My Future as a Human Services Professional
[WLO: 4] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 5]
Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read Chapters 13, 14 and the epilogue from your text,
The generalist model: Where do the micro and macro converge? (Links to an external site.)
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Week 6 Final paper
Just from $13/Page
and
Self-care in the world of empirically supported treatments (Links to an external site.)
. Your final paper should identify and analyze a specific need identified by a community.
Your summative assessment will require you to reflect on your future as a human services professional. In your paper, you must comprehensively address the following:
- Evaluate your career selection that was made in Week 1.
What populations do you want to serve and in what capacity?
What type of organization do you want to be working for in the future (or now if you plan to stay with your organization as you advance)?
- Appraise the past, current, and future societal issues facing the human services profession with your chosen population and organization.
Evaluate a minimum of one historical issue related to your population.
What current challenges might your clients face and how might this impact your organization as well as your work?
What future societal issues might your clients and organization face?
- Evaluate how you might perform your role in this field.
How might you be supervised?
What might your working relationships be with your colleagues?
How will you maintain healthy boundaries with clients?
What other services might your organization offer and how might these services interact with yours.
- Assess the impact that the community will have on your clients and organization?
How will you work to serve your clients within the community?
How do you think you will have an impact on the global needs in terms of the population you have chosen to serve?
- Compare the human services organization where you currently work or might work with a similar human services organization that serves the same population.
Outline the similarities and differences, evaluating which is more of an effective model of a human services agency.
The My Future as a Human Services Professional final paper
For further assistance with the formatting and the title page, refer to
APA Formatting
The Generalist Model: Where do the Micro and Macro Converge?
Shari E. Miller
Carolyn J. Tice
Diane M. Harnek Hall
Abstract. Although macro issues are integral to social work, students continue to struggle
with the acquisition of knowledge and skills pertaining to larger systems. Educators have
developed innovative methods to integrate learning across systems of various sizes
however it appears an imbalance persists. This challenge is supported by baccalaureate
student responses to a social work program evaluation. Four years of data from 295
undergraduate students revealed that they felt less prepared to practice with larger,
macro systems. Changes in curriculum to reflect collaboration and holism, and more
research are needed to adequately provide macro learning and macro practice
opportunities within the generalist model and in the context of the current socio-
economic-political environment.
Keywords: Generalist model; macro practice; macro learning; social work education
Research findings indicate that social work students have notably more learning
opportunities to work with individuals, families, and groups than they do to work with
communities and organizations (Butler & Coleman, 1997; Hymans, 2000; Koerin,
Reeves, & Rosenblum, 2000; Raber & Richter, 1999). Of particular concern is the
reluctance of many students to consider involvement in social action through activities
such as lobbying, legal advocacy, and neighborhood organizing (Kasper & Wiegand,
1999). As such, social work students may be hampered in their abilities and/or
willingness to develop the skill sets necessary to identify and utilize organizational and
community strengths to empower clients and effect systems change (Koerin et al., 2000).
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The Generalist Model
The socio-political climate of the late 1960’s and 70’s encouraged social work
educators to evaluate the content and conceptual frameworks of social work practice
(Bisno, 1971; Iacono-Harris & Nuccio, 1987; Pincus & Minahan, 1973; Teare &
McPheeters, 1970). The result of this evaluative effort was the emergence of the
generalist model, a method of practice that integrates casework, group work, and
community organization, and focuses on the interaction between persons and their
environments. According to Compton, Galaway, and Cournoyer (2004), the notion of
person-in-the-environment allows for change strategies directed toward (a) individuals,
(b) the environment, and, (c) the interface between the individual and his/her
environment (Iacono-Harris & Nuccio, 1987, p. 80). For Johnson (1998), the generalist
_________________
Shari E. Miller, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the School of Social Work, University of Georgia, Athens. Carolyn J.
Tice, DSW, is Associate Dean and Program Chair of the University of Maryland Baltimore County Department of Social
Work. Diane M. Harnek Hall, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Family Studies and Community
Development at Towson University.
