes

so do professional habits. The interconnectedness of these two practices has slowly

dismantled and the education of MSW students has followed suit. Epple (2007) expresses

that “the synergy of the profession is much more than either people or society changing.

As a profession we must move beyond discord to the embodiment of harmony” (p. 267).

It is important to recognize the change of the profession, but it is even more important to

move forward with this knowledge to provide a balance to the profession and society.

Gaps in the Literature

The literature surrounding macro level education and practice had glaring gaps

when the disappearance began to occur. Furthermore, the discourse of macro practice was

often limited to tangible practice mediums of community organizing or the non-explicit

term of advocacy. Micro level practice is rampantly disseminated in literature into

practice methodologies that are very specific: Child Protective Services caseworker,

hospital social worker, therapist, prison social worker, school social worker, and

increasingly the most prominent role of clinical social worker. The perpetuation of the

muddying of a macro practice understanding also perpetuates an absence of a true

understanding of what that macro level social justice inherent in the NASW Code of

Ethics refers.

34

Another possible factor leading to gaps in professional and academic literature

regarding social work could in fact be linked to the perceived lack of professionalization

of the social work field. The CSWE, the sole accreditation body of social work education

programs throughout the state consists of a Board of Directors and has a number of

special committees. Out of all of the members that make up this governing board, there is

an "... average of 2.31 refereed articles in the journals included in the Social Science

Citation Index (SSCI) over the course of their careers" (Stoesz & Karger, 2009, p. 105).

The SSCI is an index of significant journals from around the world. The approximate

8,700 journals that make up this index are considered scientific and/or significant and

reliable, as well as being "...widely considered as a valid bench-mark of scholarship used

by university promotion and tenure committees" (Stoesz &Karger, p.105). The abysmal

average rate of CSWE's most prominent members and leaders could be representative of

the lack of academic scholarship often associated with the social work field. So in

looking for scholarly literature for the purpose of this literature review, the very lack of

academic scholarship necessary for perceived legitimization of the field of social work

may be in part responsible for the lack of information.

Several studies have been done related to this subject matter. Limb and

Organista's study (2003) mentioned earlier in the chapter looked at a population sample

representing different ethnicities including Caucasian, American Indian, and other

students of color. The data used in this study was secondary data, which could potentially

have both reliability and validity issues. Further, the main study focus on ethnicity in

relation to the type of practice after graduation could be too specific when trying to

35

display the causality of education administration to the practice preference. The data only

represented a population sample from California, so the external validity is low in the

ability to extrapolate that information onto a greater national social worker population.

Similarly, Mizrahi and Dodd (2013) conducted research on an even smaller

demographic population, gathering information from past graduates of social work

programs in New York City. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, this study focused

largely on the person in environment education that the population sample had received

and how that had shaped their eventual interest in specific practice levels upon

graduation. By focusing on this one aspect of the education curricula, this study left gaps

in being able to assess the social work education as a whole, which would inhibit

extrapolation to other studies.

In this study, the researchers surveyed a number of students from CSUS, which

symbolizes a much smaller population sample. However, by centralizing research on a

demographic of current second year students in the city of Sacramento, the researchers

were able to conduct research that, when combined with other studies of similar size,

contributes to a compilation of perspectives to evaluate the social work profession on a

grander scale.

Biases also arose throughout the literature research. While Vodde and Galiant

(2012) did touch on the necessity of bridging the gap between macro and micro, the

majority of the literature seemed to heavily lean on either micro or macro. Textbooks and

journals written from a macro level perspective wrote heavily on the dire disappearance

36

of macro. Journals dedicated to social work licensure leaned heavily on the

individualistic aspect of the social work mission.

There is more research that needs to be done still to fully grasp the shift and a

possible consideration is through focusing on the education of MSW students and how

this affects their practice after graduation, and the very perceptions of those constituting

the professional social work field.

Summary

This chapter provided a summary of some of the literature that pertains to the

paradigm shift away from an inclusion of macro in the social work field. A brief history

of social work was given. The evolution of micro and macro levels of social work was

presented, and a possible analysis regarding the decline of a macro level presence

followed. The current climate of the social work education provided by CSUS was

summarized. Finally, possible gaps in the literature were discussed. The following

chapter presents the methodology used in this study.

37

Chapter 3

Methodology

The intent of this chapter is to describe the methodology and research design used

for this study. A brief description of the population sample chosen, as well as how the

sampling was conducted will be discussed. This chapter will also include a description of

the data that was amassed from the sample population, the tools used for analyzing the

data, and how the analysis was conducted. Lastly, the protection of the human subjects,

and the steps taken to ensure that protection, will be discussed.

Research Question

This study investigates the following research question: What are the perspectives

of second year graduate social work students at California State University, Sacramento

(CSUS), regarding the social work micro and macro practice paradigms?

Research Design

This research study used a quantitative descriptive design, utilizing a convenient

non- probability and non-random sample. This study utilized the quantitative descriptive

survey research design for two reasons: a) to describe the perspectives of students at

CSUS their association with the paradigm shift in the social work profession, and b) to

examine the micro and macro perspectives of students receiving a Masters of Social

Work from CSUS and consequent implications for the field of Social Work. A

descriptive design is pertinent when looking at the intended focus, as this design is useful

when constructs can be identified, but there is a "...wish to understand them better in

38

terms of their nature, distribution, [and] relationships to other constructs" (Drake &

Johnson-Reid, 2008, p. 73).

This quantitative study utilized a survey containing 23 questions developed by the

researchers. The survey utilized a Likert scale for 19 of the questions on the standardized

instrument. Through that empirical documentation, the results will be recorded in

aggregate form, allowing the researchers to use statistical measures to address the

research question. Furthermore, this study is considered survey research, as defined by

Leedy & Ormrod (2013). Survey research is usually used interchangeably with

descriptive research but fits the parameters of this research because it”...involves

acquiring information about one or more groups of people - perhaps about their

characteristics, opinions, attitudes, or previous experiences - by asking them questions

and tabulating their answers”(Leedy & Ormrod, 2013, p. 189). Furthermore, survey and

deductive research are usually explored when surveying a sample of a larger population.

As described below in population and sampling, a sample population of the graduate

students in the MSW program was surveyed, which could then be extrapolated on to the

larger population of graduate level social work students.

This research will offer a snapshot of the perspectives of students currently

attending CSUS. This is a state public school with similar programs offered statewide.

Therefore, the external validity is high because other researchers can duplicate the study

at other state schools, the respondents are chosen based on the program they are

attending, and the size of the sample should be large enough that a generalization could

be generated after completion of the research. Furthermore, the internal validity mainly

39

refers to how confident the researcher can be about the intervention truly causing a

change on the dependent variable (Drake & Johnson-Reid, 2008). Since this research is

not proposing an intervention strategy, the internal validity is not a factor to be

considered. However, these researchers believe that the shift in paradigm is not occurring

solely at CSUS and a higher focus on macro level practice is necessary for the

professional field. Even though there may not be an actual intervention strategy, a focus

or possible different educational deliverance focusing on macro level practice could be a

possible outcome of this study. One of the strengths of doing survey research is the

ability to extrapolate findings onto a greater social work student body through the

generalizability of the survey responses. Furthermore, "by presenting all subjects with

standardized wording, survey research goes a long way toward eliminating unreliablity in

observations made by the researcher" (Rubin & Babbie, 2011, p. 404) However, survey

research findings cannot accurately reflect causality between the responses and the

education or curriculum in social work education programs (Rubin & Babbie, 2011).

Additionally, the rigid format of a survey's administration and inability to change the

questions later can be too restrained.

Variables

In this study, the researchers explored the following research question: What are the

perspectives of graduate social work students regarding the social work micro and macro

practice paradigms? The independent variable for this study was the perspectives of

graduate level social work students, and whether there was a balanced emphasis of micro

and macro levels. The dependent variable was the micro and macro levels of practice

40

paradigms. For the second set of the data analysis the independent variable were the

different components of the social work curriculum. The dependent variable was the

perception of a balanced emphasis between macro and micro.

The variables were measured by use of a Likert scale format. The level of

measurement used for the independent variables (perspectives of graduate students and

curriculum components) was ordinal. The level of measurement for the dependent

variable (micro and macro levels of practice and balanced emphasis) was ordinal.

Study Population

The study is examining a specific population: CSUS second year Masters of

Social Work students. In the academic year 2013-2014, there were 251 graduate social

work students that entered in the fall semester (CSUS Sacramento, 2014). This number

includes all first, second, and three year MSW graduate students and is not broken down

based on their year of enrollment. In the academic year 2013-2014, there were 115 first

year graduate students. The researchers used this number as a benchmark when preparing

their sample size. The primary unit of analysis is MSW graduate students at CSUS. The

students at CSUS come from a wide variety of cultures, backgrounds, ages, and interests

for entering the social work field. These characteristics could potentially influence their

responses to the survey.

Sample Population

A non-probability, purposive, and convenient sampling design method was used

to obtain the sample population. The researchers were studying a small specific sample of

a much larger specialized population. While studying the entire population would have

41

increased the validity of the study, it was not feasible for the researchers to attempt to

randomly sample from the entire population, therefore this did not create a random or

equal opportunity for everyone in the larger population to be selected. Purposive

sampling allowed the researchers to reach a specific sample population that shares

characteristics in common with the larger population (Neuman, 2011). While they may

share some characteristics, it would be inappropriate for the researchers to claim that the

purposive sample is entirely synonymous with the larger population. Furthermore, due to

time constraint and desired low cost of the research the researchers used a convenience

sample because it was the most feasible option (Rubin & Babbie, 2011).

By purposively and conveniently sampling all second year MSW students at

CSUS, the researchers were able to gather a sample that represents many aspects of social

work education and experience, as well as a variety of demographics. Researchers were

able to gather 74 surveys for the sample size.

Instrumentation

The researchers created a survey through which the data would be collected. The

survey method proved to be the best option through which the researchers could amass

data based around the central research question, in a way that correlated with the

quantitative design of the research. The survey is twenty-three questions, nineteen of

which are general questions relating to micro and macro perspectives of the individual

survey participants (ranging from personal, professional, and philosophical experiences).

The remaining four questions were created to collect demographic information regarding

the participants, to help set potential parameters through which the data analysis could be

42

framed. Created using the Likert scale format (a scale that ranges from 1-5 to numerically

code the following responses for the purpose of SPSS: strongly agree, agree, neutral,

disagree, and strongly disagree), the researchers wrote the survey questions in a way that

would create space for a variety of feedback. For example, this research project examines

the perspectives of second year Masters in Social Work students regarding micro and

macro perspectives based on current program design at CSUS. However, some of the

survey questions were designed in a way that would also allow the participants to include

past personal knowledge, so as not to disseminate a survey with the researchers own

presumed biases regarding participants' past experiences in relation to micro and macro

influences (See Appendix A). This type of survey is the most efficient for this type of

study due to the difficult nature of defining a perspective and will make data analysis

easier to graph and draw conclusions.

Data Gathering Procedures

Six professors were contacted to allow the researchers to administer the survey in

their current second year Practice classes. However, the researchers could not guarantee

that every professor would consent to the request, nor that every student would be in

attendance when the surveys were administered. Out of the original pool of six

professors, four gave permission allowing the researchers to conduct the survey in their

classes. Of the four professors, one taught two practice classes, which allowed for more

data to be gathered. In late November and early December, the researchers attended these

classes to ask the students to participate in the research study. The participants were

informed that the nature of the survey questions would address their perspectives and

43

knowledge of micro and macro elements in social work. The researchers explicitly stated

that their participation would be anonymous and that taking the survey represents their

implied consent to participate. A letter addressing the promise of anonymity and the

implied consent was attached on the front of each survey that was handed to the

participants (See Appendix B). The researchers left the room once the surveys had been

distributed. Upon finishing the voluntary survey, participants placed the surveys in a

manila envelope in the front of the classroom. Once all of the willing participants

completed the surveys, the researchers were alerted and collected the envelope.

Data Analysis

Once the researchers collected all of the surveys, they entered the findings into the

Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for statistical analysis. Univariate

analyses were then performed to determine that variables' distribution. Bivariate analyses

(chi-square tests) were then performed to examine the relationships between graduate

students perspectives and level of practice paradigm.

Protection of Human Subjects

It was vitally important that the participants of this study were respected and the

correct line of procedure and protocol was followed to maintain a working relationship

between researchers and participants. Therefore, this research followed the protocol

outlined by California State University, Sacramento Social Work 500 Project/Thesis

course and by the Department of Social Work. The Protocol for the Protection of Human

Subjects was submitted and approved by the Division of Social Work Research Review

Committee, as exempt research. In order to receive the qualifications for exempt

44

research, the research must be minimal risk or below to the participants. To achieve this

classification of minimal risk and to ensure participants security; three areas had to be

addressed: conflict of interest, maintaining confidentiality, and benefits and risks.

Conflicts of interest:

The researchers presumed there would be no conflicts due to the peer/colleague

status between researcher and participants. The survey was conducted voluntarily

and anonymously, and no incentives were offered to the participants, therefore

ensuring no expected conflicts regarding power dynamics.

Maintaining confidentiality:

After the participants filled out their surveys, there was a manila envelope for each

participant to place the surveys inside once completed. The researchers have sole

access to the envelope after all the surveys had been collected. The surveys are

kept in a locked file cabinet at the house of researcher Katherine Nicholas. There is

a minimal risk that other people may come in contact with the information because

the surveys are paper surveys. The surveys were collected anonymously, and when

not in use for research purposes by the researchers and thesis advisor, they were

kept in a locked file cabinet. The researchers provided a confidentiality and

anonymity agreement form attached to the survey when administering the paper

survey to participants. Researchers also verbally explained the voluntary

participation, confidentiality agreement, and the anonymous nature of the study.

See Appendix B for the consent form. During the analysis period, both researchers,

as well as their thesis advisor, have had access to the collected data. When not in

45

use, the data was kept in a locked file cabinet at Nicholas’ residence. All identifiers

of the data will be shredded by August 31, 2015.