Copyright © 2008 Advances in Social Work Vol. 9 No. 2 (Fall 2008), 79-90
Miller, Tice, Hall/THE GENERALIST MODEL 80
approach requires that social workers recognize the variety of systems that interact with
one another and that interact with people (Meenaghan, Gibbons, & McNutt, 2005). The
generalist model provides the overarching structure for the undergraduate social work
and foundation year graduate curriculum continuum.
Several generalist perspectives have emerged including those of Tolson, Reid, and
Garvin (2002) who present a task-centered approach to generalist practice; Miley,
O’Melia, and Dubois (2008) who suggest an empowerment approach; and McMahon
(1990; 1996) who presents a problem-solving approach. These models all include a
structure and process that direct the social worker to approach each client and situation
with openness to the use of a variety of techniques and levels of intervention (Waites,
2000). Whatever the perspective, generalist practice is multi-method, multi-theoretical,
and transferable across diverse fields of practice, settings, and populations. Further
generalist practice uses problem-solving to assess and intervene in micro, mezzo, and
macro systems. Though there are some definitional differences between and across social
work programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels, there appear to be universal
points of agreement, including that generalist practice:
1. Uses the person-in-the-environment perspective as the theoretical foundation for
assessments and interventions.
2. Involves assessments that support interventions involving micro, mezzo, and
macro practice.
3. Assumes that social workers will have diverse roles such as educator, advocate,
counselor, planner, organizer, and administrator.
4. Integrates practice, policy, and research through roles and functions.
5. Conceptualizes practice as comprised of engagement, assessment, planning,
implementation, and evaluation (Gelman & Mirabito, 2005; Kirst-Ashman &
Hull, 2008; Miley, et al., 2008; Poulin, 2000).
Macro Practice
Macro practice is intrinsic to the generalist model, so how is this level of intervention
defined? According to Long, Tice, and Morrison (2006), macro practice “involves the
ability to see and intervene in the big picture, specifically with larger systems in the
socioeconomic environment” (p. 3). Macro practice can include collaboration with clients
to strengthen and maximize opportunities for people at the organizational, community,
societal, and global levels. Many social workers would argue that the profession’s
particular attention to state, national, and international issues of importance to clients,
distinguishes social work from other helping professions (Glisson, 1994; Long et al.,
2006).
Historically the term indirect practice was used to denote the elements of macro
practice. Unlike the term direct practice, which characterized specifically face-to-face
contact with clients, indirect practice was used to refer to social work’s commitment to
change-efforts at the environmental level with a focus on societal issues such as poverty,
ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Fall 2008, 9(2) 81
housing, and healthcare (Pierce, 1989). Thus, macro activities, by definition, extend
beyond individual interventions but are often based on needs, problems, issues, and
concerns identified in the course of working one-on-one with clients (Netting, Kettner, &
McMurtry, 1998).
Larger systems are typically the focus of macro level work. According to Rothman,
Erlich, and Tropman (1995), there are three key arenas of macro intervention:
communities, organizations, and small groups. Kirst-Ashman and Hull (2008) state that
integrating generalist social work practice with macro systems involves interventions that
(a) maintain positive community social processes, (b) develop and restore social
processes that can contribute to human development and functioning, and (c) empower
individuals and small systems to influence the larger systems affecting people’s lives (pp.
116-117).
Other writers focus on the policy context in which macro intervention occurs as
policy change is integral to communities and organizations (Fisher, 1995; Flynn, 1992;
Jansson, 1994). As stated by Netting, et al. (1998), fundamental to macro practice and
subsequent broad based change is “an understanding of overriding ideologies and values
that influence local, state, and national politics” (p.7). The strengths and empowerment
models have enhanced the macro perspective by focusing on elements such as positive
attributes and social power essential to achieving positive change (Meenaghan et al.,
2005; Saleebey, 2005; 2003).