Benefits & Risks:

There were minimal risks in relation to this research study. There were no direct

benefits to the individual from this research. There were no known physical risks

when conducting this research. However, the questions in the survey asked the

participants about their understanding and opinions of micro/macro level social

work. There was a minimal risk that the participants might feel embarrassed

regarding their understanding of micro/macro levels of practice. This was

addressed and minimized because the researchers strived to word the questions on

the survey in non-confrontational, threatening ways. The researchers asked

participants to simply answer in a way that aligns with their knowledge and

personal opinions; and they stressed the anonymous and confidential nature of the

survey and data collection methods and procedures. There were no known

sociological and economic risks associated with this study. This study poses no

more than minimal risk to study participants and is considered Exempt (45 CFR

46.101(b)(2) under the code of the Federal Regulations.

All of these issues were addressed when the researchers submitted their application to the

Internal Review Board (IRB) of the Social Work Department and received an "Exempt"

status.

46

Summary

The intent of this chapter was to describe the nature of the study's quantitative

descriptive research design. The sample population was described and there was

discussion on how this sample was acquired. The survey instrument utilized was

described and there was discussion on the creation of the survey questions, as well as the

instrument used to measure the answers. The variables were identified and there was an

explanation on their utilization. There was a review of the human subject protection

adherence by the researchers. There was discussion on the data gathering procedure as

well as how the data was analyzed. The following chapter will extrapolate on this data

and detail the data that was gathered, and the results of the data analysis.

47

Chapter 4

Study Findings and Discussions

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the results of the survey findings. The

demographics of the second year CSUS student participants’ and their perspectives on the

social work micro and macro paradigms will be examined. Frequency distributions are

presented. Chi-square tests were utilized to display the relationship between the

demographic variables - specifically the respondents preferred form of practice - to their

interpretation of the social work education delivered at CSUS and the change in social

work practice. Additionally, the researchers will be analyzing the relationship between

the participants' statement (agreeing or disagreeing) that CSUS offered a curriculum that

had a balanced emphasis on micro and macro levels against several questions addressing

specific aspects of the curriculum. This chapter will end with a summary.

Demographics

A total of 74 CSUS second year students participated in this research.

Demographic questions received 100% feedback (with the exception of the question

regarding ethnicity, which only received a 95.9% response rate). The findings are as

follows in Table 1: 56.8% (42 respondents) identified as Caucasian, 39.2% (29

respondents) identified as non-Caucasian, and 4.1% (3 respondents) did not answer. In

regards to gender: 82.4% (61 respondents) identified as female and 17.6% (13

respondents) identified as male. For years of practice when entering the program: 8.1% (6

respondents ) have less than a year of experience, 58.1% (43 respondents) have 1-5 years

of experience, and 33.8% (25 respondents) have more than 5 years of experience. Finally,

48

the breakdown for interest in practice after graduation is: 45.9% (34 respondents) are

interested in micro practice, 8.1% (6 respondents) are interested in macro, and 45.9% (34

respondents) are interested in both micro and macro. Table 1 outlines below these four

areas of demographics.

For the purpose of the data analysis, the researchers had to combine the areas of

practice interest to ensure the significance of the data for the chi-square analyses. The

low number of respondents that identified with an interest in macro practice has its own

significance and will be descriptively analyzed in chapter 5. The areas that were

combined are the respondents that identified a sole interest in macro practice and those

that are interested in both micro and macro (this will be referred to as combined practice

throughout the rest of this study).

How does the practice area of interest impact the perspectives of second year CSUS

MSW students' on the education offered at CSUS?

This section will explore the perceptions of second year MSW students'

perspectives on the curriculum offered at CSUS and how the identified area of practice

has implications for the responses. The tables will be segmented into three sections:

section one will explore practice level interest after graduation and the respondents entry

interest in practice, section two will depict practice level interest and opportunities for

macro practice at CSUS and section three will explore practice level interest and ability

to do a component of basic macro level practice. The tables below outline the

respondents perspectives on the curriculum offered, the only analyses depicted in this

chapter are those that are significant or approaching significance.

49

Table 1

Demographics of CSUS Second Year Graduate Students (N=74)

Ethnicity

Caucasians

22.6%

Non-Caucasians

39.2%

No Answer 4.1%

Gender

Males

17.2%

Females

82.4%

Years of Experience

Less than 1

8.1%

1-5 years

58.1%

More than 5 33.8%

Practice Interest

Micro

45.9%

Macro

8.1%

Combined 45.9%

50

Section #1 - Entry interest and current practice preference

Micro practice entry interest and micro practice preference upon

graduation.

Nearly all (97%) of those currently interested in micro practice (during the last

semester of their MSW program) did not have an interest in macro practice upon entering

the program; however, 85% did have an interest in combined micro and macro practice

(χ2=3.120; df=1; p=.077) (Table 2). This analysis is approaching significance.

Macro practice entry interest and combined practice preference upon

graduation.

Approximately half (42.5%) of the respondents that identify as having a current

combined interest of practice entered the CSUS program with a macro practice interest

(Table 3) (χ2=12.351; df=1; p=.000). Most of the participants (97.1%) who entered into

the program with only an interest in micro practice remained with the same interest.

Section #2 - Opportunities at CSUS

Opportunities of macro practice offered at CSUS. Table 4 depicts almost

three-quarters (73.5%) of the respondents with an interest in micro practice disagree that

CSUS offered sufficient macro level practice opportunities. Furthermore, over half

(52.5%) of the respondents with a combined practice level interest disagree that CSUS

offered sufficient macro level practice opportunities. This analysis is approaching

significance with a p value of .063 and has zero cells with an expected count less than 5.

(χ2=3.455; df=1; p=.063).

51

Table 2

Practice Preference Interest and Entry Interest in Micro Practice

Entry interest in micro practice

Total Agree Disagree

Micro practice

level interest

Count 33 1 34

% within practice level

interest 97.1% 2.9% 100.0%

% within entry micro

interest 49.3% 14.3% 45.9%

% of Total 44.6% 1.4% 45.9%

Combined practice

level interest

Count 34 6 40

% within practice level

interest 85.0% 15.0% 100.0%

% within entry micro

interest 50.7% 85.7% 54.1%

% of Total 45.9% 8.1% 54.1%

Total Count 67 7 74

% within practice level

interest 90.5% 9.5% 100.0%

% within entry micro

interest 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 90.5% 9.5% 100.0%

52

Table 3

Practice Level Preference and Entry Interest in Macro Practice

Entry interest in macro practice

Total Agree Disagree

Micro practice level

interest

Count 1 33 34

% within practice level

interest 2.9% 97.1% 100.0%

% within entry macro

interest 5.6% 58.9% 45.9%

% of Total 1.4% 44.6% 45.9%

Combined practice

level interest

Count 17 23 40

% within practice level

interest 42.5% 57.5% 100.0%

% within entry macro

interest 94.4% 41.1% 54.1%

% of Total 23.0% 31.1% 54.1%

Total Count 18 56 74

% within practice level

interest 24.3% 75.7% 100.0%

% within entry macro

interest 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 24.3% 75.7% 100.0%