The literature related to social work education includes a variety of different
strategies to enrich macro content, some of which engage students in the context of the
classroom, others through the field experience (Koerin et al., 2000). One identified
approach requires students to engage in an in-depth community study or needs
assessment within the context of a macro practice class (Hymans, 2000; Sherraden,
1993). Bordelon (2003) describes a practice class in which students create a university-
community partnership along with their instructor, and Huber and Orlando (1993) define
an innovation that engages students in an in-class, hypothetical project to challenge the
bounds of their interventive thinking. Other approaches invite students to engage in
advocacy (Butler & Coleman, 1997; Raber & Richter, 1999), and still further approaches
are designed to address the nature of field placements, field assignments and field
instruction (Allen & Shragge, 1995; Kasper & Wiegand, 1999; Koerin et al., 2000; Siu,
1991; Skolink & Papell, 1994; Wolk, Pray, Weismiller, & Dempsey, 1996).
Social work educators conclude that macro practice necessitates that students both
produce and consume research (Walsh, 1998). Examples of assignments that integrate a
macro perspective with research are community assessments, organizational analyses,
and surveys (Dunlap, 1993; Grinnell & Kyle, 1977; Plionis, 1993). Thus macro practice
much like micro and mezzo intervention uses critical thinking to engage in (a) problem
identification and definition, (b) study, exploration, and data collection, (c) differential
assessment, planning, and intervention, (d) evaluation, (e) termination, and (f) follow-up
(Meenaghan et al., 2005, p. 9).
Miller, Tice, Hall/THE GENERALIST MODEL 82
STUDENTS’ EVALUATION OF MACRO LEARNING
To better understand the student experience of learning macro practice several years
of program evaluation data were analyzed. A program evaluation was developed in
accordance with the Council on Social Work Education standards by faculty at a large
mid-Atlantic baccalaureate social work program. Questions were designed to help
evaluate the quality and effectiveness of (a) the overall baccalaureate social work
program, (b) the field education setting and experience including evaluation of the
agency, field instructor and specific assignments within the agency, and (c) the field
liaison component of the program. Face validity was confirmed through faculty
development, and internal consistency was analyzed and found to be high (Cronbach’s α
= .97). However no other tests of validity or reliability were administered.
The sample included all graduating baccalaureate social work students for the years
2004 through 2007 (n=312). Completed program evaluations were collected from a total
of 295 students (95% response rate) at the end of the spring semester during their
graduating year. A majority of the respondents were female (91.3%) and white (59.8%).
The other racial groups represented were African American (22.0%), Hispanic (10.4%),
Asian American (3.5%), bi/multiracial (1.2%), and other (3.1%). The respondents ranged
in age from 20 to 63 years, with a mean age of 28 years. The gender and racial
characteristics of the study’s respondents are similar to those of social work students
across the nation (Lennon, 1999; Knight, 2002).
A MANOVA analysis was utilized to compare data from year to year (2004 through
2007) – no significant differences on overall program evaluation findings emerged. In the
four years of program evaluation the same two areas of inquiry reflected a noticeable
pattern of responses related to the level of system. Responses to two areas of questioning
(feelings of preparedness and extent of experience) illustrate the differences in students’
perspectives regarding varying system levels.
Macro Experience in Field Assignments
The program evaluation asked the respondents to evaluate on a 5-point Likert scale
(“1” = low; “5” = high) the extent of experience gained in field education assignments
that integrated generalist practice across client systems. Such assignments pertained to
individuals, groups, and community involvement. As described in Table 1, respondents
reported a high degree of experience with field assignments involving individuals (M =
4.43; SD = .961). Assignments with groups (M = 3.35; SD = 1.46) yielded a lower level
of experience, yet still more experience noted than that pertaining to community
assignments (M = 3.24; SD = 1.29). The findings from the evaluation suggest that, for the
evaluation of assignments in this sample, the larger the client system the lower the level
of experience among students.
ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Fall 2008, 9(2) 83
TABLE 1: What was the extent of your experiences in assignments with: (1 low
through 5 high)
Rating Individuals Groups Communities
1 2.4% 18.2% 12.4%
2 3.4% 10.7% 16.5%
3 9.2% 18.9% 25.1%
4 19.1% 22.7% 26.5%
5 65.9% 29.6% 19.6%
Preparedness to Use Knowledge and Skills in Macro Practice
Respondents were asked to consider their overall preparation in generalist social
work including both class and field education, and to rate on a 5-point Likert scale (“1” =
not at all; “5” = very much) for each item how well the program prepared them to
appropriately use the knowledge and skills of generalist social work practice with
individuals, groups, and communities. As indicated by Table 2 a majority of respondents
reported feeling very prepared to work with individuals (M = 4.46; SD = .702), while
responses of very prepared were much lower in work with groups (M = 3.80; SD = 1.06)
and communities (M = 3.18; SD = 1.05). Most graduates from this program seem to feel
less prepared to work with larger systems at graduation.