53

Table 4

Practice Preference Interest and CSUS Macro Practice Opportunities

CSUS macro practice

opportunities

Total Agree Disagree

Micro practice

level interest

Count 9 25 34

% within practice level

interest 26.5% 73.5% 100.0%

% within CSUS macro

opportunities 32.1% 54.3% 45.9%

% of Total 12.2% 33.8% 45.9%

Combined practice

level interest

Count 19 21 40

% within practice level

interest 47.5% 52.5% 100.0%

% within CSUS macro

opportunities 67.9% 45.7% 54.1%

% of Total 25.7% 28.4% 54.1%

Total Count 28 46 74

% within practice level

interest 37.8% 62.2% 100.0%

% within CSUS macro

opportunities 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 37.8% 62.2% 100.0%

54

Section #3 - Confidence in components of macro level practice

Confidence in ability to do a policy interpretation. Over half (67.6%) of the

respondents with an interest in micro practice disagree that they are confident in their

ability to do a policy interpretation. Simultaneously, less than half (42.5%) of the

respondents with a combined practice level interest disagree that they are confident in

their ability to do a policy interpretation (Table 5). (χ2=4.680; df=1; p=.031).

Confidence in ability to do a policy analysis. Over a quarter (27.5%) of the

respondents with a combined practice interest disagree that they are confident in their

ability to do a policy analysis. Meanwhile, of the 34 respondents with an interest in micro

level practice disagree. Half (50%) are not confident in their ability to do a policy

analysis (Table 6). (χ2=3.956; df=1; p=.047).

How does the respondents answers (agree or disagree) in general there was a

balanced emphasis of practice paradigms, impact the perspectives of second year

CSUS MSW students' responses to specific areas of the CSUS curriculum?

This section will explore the perceptions of second year MSW students'

perspectives on the curriculum offered at CSUS. Specifically, will be focused on the

respondents answers (either agree or disagree) to whether CSUS offered a balanced

emphasis on both micro and macro practice paradigms and how this impacts their

responses to specific topics within the curriculum (ability to do a policy interpretation

and analysis, macro employment opportunities, macro practice opportunities,

understanding social work history, and foundation of policy change impact).

55

Table 5

Practice Level Preference and Confidence in Ability to do a Policy Interpretation

Confidence in policy

interpretation

Total Agree Disagree

Micro practice level

interest

Count 11 23 34

% within practice level

interest 32.4% 67.6% 100.0%

% within policy

interpretation 32.4% 57.5% 45.9%

% of Total 14.9% 31.1% 45.9%

Combined practice

level interest

Count 23 17 40

% within practice level

interest 57.5% 42.5% 100.0%

% within policy

interpretation 67.6% 42.5% 54.1%

% of Total 31.1% 23.0% 54.1%

Total Count 34 40 74

% within practice level

interest 45.9% 54.1% 100.0%

% within policy

interpretation recode 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 45.9% 54.1% 100.0%

56

Table 6

Practice Preference Interest and Confidence in Ability to do a Policy Analysis

Confidence in policy analysis

Total Agree Disagree

Micro practice level

interest

Count 17 17 34

% within practice level

interest 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

% within confidence in

policy analysis 37.0% 60.7% 45.9%

% of Total 23.0% 23.0% 45.9%

Combined practice

level interest

Count 29 11 40

% within practice level

interest 72.5% 27.5% 100.0%

% within confidence in

policy analysis 63.0% 39.3% 54.1%

% of Total 39.2% 14.9% 54.1%

Total Count 46 28 74

% within practice level

interest 62.2% 37.8% 100.0%

% within confidence in

policy analysis 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 62.2% 37.8% 100.0%

The tables below outline the respondent’s perspectives on the curriculum offered,

specifically a balanced emphasis of practice paradigms, the only analyses depicted are

those that are significant or approaching significance.

57

Balanced emphasis and confidence in ability to do a policy interpretation. Close to

half (43.9%) of the respondents that agree there is a balanced emphasis on both micro and

macro practice paradigms disagree that they are confident in their ability to do a policy

interpretation. Simultaneously, nearly two-thirds (66.7%) of the respondents that

disagreed there is balanced emphasis on both micro and macro practice paradigms

disagree that they are confident in their ability to do a policy interpretation (Table 7).

(χ2=3.815; df=1; p=.051).

Balanced emphasis and macro practice employment opportunities offered through

CSUS.

Over half (51.2%) of the respondents that agree there is a balanced emphasis on

both micro and macro practice paradigms disagree that there was macro practice

employment opportunities offered through CSUS. Simultaneously, close to three quarters

(72.7%) of the respondents that disagree there is a balanced emphasis on both micro and

macro practice paradigms disagree that there was macro practice employment

opportunities offered through CSUS (Table 8). (χ2=3.549; df=1; p=.060).

58

Table 7

Balanced Practice Paradigm Emphasis and Confidence in Ability to do a Policy

Interpretation

Confidence in policy

interpretation

Total Agree Disagree

Agree balanced

emphasis

Count 23 18 41

% within balanced

emphasis 56.1% 43.9% 100.0%

% within policy

interpretation 67.6% 45.0% 55.4%

% of Total 31.1% 24.3% 55.4%

Disagree balanced

emphasis

Count 11 22 33

% within balanced

emphasis 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

% within policy

interpretation 32.4% 55.0% 44.6%

% of Total 14.9% 29.7% 44.6%

Total Count 34 40 74

% within balanced

emphasis 45.9% 54.1% 100.0%

% within policy

interpretation 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 45.9% 54.1% 100.0%

59

Table 8

Balanced Practice Paradigm Emphasis and Macro Practice Employment Opportunities

Offered Through CSUS.

Macro practice employment

opportunities

Total Agree Disagree

Agree balanced

emphasis

Count 20 21 41

% within balanced

emphasis 48.8% 51.2% 100.0%

% within macro

employment

opportunities

69.0% 46.7% 55.4%

% of Total 27.0% 28.4% 55.4%

Disagree balanced

emphasis

Count 9 24 33

% within balanced

emphasis 27.3% 72.7% 100.0%

% within macro

employment

opportunities

31.0% 53.3% 44.6%

% of Total 12.2% 32.4% 44.6%

Total Count 29 45 74

% within balanced

emphasis 39.2% 60.8% 100.0%

% within macro

employment

opportunities

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 39.2% 60.8% 100.0%

60

Balanced emphasis and opportunities to learn about macro practice at CSUS.

Nearly half (46.3%) of the respondents that agree there is a balanced emphasis on

both micro and macro practice paradigms disagree that there were opportunities to learn

about macro practice at CSUS. Simultaneously, almost the majority (81.8%) of the

respondents that disagree there is a balanced emphasis on both micro and macro practice

paradigms also disagree that there were opportunities to learn about macro practice at

CSUS (Table 9). (χ2=9.784; df=1; p=.002).

Balanced emphasis and understanding of the history of social work.