TABLE 2: How well has the program prepared you to practice with: (1 not
at all through 5 very much)
Rating Individuals Groups Communities
1 .3% 4.2% 5.9%
2 1.0% 5.9% 18.5%
3 7.0% 24.8% 38.3%
4 35.9% 36.0% 26.1%
5 55.7% 29.0% 11.1%
It is important to note that the lack of clarity and consistency in the language used to
discuss macro interventions and generalist practice in the literature had bearing upon the
Miller, Tice, Hall/THE GENERALIST MODEL 84
questions asked in the program evaluation. Similar to a limitation noted by Koerin, et al.,
(2000) the program evaluation reflected ambiguity when asking students to describe their
macro learning experiences in both the classroom and field placement. Also the findings
discussed are descriptive of this sample of graduates. Though the sample may reflect the
demographics of the population of baccalaureate social work graduates it may not be
representative of the population, which limits generalizability.
DISCUSSION OF PROGRAM EVALUATION FINDINGS
The four years of evaluation data reported in this article support the challenges of
integrating macro learning in the social work curriculum. Of particular concern is
students’ perceived imbalance between the micro and macro in the curriculum content
and field education experiences. Though the authors do not believe that a polarization of
micro and macro practice is a productive construction for the social work profession, the
authors recognize that an imbalance exists in the described baccalaureate program, and
from what is gathered from the literature, this imbalance exists pervasively (Butler &
Coleman, 1997; Huber & Orlando, 1993; Hymans, 2000; Kasper & Wiegand, 1999;
Koerin et al., 2000; Raber & Richter, 1999; Siu, 1991; Wolk et al., 1996). Over the past
100 years a debate has persisted within the profession that encourages the idea that micro
and macro social work are two mutually exclusive orientations (Haynes, 1998). By
polarizing practice in this way the fundamental values and ideas at the heart of social
work become muted. What identifies social work as a distinct profession is its focus on
the possibilities for change in the person and the environment. By polarizing micro and
macro practice social work becomes about the person in one vacuum and the
environment in another.
Over the course of the four years of evaluation the social work program discussed in
this article introduced pedagogical and experiential methods that attempted to integrate
micro practice with macro practice through lectures, in- and out-of-class assignments,
case studies, and continuing education sessions. However these attempts have not yet
resulted in any significant change in students’ evaluations – clearly other barriers to
integrating micro with macro practice exist.
Barriers to Integration of Micro and Macro Practice and Learning
The enormous changes in the fabric of the nation’s social welfare and social service
delivery systems are of particular significance to social work education. Welfare reform
legislation, devolution of policy responsibility and involvement in social service delivery
to states and localities, the increasing privatization of social services, agency budget cuts
and downsizing, the dominance of managed care in both health and mental health arenas,
and economic globalization have influenced the practice of social work and by extension
social work education (Jarman-Rohde, McFall, Kolar, & Strom, 1997; Reisch & Jarman-
Rohde, 2000).
Within this socio-political climate there is an enormous impact upon the availability
and quality of field placements and subsequently a great deal of shifting and increasing
demands placed on field education (Jarman-Rohde et al., 1997). According to Jarman-
ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Fall 2008, 9(2) 85
Rohde et al. (1997) for agencies the focus on productivity, accountability, and managed
care has created barriers to providing social work students with appropriate placements
and/or adequate supervision. Field instructors often carry heavy caseloads, are required to
do more paper work, and have less time to spend supervising students. At the same time
agency expectations regarding the types and breadth of student assignments increase
parallel to agency needs. Students are assigned increasing numbers of clients with
complex and multiple problems, yet agencies are also concerned about the potential
liability associated with having students on-site (Jarman-Rohde et al., 1997).
It has been documented that other barriers to making macro learning assignments
available to students in field education, though related to the large-scale shifts as
discussed above, are also traceable to the orientations of agencies and field instructors.
“Most agencies fail to validate macro practice tasks as worthy aspects of workers’
defined responsibilities, while the individual workers serving as field instructors possess
neither the competence nor the confidence to model and teach macro level practice
responses” (Butler & Coleman, 1997, p. 65). Although this position points to current
realities, and might even explain the strikingly consistent program evaluation findings, it
unfortunately fosters the culture of micro-macro encampment within the profession and
social work education.
The Future of Macro Learning
The complex environment of social work practice requires social work educators to
reassess the profession’s fundamental purpose. Historically social work has supported the
dynamics of individual, community, and societal change. Given the centrality of change
to social work, Reisch and Jarman-Rohde (2000) suggest that:
An expectation of change can provide social work educators with a
framework to comprehend and potentially influence that environment,
and thereby nourish a sense of hope and possibility in an era shrouded
with a growing sense of powerlessness and resignation (p. 212).
Reflective change is integral to this article’s focus. Program revisions are needed to
enhance macro learning content and to better integrate micro practice with macro practice
at the same time as the profession struggles to redefine its focus in an increasingly
complex and contentious social and political climate.
A number of social work educators suggest that the need for change in curriculum
and field education can be embraced as an opportunity (Abramowitz, 1998; Bisno & Cox,
1997; Jarman-Rohde et al., 1997; Reisch & Jarman-Rohde, 2000; Weil, 1996). Such
change values a model of social work education and practice that fosters a sense of
leadership and empowerment in clients, students, educators, field instructors, and in our
collective selves. A model of social work that invites meaningful change across levels of
interactions encourages not only students, but also practitioners and educators, to
consider their actions in the context of environments. A reflective stance that encourages
a view of the environment from within might encourage students, field instructors, and
classroom educators to see both what is up close and what might be a bit further away.
Expanding and enhancing content that connects micro and macro theory with practice
Miller, Tice, Hall/THE GENERALIST MODEL 86
requires faculty to ask questions as part of a dialogue with students, field instructors, and
each other. Some of these questions are:
1. In what ways does the “use of self” offer opportunities for re-organizing how the
macro can be found in and around the micro?
2. How do the values and principles of social work complement and/or conflict with
the national and international socio-political climate?
3. Does the generalist social work curriculum include content that supports not only
analysis of societal issues like oppression and poverty but also a call for
collective action that leads to peace, social justice, and social change?
4. What is the role of the international and/or the nontraditional field placement in
generalist social work education?
5. How can social work programs collaborate with agencies and communities to
provide students with macro learning opportunities?
6. To what degree do social work educators, field instructors, and professional
organizations model macro change efforts?
Although these emerging questions appear divergent in some ways, and although
they each require extensive dialogue to fully address, they share some common ground
and interlocking themes. Reflectivity, collaboration, and holism undergird the above
avenues of inquiry. In keeping with the work of Ruffolo and Miller (1994) the above
questions point to the need for university and agency collaboration and partnerships to
reciprocally inform curriculum development. Effective learning relies on exchange of
ideas, resources, and energy to teach practice skills in an increasingly diverse community
of social work agencies. Further, another ingredient of collaboration embedded in the
questions is that of social work educator as activist. By this we mean that, in order to
teach macro skills in an integrative way, the questions imply that the instructor be an
active participant in the learning process in and outside of the classroom. The practice
experience gained and shared by the instructor encourages students to reflect upon their
skill acquisition in a mutual learning environment (Ringel, 2003). Finally the challenge of
teaching macro skills in an integrated fashion underscores the need for a multi-method
holistic teaching approach in which students actively engage with readings, research, case
studies, multimedia resources, and social action opportunities that capture both domestic
and international large scale settings (Dewiest & Roche, 2001). Using an array of
teaching approaches encourages students to understand and apply macro practice from
different perspectives and by doing so bridges the gap between recognizing problems,
needs and strengths, and designing strategies for systematic change.