The majority of the respondents (82.9%) that agree there is a balanced emphasis

on both micro and macro practice paradigms agree that they have an understanding of the

history of social work. Simultaneously, nearly two-thirds (63.6%) of the respondents that

disagree there is a balanced emphasis on both micro and macro practice paradigms agree

that they have an understanding of the history of social work (Table 10). (χ2=3.565; df=1;

p=.059).

61

Table 9

Balanced Practice Paradigms Emphasis and Opportunities to Learn about Macro

Practice at CSUS.

Macro practice opportunities

Total Agree Disagree

Agree balanced

emphasis

Count 22 19 41

% within balanced

emphasis 53.7% 46.3% 100.0%

% within CSUS macro

opportunities 78.6% 41.3% 55.4%

% of Total 29.7% 25.7% 55.4%

Disagree balanced

emphasis

Count 6 27 33

% within balanced

emphasis 18.2% 81.8% 100.0%

% within CSUS macro

opportunities 21.4% 58.7% 44.6%

% of Total 8.1% 36.5% 44.6%

Total Count 28 46 74

% within balanced

emphasis 37.8% 62.2% 100.0%

% within CSUS macro

opportunities 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 37.8% 62.2% 100.0%

62

Table 10

Balanced Practice Paradigms emphasis and an Understanding of the History of Social

Work.

Understanding of social work

history

Total Agree Disagree

Agree balanced

emphasis

Count 34 7 41

% within balanced

emphasis 82.9% 17.1% 100.0%

% within

understanding of social

work history

61.8% 36.8% 55.4%

% of Total 45.9% 9.5% 55.4%

Disagree balanced

emphasis

Count 21 12 33

% within balanced

emphasis recode 63.6% 36.4% 100.0%

% within

understanding of social

work history

38.2% 63.2% 44.6%

% of Total 28.4% 16.2% 44.6%

Total Count 55 19 74

% within balanced

emphasis 74.3% 25.7% 100.0%

% within

understanding of social

work history

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 74.3% 25.7% 100.0%

63

Balanced emphasis and understanding of the foundation of social work in regards to

policy change.

The majority of the respondents (92.7%) of the respondents that agree there is a

balanced emphasis on both micro and macro practice paradigms, agree that they have an

understanding of the foundation of the social work profession in regards to policy change.

Interestingly, more than two-thirds (69.7%) of the respondents that disagree there is a

balanced emphasis on both micro and macro practice paradigms agree that they have an

understanding of the foundation of the social work profession in regards to policy change

(Table 11). (χ2=6.671; df=1; p=.010).

Summary

This chapter examined the responses from 74 questionnaires, including

demographic information, as well as the survey participants’ practice level interest for

future social work practice. This chapter examined the correlations amongst these

demographics when compared to questions regarding the education presented in the

CSUS social work Master’s program. Finally, there was an examination of the

association amongst respondents (agree or disagree) that CSUS offered a balanced

practice paradigm emphasis education in relation to specific topics within the curriculum.

The next chapter will analyze the data and then present conclusions, as well the

implications for future social work practice.

64

Table 11

Balanced Practice Paradigms Emphasis and an Understanding of the Foundation of the

Social Work Profession in Regards to Policy Change.

Understanding of policy change

Total Agree Disagree

Agree balanced

emphasis

Count 38 3 41

% within balanced

emphasis 92.7% 7.3% 100.0%

% within policy

change foundation 62.3% 23.1% 55.4%

% of Total 51.4% 4.1% 55.4%

Disagree balanced

emphasis

Count 23 10 33

% within balanced

emphasis 69.7% 30.3% 100.0%

% within policy

change foundation 37.7% 76.9% 44.6%

% of Total 31.1% 13.5% 44.6%

Total Count 61 13 74

% within balanced

emphasis 82.4% 17.6% 100.0%

% within policy

change foundation 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 82.4% 17.6% 100.0%

65

Chapter 5

Conclusions, Summary, and Recommendations

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the data that was obtained through

this study. The chapter will begin with a summary of the findings that were presented in

chapter four. Subsequently, there will be a discussion on the conclusions that can be

drawn from this study and how the findings compared with the research and literature

that was discussed in chapter two. There will also be a review of the limitations of the

study, as well as offer implications for social work practice and curriculum accreditation

policies. The chapter will conclude with offering suggestions for future research and how

to use data in an efficient manner, such as the findings from this study to reintegrate the

social justice mission and ameliorate the separateness of micro and macro social work.

Summary of Study

Throughout the research process it became apparent that there was a shortage of

studies that focus on the paradigm shift of the social work field, specific to practice

preferences and perspectives. Furthermore, there were not any available studies done at

California State University, Sacramento (CSUS) focusing on second year emerging

helping professionals and their perspectives on the social work curriculum in relation to

the paradigm shift. After a review of the available literature which focused on a historical

overview of growing societal, economic and political trends and how these

simultaneously impact the social work field and the professionals themselves, the

researchers discussed how this impacts social work education. These changing ideologies

become situated in the curriculum assessment standards and consequently impact the

66

evolving future of the field. The researchers sought to draw conclusions on the data

findings for second year CSUS MSW students perceptions to see if their responses

matched up with the findings discussed in the literature review of chapter two. The

researchers found, upon completion of the study, that despite the students’ practice

preference, the majority believed the implicit and explicit curriculum at CSUS did not

offer sufficient opportunities to learn about macro level social work.

The results of this study, through the use of chi-square tests, found that there was

a relationship between the entry practice interest and practice interest level at the

culmination of the MSW program, specifically to those identified as macro practice

changing to a combined practice interest. Only 6 respondents identify solely with an

interest in macro practice upon graduation. The chi-squares showed a high significance

when looking at all surveyed students no matter the practice level interest (combined or

micro), and the students did not feel confident in their ability to do components of macro

level social work (policy analysis and interpretation).

An area of the study the researchers found most interesting was in relation to

whether respondents felt there was a balanced emphasis (both micro and macro) in the

curriculum offered at CSUS and how this impacted components of macro practice ability,

opportunities offered at CSUS and jobs, foundation of social work history, and how

policy impacts social work historically. The chi square tests utilized found significance

between perspectives on a balanced emphasis of practice within the curriculum and the

previously described content areas. It was surprising to find that an overwhelming

majority of respondents, no matter if they agreed or disagreed that the curriculum offered

67

at CSUS, had a balanced emphasis of all practice levels, disagreed that there was ample

opportunities to learn about macro level social work and job opportunities available in the

macro practice realm. Furthermore, the researchers found it very interesting that almost

all of the respondents that agree there was a balanced emphasis offered at CSUS, believe

that they have a firm understanding of the historical impact of policy on the social work

field. Meanwhile, there was not an over whelming number of respondents that disagree

there was balanced emphasis that also disagree that they have a full grasp on the

historical impact of policy on the field. This leads the researchers to believe that the

survey participants’ variance in responses is counterintuitive regarding macro level social

work as a key foundation of both the history and future of professional social work.

Discussion

This study was created to further understand the perspectives of emerging

professionals regarding a paradigm shift in the social work field, as well as how the

macro elements of social work apply to current professional social work practice. In the

creation of the study, the researchers looked to further understanding on macro and micro

level paradigms in social work, and how those paradigms are interwoven into the mission

of social work. Additionally, the researchers sought to present a historical analysis of the

pendulum swing between macro and micro paradigms and how that can be extrapolated

onto current and future social work practice. A comparison of the data collected to the

findings in the literature review will follow.