CONCLUSION
The program evaluation discussed in this article suggested that over a period of four
years undergraduate social work students rated their macro learning experiences as less
satisfactory than their micro ones. This consistent imbalance underscores the need to
examine the generalist curriculum as well as field experiences that involve the acquisition
ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Fall 2008, 9(2) 87
of skills and knowledge related to macro practice. Future research is needed to examine
approaches to enhance macro learning including agency and community collaborations
and in-class teaching innovations. The language of generalist practice might need to be
further clarified to best undertake future research. Research should also include
measurement of students’ macro skill development; evaluation of students’ opportunities
to gain practical experience in organizing, community assessment, and advocacy; and
assessment of the inclusion of macro content across the generalist curriculum.
Ideally this article and others like it will generate a dialogue within the profession
regarding macro experiences in generalist social work and where the micro and macro
converge. Given that all clients and agencies are influenced by their communities, as are
all social workers, the understanding of and skills to effect broad-based change are
critical to practice across all levels of intervention. Change as a unifying construct makes
social work, be it direct service in a clinical setting or grassroots organizing in a
community, the unique profession it is.
References
Abramowitz, M. (1998). Social work and social reform: An arena of struggle. Social
Work, 43, 512-526.
Allen, H. S., & Shragge, E. (1995). Community-based field placements: Recent
innovations. In G. Rogers (Ed.), Social work field education: View and visions (pp.
92-105). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Bisno, H. (1971). A theoretical framework for teaching social work methods and skills,
with particular reference to undergraduate social welfare education. In F. Lowenberg
& R. Dolgoff (Eds.), Teaching of practice skills in undergraduate social welfare and
other helping services (pp. 72-88). New York: Council on Social Work Education.
Bisno, H., & Cox, F. (1997). Social work education: Catching up with the present and the
future. Journal of Social Work Education, 33. Retrieved on October 12, 2005, from
EBSCOhost database.
Bordelon, T. D. (2003). People first: A case study in partnering with the community.
Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 8, 147-161.
Butler, S. S., & Coleman, P. A. (1997). Raising our voices: A macro practice assignment.
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 15, 63-80.
Compton, B. R., Galaway, B., & Cournoyer, B. R. (2004). Social work processes (7th
ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Dewiest, M., & Roche, S. E. (2001). Teaching about human rights in social work.
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 21(1/2), 137-155.
Dunlap, K. M. (1993). A history of research in social work education 1915-1991. Journal
of Social Work Education, 29, 293-300.
Fisher, R. (1995). Political social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 194-203.
Miller, Tice, Hall/THE GENERALIST MODEL 88
Flynn, J. P. (1992). Social agency policy: Analysis and presentation for community
practice. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Gelman, C. R., & Mirabito, D. M. (2005). Practicing what we teach: Using case studies
from 9/11 to teach crisis intervention from a generalist perspective. Journal of Social
Work Education, 41, 479-494.
Glisson, C.A. (1994). Should social work take greater leadership in research on total
systems of service? Yes. In W. Hudson & P. Nurius (Eds.), Controversial issues in
social work research (pp. 155-159). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Grinnell, R. M., & Kyle, N. S. (1977). A model for bridging the gap between
undergraduate research and practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 13(3), 30-36.
Haynes, K. S. (1998). The one hundred-year debate: Social reform versus individual
treatment. Social Work, 43, 501-509.
Huber, R., & Orlando, B. (1993). Macro assignment: Think big! Journal of Social Work
Education, 29. Retrieved on November 5, 2005, from EBSCOhost database.
Hymans, D. J. (2000). Teaching BSW students community practice using an
interdisciplinary neighborhood needs assessment project. Journal of Baccalaureate
Social Work, 5, 81-92.
Iacono-Harris, D. A., & Nuccio, K. E. (1987). Developing the macro pool: Turning
undergraduates on to macro practice. Administration in Social Work, 11, 79-86.
Jansson, B.S. (1994). Social policy: From theory to policy practice (2nd ed.). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
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. Retrieved on October 18, 2005, from
EBSCOhost database.
Johnson, L. C. (1998). Social work practice: A generalist approach (6th ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Kasper, B., & Wiegand, C. (1999). An undergraduate macro practice learning guarantee.
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 18, 99-112.