At the inception of professional social work, macro level change was a

fundamental component of both the ideology and practice of the field. From the origin of

68

Settlement Houses in the late 1800s, an ideological shift away from personal blame for

poverty or disadvantage towards a more inclusive introspection of what societal factors

create a system of disadvantage and marginalization became a central component of the

mission of the social work field (Hansan, 2010). This past emphasis on a macro level

focus has been believed to become merely a historical relic and not an emphasis currently

emphasized or practiced in the field (Specht & Courtney, 1994). One of the questions on

the survey asked participants to gauge their understanding of the history of social work.

Overwhelmingly, survey participants answered that they felt they had a strong grasp on

that understanding. However, when asked about their confidence in performing

components of macro level practice, such as policy analysis or policy interpretation, the

majority response was that they were not confident in those abilities. This leads the

researchers to believe that while macro level social work is being taught as having

historical effects on the field, current and practical use of macro level practice is not

being emphasized in current social work curriculum at CSUS.

Micro level social work, specifically direct and clinical practice, has also seen

shifts in emphasis in the field in response to certain political and economic ideologies and

policies that have shaped a greater need for that level of intervention (Ritter, 2013;

Tannenbaum & Reisch, 2001). Medicaid, a public healthcare program for populations

including low-income individuals, families and children, and the disabled, has become

the largest mental health services provider. With the recent passage of the Affordable

Care Act, which allowed states to expand their state Medicaid programs to millions of

more individuals, mental health services for the populations the social work field seeks to

69

serve will only increase (Medicaid, 2015). This increased emphasis on micro level

practice, and employment opportunities available for micro level practitioners was

represented in several of the questions on this research study survey tool. In fact, out of

the sample size of 74, 90.5% of students entered with an interest in learning micro level

social work practice, compared to only 9.5% who had an entry interest in macro. The

research within the literature found that out of 216,262 licensed social workers, 5.3%

identified as macro practice social workers in 2014 (Donaldson et al., 2014). While this

study constituted a much smaller sample size, the correlation between the low numbers of

macro level practitioners in the social work field is relatively commensurate. This drastic

disparity may represent public perception of what opportunities social work has to offer,

as well what expectations exist in social work education programs. In fact, while the

researchers were expecting a small number of respondents who identified as a macro

level social worker, the fact that there were only 6 who identified as such in the results is

highly significant when compared to the aforementioned national trend in the research.

The fact that the researchers had to combine ‘macro’ and ‘combination of macro and

micro’ in order to reach a significance level in their statistical analysis, is actually quite

significant in and of itself.

In the literature review, information was presented regarding the development of

the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). The CSWE is the sole accrediting

organization for social work education programs in the United States. According to the

CSWE, there are more than 600 social work programs that receive accreditation every

year. The CSWE develops and uses the Educational Policy Accreditation Standards

70

(EPAS) to direct these programs on how to deliver the required curriculum (CSWE,

2015). The EPAS include several areas of curriculum design, including implicit and

explicit curriculum components (CSWE). Many of the questions on the survey correlated

to elements required in those explicit and implicit curriculum, including questions

regarding the knowledge the participants felt they received, as well as the guidance and

emphases stressed by professors and the practice opportunities provided to the students.

In general, the data showed that students felt that micro level practice and techniques

were emphasized by the professors and the curriculum delivered over macro level

practice and practice components. In fact, 81.8% of those who responded that they felt

there was an imbalance in the emphases on macro and micro levels disagreed that CSUS

offered opportunities for learning about macro social work. Similarly, 60.8% of

respondents agreed that they did not feel they learned about macro practice employment

opportunities from the professors.

Implications for Social Work

From the research findings, there are implications for social work practice and

social work education and curriculum accreditation policies. While the findings of this

research reflect only the perspectives of second year MSW students at CSUS, the study

shows that due to a sole accreditation organization, the generalized data may not be

specific to each school. Due to the nature of how the accreditation standards are

structured nationally, the research done at CSUS, could be used in a generalizable

manner. In effect, extrapolating from one small study done at the CSUS social work

program could be utilized in deconstructing the current curriculum standards, assessment

71

tools, and historical impact to generate a more balanced focus when educating social

workers and open up a wider variety of field opportunities to students.

On a macro level, re-centralizing the social work mission and ethical boundaries

is supremely important and an undeniable area covered in this study. Social justice does

not have to be an abstract topic, but rather something tangible, teachable, and integrated

in every aspect of the social work field. The current students in the CSUS MSW program

will be graduating in May without the confidence to do macro practice components,

which are a necessary skill for any professional career, especially when working with

populations that are directly impacted by the systemic structure outlined through policy

and procedures. On a micro level, re-engaging social work in a social justice mission

could have huge ramifications on direct practice work as social and systemic change can

affect the policies that very much dictate how a micro practitioner interacts with his or

her clients, as who is defined as a necessary client population. In an effort to bridge the

gap between the current bifurcated structures of the social work field, incorporation of

tangible skills within the macro field will help in alleviating that gap.

This study has vast implications on a mezzo level as to how educational

communities can and do affect the social work field itself. When first starting this project

the researchers did not fully grasp the impact the curriculum standards had on designing

the various social work programs in the United States. When conducting the research on

the educational policy accreditation standards and how they progress with the changes in

society, it became ever more apparent that policy and economic attributes directly

describe the type of social work focus. It is true that the current second year students are

72

prepared to go in to the field as trained clinical socials workers, however, there is a

distinct lack of preparation for impacting political structure and involvement in the macro

realm to combat and advocate for the clients we serve on a larger scale. Conducting

similar projects in the upcoming year, focused on evaluating the curriculum standards

and paradigms of the field, would be beneficial to swing the pendulum back to more

inclusive social work practice of all practice perspectives.

Recommendations

The purpose of this study was to examine the paradigm shift from a macro to a

micro focus in the social work field, and how the perspectives of emerging social work

helping professionals are not only affected by that shift, but also how those perspectives

perpetuate the evolvement of the field. This section includes a list of recommendations

for future research, as well as how this study could have garnered better results.

In the survey instrument, the researchers could have limited the amount of

response options so as to better discern more definite perspectives of the

participants.

The researchers could have worked for better access to all of the Practice class

professors at CSUS. This would have allowed for a larger sample size, and

allowed for potentially greater validity and reliability if all second year students

had been surveyed.

The researchers could have utilized a qualitative research design that asked the

student participants what their baseline understanding of macro and micro are,

and what past or current experience or education led to that understanding.

73

Social work educational programs could work better at offering a practical macro

curriculum. These programs could also better work to collaborate with macro,

system level agencies and programs to offer more macro experiential

opportunities.

Further research studies could further explore historical trends of the pendulum

shift compared to current societal trends and how the social work field is evolving

in response.

Further research studies could extrapolate on and explore how the pendulum shift

in social work adversely affects the populations the field is supposed to serve.