Kirst-Ashman, K., & Hull, G. (2008). Understanding generalist practice (5th ed.).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Knight, C. (2002). Teaching generalist social work practice: Students’ perceptions of the
importance of the instructor’s practice experience. Journal of Teaching in Social
Work, 7, 93-111.
Koerin, B. B., Reeves, J., & Rosenblum, A. (2000). Macro-learning opportunities: What
is really happening out there in the field? Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 6,
9-21
ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Fall 2008, 9(2) 89
Lennon, T. (1999). Statistics on social work education in the United States: 1998.
Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
Long, D., Tice. C. J., & Morrison, J. (2006). Macro social work practice: A strengths
perspective. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
McMahon, M. (1990). The general method of social work practice: A problem solving
approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McMahon, M. (1996). The general method of social work practice: A generalist
perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Meenaghan, T. M., Gibbons, W. E., & McNutt, J. G. (2005). Generalist practice in
larger settings: Knowledge and skills concepts. Chicago: Lyceum Books.
Miley, K. K., O’Melia, M., & Dubois, B. (2008). Generalist social work practice: An
empowering approach (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Netting, F. E., Kettner, P. M., & McMurtry, S. L. (1998). Social work macro practice.
New York: Longman.
Pierce, D. (1989). Social work and society: An introduction. New York: Longman.
Pincus, A., & Minahan, A. (1973). Social work practice: Model and method. Itasca, IL:
F. E. Peacock.
Plionis, E. M. (1993). Refocusing undergraduate research training: Making
conceptualization experiential. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 7, 49-61.
Poulin, J. (2000). Collaborative social work: Strengths-based generalist practice. Itasca,
IL: F. E. Peacock.
Raber, M., & Richter, J. (1999). Bringing social action back into the social work
curriculum: A model for “hands-on” learning. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,
19, 77-91.
Reisch, M., & Jarman-Rohde, L. (2000). The future of social work in the United States:
Implications for field education. Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 201-21.
Ringel, S. (2003). The reflective self: A path to creativity and intuitive knowledge in
social work practice and education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 23(3/4), 15-
28.
Rothman, J., Erlich, J. L., & Tropman, J. E. (1995). Tactics and techniques of community
intervention (3rd ed.). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
Ruffolo, M. C., & Miller, P. (1994). An advocacy/empowerment model of organizing:
Developing university-agency partnerships. Journal of Social Work Education, 30(3),
310-316.
Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (2005). The strengths perspective in social work practice (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Miller, Tice, Hall/THE GENERALIST MODEL 90
Saleebey, D. (2003). Power in the people: Strengths and hope. Advances in Social Work,
1, 127-136.
Sherraden, M. S. (1993). Community studies in the baccalaureate social work curriculum.
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 7, 75-88.
Siu, S. F. (1991). Providing opportunities for macro practice in direct service agencies:
One undergraduate program’s experience. Arete, 16(2), 46-51.
Skolink, L., & Papell, C. P. (1994). Holistic designs for field instruction in the
contemporary social work curriculum. Journal of Social Work Education, 30.
Retrieved on November 5, 2005, from EBSCOhost database.
Teare, R., & McPheeters, H. (1970). Manpower utilization in social welfare. Atlanta:
Southern Regional Education Board.
Tolson, E., Reid, W., & Garvin, C. (2002). Generalist practice: A task centered approach
(2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Waites, C. (2000). Assessing generalist problem-solving skills: An outcome measure.
Journal of Social Work Education, 6, 67-79.
Walsh, J. (1998). A model for integrating research, practice, and field instruction in the
undergraduate curriculum. Journal of Social Work Education, 17, 49-63.
Weil, M. O. (1996). Community building: Building community practice. Social Work, 41,
481-499.
Wolk, J. L., Pray, J. E., Weismiller, T., & Dempsey, D. (1996). Political practica:
Educating social work students for policymaking. Journal of Social Work Education,
32. Retrieved on October 24, 2005, from EBSCOhost database.
Author’s note:
Address correspondence to: Shari E. Miller, Ph.D., School of Social Work, The
University of Georgia, 209 Tucker Hall, Athens, GA 30602. E-mail: semiller@uga.edu.
mailto:semiller@uga.edu