Limitations

At the conclusion of this research project, the researchers determined there were

some limitations with this study. The sample size of this study (N=74) was small and did

not encapsulate all second year MSW students at CSUS. At the conclusion of this study

the researchers determined that greater access to the professors of the Practice classes

where the questionnaires were disseminated would have allowed for a larger sample size.

Furthermore, the researchers realize that the MSW program at CSUS is just one social

work education program out of hundreds across the country, so the acquired sample size

is not necessarily determinate on the social work education community as a whole. The

researchers also concluded that due to the relatively small sample size, the 5 answer

Likert scale utilized on the survey questionnaire allowed for too many variances for the

sample size, resulting losing some data due to insignificance. The researchers found that

the data collected was not representative of anecdotal data the researchers had observed

74

throughout their time in the MSW program. Due to the quantitative nature of the study,

there was no way to determine the truthfulness of the student respondents when asked to

assess their own knowledge level and skills obtained. Furthermore, the researchers had an

assumption that students would have a linear understanding of micro and macro level

social work, and did not account for how the very educational curriculum they were

questioning was most likely where the participants understanding of macro and micro

originated. With such a multi-faceted and abstract research question, the researchers

believe a qualitative study may have better allowed gathering more honest and detailed

data. Lastly, the findings of this study relate directly to the curriculum and professors at

CSUS’s MSW program and cannot be used to generalize on all other social work

education programs in the United States.

Conclusion

This chapter provided a conclusion on the findings made from this research study.

In this chapter there were summaries of key findings provided, as well as discussion on

those summaries and how they compare and contrast to the literature review found in

chapter two. Next, a discussion of the study findings, implications for social work and

limitations of the study were presented. This chapter concluded with a list of

recommendations for how this study could have provided stronger results, as well as

recommended directives for future research on this topic.

75

APPENDICES

76

Appendix A

Survey Instrument

Please circle the response that best matches how you feel about each statement.

1. I feel that I have an understanding of what "macro" means in regard to the field of

Social Work.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

2. I feel that my MSW I courses provided balanced emphases on micro, mezzo, and

macro perspectives.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

3. I came into the social work field with an interest in a macro level.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

4. I entered my MSW education with an interest in micro level.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

5. I feel that becoming an LCSW has been encouraged by my professors in the Division

of Social Work

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

6. I have an understanding of what employment opportunities are available at a macro

level.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

7. I have a strong understanding of how my role as a Social Worker is affected by the

macro level.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

8. I have an understanding of what employment opportunities are available at a micro

level.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

77

9. Overall, the program at Sac State has offered multiple opportunities to learn about

macro practice.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

10. Overall, the program at Sac State has offered multiple opportunities to learn about

service delivery.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

11. I believe that the professors at this university believe that macro practice is an

important aspect of the social work field, especially in regards to service delivery.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

12. I believe I have a firm grasp of the history of social work.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

13. I believe that I understand the foundation of the social work profession in regards to

social action.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

14. I believe that I understand the foundation of the social work profession in regards to

advocacy.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

15. I believe that I understand the foundation of the social work profession in regards to

policy change.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

16. I have a strong understanding of how policy affects my daily practice as a social

worker.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

17. I feel confident in my ability to critically analyze social work policy.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

78

18. I feel confident in my ability to prepare a policy interpretation.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

19. I understand how the "social justice" mentioned in the NASW Code of Ethics is

present in my daily practice as a Social Worker.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Please circle the most appropriate responses for the following questions below regarding

your background.

20. What is your gender?

Male/Female

21. What is your ethnic background?

Caucasian/Non-Caucasian

22. Which level of practice interests you most?

Micro

Macro

Both Micro and Macro

23. How much social work experience do you have in either micro or macro level?

Less than one year

Between 1 to 5 years

More than 5 years

79

Appendix B

Participation Confirmation / Informed Consent

STUDY TITLE: Paradigm Shift, from Macro to Micro: Perspectives of Emerging

Helping Professionals

Our names are Katherine Nicholas and Katie Perry and we are second year graduate

student in the Division of Social Work program at California State University,

Sacramento. We would like to invite you to participate in this research study because

your perspective and opinion is important regarding your understanding of the different

macro and micro facets of the social work practice field.

If you choose to participate in this study, please complete the following survey. The

survey will take no more than 15 to 20 minutes to complete. The knowledge gained from

this study may benefit future social work practice in micro/macro settings.

There are no known sociological and economic risks associated with your participation in

this study. The questions in the survey ask about your understanding and opinions of

micro/macro level social work. There is a minimal risk that you may feel embarrassed

regarding your level of understanding of micro/macro levels of practice. Because the

surveys are paper surveys, other people in the classroom may come in contact with the

information you provide, which could compromise confidentiality. However, your

identity to the researchers will remain anonymous as well as your survey answers will

also be kept confidential at all times. Information collected will only be reported in

aggregate form.

Among the measures taken to insure confidentiality is the encryption of all electronic

data collected and/or entered into a database (data stored behind a secure firewall). Hard

copied data will be maintained in a safe, locked location and any descriptive information

collected will be destroyed by August 31 of 2015.

You are free to withdraw your consent, skip answering any questions, and/or discontinue

your participation in this study at any time. By choosing to complete and turn in this

survey, you have given us your implied consent and therefore agree to participate in this

study.

80

We are highly appreciative of your time. Please feel free to contact Katherine Nicholas at

katherine.nicholas@yahoo.com or Katie Perry at katieperry@csus.edu if you have any

questions. You may also contact Maria Dinis, Ph.D., MSW, the project advisor/chair, at

(916) 278-7167, or dinis@csus.edu. For questions about your rights as a participant in

this research study, please call the Office of Research Affairs, California State

University, Sacramento, (916) 278-5674, or email irb@csus.edu.

I have read the descriptive information on the Research Participation cover letter. I

understand that my participation is completely voluntary. My completion of the survey

and handing it into the researchers implies that I am agreeing to participate in this

study. I may keep this copy of the Research Participation cover letter for my records.

81

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO

DIVISION OF SOCIAL WORK

Appendix C

Human Subjects Approval

To: Katherine Nicholas & Katie Perry Date: November 18, 2014

From: Research Review Committee

RE: HUMAN SUBJECTS APPLICATION

Your Human Subjects application for your proposed study, “Paradigm Shift, from

Macro to Micro: Perspectives of Emerging Helping Professionals”, is Approved as

Exempt. Discuss your next steps with your thesis/project Advisor.

Your human subjects Protocol # is: 14-15-035. Please use this number in all official

correspondence and written materials relative to your study. Your approval expires one

year from this date. Approval carries with it that you will inform the Committee

promptly should an adverse reaction occur, and that you will make no modification in the

protocol without prior approval of the Committee.

The committee wishes you the best in your research.

Research Review Committee members Professors Jude Antonyappan, Teiahsha

Bankhead, Maria Dinis, Serge Lee, Kisun Nam, Francis Yuen

Cc: Dinis

82

References

Abramovitz, M. (1998). Social work and social reform: An arena of struggle. National

Association of Social Workers, Inc., 512-526.

Barker, R. (2014). The social work dictionary. Washington D.C. NASW Press

Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). (2008). Educational Policy and

Accreditation Standards. Retrieved from www.cswe.org.

CSU Sacramento. (2012). Factsheet. Retrieved from: www.csus.edu/oir.

DeNavas - Walt, C. & Proctor, B. (2014). U.S. Department of Commerce. Income and

Poverty in the United States: 2013. Issued 2014. Retrieved from

www.census.gov.

Direct Practice. (n.d.) In Oxford Bibliographies. Retrieved

from http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-

9780195389678/obo- 9780195389678-0004.xml.

Donaldson, L., Hill, K., Ferguson, S., Fogel, S., & Erickson, C. (2014). Contemporary

social work licensure: Implications for macro social work practice and

education. National Association of Social Workers, 52-61.

Duncan, G. J. and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). Family poverty, welfare reform, and child

development. Child Development, 71, 188–196. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00133

Dyeson, T. B. (2004) Social Work licensure: A brief history and description. . Home

Health Care Management & Practice, 16, 5, 408-411.

Epple, D. (2007). Inter and intra professional social work differences: Social work

challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 35, 267-276.

83

Fook, J. & Pease, B. (1999). Transforming social work practice: Postmodern critical

perspectives. New York, NY. Routledge.

Glicken, M.D. (2011). Social work in the 21st century: An introduction to social

welfare, social issues, and the profession, second edition. Phoenix, AZ: SAGE

Publications, Inc.

Hansan, J.E. (2010, December 14). Jane Addams (1860-1935): Founder of Hull House,

social reformer, women’s advocate and winner of Nobel Peace Prize. Retrieved

from http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/organizations/addams-jane/).

Haynes, K. (1998). The one hundred-year debate: Social reform versus individual

treatment. National Association of Social Workers, Inc., 501-509.

Haynes, K., & Mickelson, J.S. (2010). Affecting change social workers in the political

arena. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hepworth, D.H., Rooney, R.H., Rooney, G.D., Strom-Gottfried, K., Larsen, J. (2010).

Direct social work practice theory and skills. Brooks Cole, Cengage

Learning.http://books.google.com/books?id=e22Hiy4Ev2sC&printsec=frontco

ver#v=onepage&q&f=false

Howe, D. (1994). Modernity, postmodernity and social work. British Journal of social

work, 24(5), 513-532. Retrieved from:

http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/5/513.abstract

Jarman-Rohde, L., McFall, J., Kolar, P., & Strom, G. (1997). The changing context of

social work practice: implications and recommendations for social work

educators. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 29-46.

84

Johnson, M. M., & Rhodes, R. (2010). Human behavior and the larger social

environment: A new synthesis (2nd edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon (Pearson

Education Inc).

Johnston, D., & Huff, D. (1987). Licensing exams: how valid are they?. National

Association of Social Workers, Inc., 159-161.

Karger, H.J., & Stoez, D. (2014). American social welfare policy: A pluralist approach.

Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Kennedy, R. (2012, January 29). Masters of social work (MSW). CSUS Division of

Social Work. Sacramento, CA.

Kennedy, R. (2014). Annual assessment report template - Master of social work. CSUS

Division of Social Work. Sacramento, CA.

Kennedy, R., Yuen F., & O'Keefe, M. (2013, June 28). Division of social work MSW

program annual assessment. CSUS Division of Social Work. Sacramento, CA.

Leedy, E.P., & Ormrod, J. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design. Boston:

Pearson.

Limb, G., & Organista, K. (2003). Comparisons between caucasian students, students of

color, and American Indian students on their views on social work's traditional

mission, career motivations, and practice preferences. Journal of Social Work

Education, 39, 91-109.

Lynch, R. S. & Mitchell, J. (1995). Justice system advocacy: A must for NASW and the

social work community. National Association of Social Workers, 9-11.

85

Macro Social Work. (n.d.). In Boston University School of Social Work. Retrieved

from http://www.bu.edu/ssw/academics/msw/concentrations/macro/.

Martinez-Brawley, E. E. (1999). Social work, postmodernism and higher education.

International Social Work, 42(3), 333-346.

Medicaid. (2015). The center for Medicaid and CHIP services. Behavior Health

Services. Retrieved from www.medicaid.gov.

Mizrahi, T., & Dodd, S.(2013). MSW students' perspectives on social work goals and

social activism before and after completing graduate education. Journal of

Social Work Education, 49, 580-600.

Moore, L., & Johnston, L. (2002). Involving students in political advocacy and social

change. Journal of Community Practice, 10, 89–101.

NASW Center for Workforce Studies. (2015). Retrieved from

http://workforce.socialworkers.org.

National Association of Social Workers. (1996). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from

http://socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp.

Netting. F. E. (2005). The future of macro social work. Advances in Social Work, 6, 51–

59.

Paradigm Shift. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved

from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/paradig

m-shift

86

Peters, H. I. (2009). Navigating the shifting sands of social work terrain: Social work

practice in postmodern conditions. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 20,

45-58.

Reisch, M. & Wenocur, S. (March 1986). The future of community organization in

social work: Social activism and the politics of profession building. Social Service

Review, 70-93.

Ritter, A. J. (2013). Social work policy practice: Changing our community, nation, and

the world. Boston: Pearson Publishing.

Rothery, M. (2001). Theoretical perspectives for direct social work practice. Lehmann,

P. & Coady, N. (Eds.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.

Rothman, J. & Mizrachi, T. (2014, January). Balancing micro and macro practice: A

challenge for social work. Social Work, 59 (1), 91-93. doi: 10.1093/sw/swt067.

Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2011). Research methods for social work (7th ed.). Belmont,

CA: Brooks/Cole.

Shneider, R., & Netting, F. E. (1999). Influencing social policy in a time of devolution:

Upholding social work's great tradition. National Association of Social

Workers, inc, 349-357.

Specht, H., & Courtney, M. (1994). Unfaithful angels: How social work has

abandoned its mission. New York, NY: Free Press.

Stoesz, D. & Karger H. J. (2009). Reinventing social work accreditation. Research on

Social Work Practice, 19(1) 104-111.

87

Tannenbaum, N. & Reisch M. (2001, September 11). From charitable volunteers to

architects of social welfare: A brief history of social work. Retrieved from http://

ssw.umich.edu/about/history/brief-history-of-social-work.

Thomas, M. L., Netting, F. E., & O'Connor, M. K. (2011). A framework for teaching

community practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 47, 2, 337-355.

Tyler, T. & Boeckmann, R. (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why? The

Psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law and Society

Review, 31 (2). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover.

United States Census Bureau. 2013. 2013 Highlights. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/.

Vincent, N. J. (2013). Exploring the integration of social justice into social work

research curricula. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(2), 205-222.

Vodde, R., & Galiant, J. P. (2002). Bridging the gap between micro and macro practice:

Large scale change and a unified model of narrative-deconstructive practice.

Journal of Social Work Education, 38, 439-458.

Yamada, M. & Eggman, S. (2013). AB 252. Social Workers. Retrieved from

www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.