Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol

the child. Opposition to abortion is therefore a norm of higher conditionality than is the proscription against killing other human beings. The conditionality of a value or norm is defined by the number and variety of situations to which it applies consistently, that is, with the same polarity. A value or norm that has the same polarity across many and varied types of situations is a value or norm of low conditionality and therefore of high priority. A value or norm that has the same polarity in only a few similar types of situations is a value or norm of high conditionality and low priority.

Intent. Whether a value applies to a mode, means, or end of action has been labeled its intent (Kluckhohn 1951). Mode values pertain to the manner or style in which an action is carried out and refer to both the action and the actor. They pertain to qualities manifested in the act, and if such qualities are observed consistently over time for a type of action or for an actor, they are applied not just to a single instance of action but to a type of action or to an actor more generally. Adjectives such as ‘‘intelligent,’’ ‘‘independent,’’ ‘‘creative,’’ ‘‘responsible,’’ ‘‘kind,’’ and ‘‘generous’’ describe mode values. Instrumental values focus on necessary means to other ends. They refer to action that constitutes the means or from which the means are derived. For example, a job and the earnings it provides may be viewed as means to other ends such as acquiring the material resources necessary to sustain life. Goal values, in contrast, pertain to self-sufficient, or autonomous, ends of action. They are not subordinate to other values and are what an actor values most. Some analysts have argued that they can be defined as what an actor desires without limit. They focus on sources of intrinsic satisfaction or happiness but are distinguished from pleasures, which, except when elevated to become goal values, are satisfactions that are enjoyed incidentally and along the way. Pleasures are not necessarily based on beliefs about desirability, since they can be based on mere liking.

A norm may apply to a mode or means of action but not to an end of action. By requiring or prohibiting a way of acting or a type of action, norms limit the modes and means used in accomplishing ends. For example, the values of honesty and fairness govern modes and means of accomplishing ends, and associated with these values are norms that require honest and fair action.

Values and norms cannot always be identified as falling into a single category of intent. For some types of action, mode values and norms and instrumental or goal values and norms overlap; choosing an action as a means or to directly achieve an end actually defines the mode of action. For example, accomplishing a task by a means that shows concern for others defines a mode of acting that is kind, considerate, polite, and caring. Choosing to accomplish a task by honest means defines a mode of acting honestly. Acting to achieve an end that benefits others defines a mode of acting that is caring, giving, and generous. Mode values and norms and instrumental or goal values and norms do not always overlap, however. A given mode may be applied to a variety of means and ends, and choosing a means or acting to achieve an end does not necessarily imply or define a mode. For example, for modes that reflect ability or competence, as described by adjectives such as ‘‘intelligent’’, ‘‘creative,’’ ‘‘efficient,’’ ‘‘courageous,’’ ‘‘organized,’’ and ‘‘self-reliant,’’ there may be no necessary connection or only a limited one between the values reflected in the mode and the values reflected in the acts undertaken as means or ends.

Differentiating between instrumental values and goal values is difficult because the two types are interdependent. Their relationship is not just one of sequence, since achieving particular ends may require the use of certain means (Kluckhohn 1951; Fallding 1965). Differentiating between instrumental values and goal values also requires reflection by the actor. An important concern of moral philosophy has been identifying the end or ends of action that ultimately bring satisfaction to human beings, that is, that have genuine, intrinsic value (Lovejoy 1950). The focus has been on identifying important goal values and distinguishing them from less important instrumental values. This means–end distinction is not as well developed in the category systems of all cultures as it is in Western culture (Kluckhohn 1951), and even among persons exposed to Western culture, it is not developed equally or similarly in all actors. Not all actors make the distinction or make it in the same way. What are instrumental values to some actors are goal values to others.

When mode, instrumental, and goal values are separable, they can all affect behavior. Sometimes they point to identical actions, and sometimes they do not. Similarly, when mode and

instrumental norms are separable, both can affect behavior. Among values that can pertain to either means or ends, the distinction between instrumental and goal values is a dimension of importance, with goal values being of higher priority than instrumental values (Fallding 1965; Braithwaite and Law 1985). However, values that can pertain only to a mode or means are not necessarily of lower priority than are values that can pertain to ends.

Interrelationships. Because social structure, as defined both organizationally and culturally, links sets of values and norms, there are patterned relationships among the sets of values and norms held by actors. These relationships can be seen as being influenced by conceptual domain, dimensions of importance, behavioral context, and interdependence.

Conceptual Domain. Values and norms that are conceptually similar are thought of as falling within the same conceptual domain, and a conceptual domain is identified by the observation of strong empirical relationships among sets of values or norms. Domains that are conceptually distinct also can have relationships to one another. Compatible domains are positively related, and contradictory domains are negatively related. Empirical research provides some evidence of the existence of conceptual domains of values and norms and the relationships among them. For example, in Western societies, a value domain emphasizing pleasure, comfort, and enjoyment has a negative relationship to a prosocial value domain that emphasizes concern and responsibility for others. Similarly, a value domain emphasizing the extrinsic attainment of power, money, and position has a negative relationship to the prosocial value domain (Schwartz and Bilsky 1987). Values appear to be organized along at least three broad dimensions: (1) emphasis on the self versus others, (2) emphasis on achievement versus pleasure, and (3) emphasis on the external versus the internal. Although there has been less research on the pattern of interrelationships among norms, evidence indicates that norms fall into conceptual domains. Norms pertaining to honesty, for example, are conceptually separable from norms pertaining to personal freedom in family matters, sexuality, and mortality.

Dimensions of Importance. Interrelationships among values and norms also are affected by dimensions of importance, since these dimensions

affect their application across object units, social institutions, social roles, and behavioral contexts. Dimensions of importance such as centrality, range, and conditionality are linked to variability in application across object units, social institutions, and social roles. Values and norms that have high importance because they are broadly applicable are more likely to be interrelated than are values and norms that have low importance, which apply more narrowly. Values and norms that apply narrowly are related to each other and to values and norms that apply more broadly only under the conditions in which they apply.

Behavioral Context. Interrelationships among values and norms are influenced not only by conceptual domains and dimensions of importance but also by the behavioral contexts to which they apply. Values and norms that are relevant to the same or related behavioral contexts tend to be interrelated. For example, the values and norms that play a role in interpersonal relationships differ in some respects from those which play a role in educational and occupational performance. The value of concern for others and the norms that support it are of high priority in interpersonal relationships but can be of low priority in the performance of educational and occupational tasks.

Interdependence. Socially structured or otherwise necessary links among modes, means, and ends of action are a source of interdependence among values and norms. Mode values and norms and instrumental or goal values and norms can overlap, and instrumental and goal values are interdependent when achieving particular ends requires the use of certain means. This interdependence constrains the extent to which the relative priority of values can affect action. For example, attaining a less highly valued means cannot be forgone to attain a more highly valued end if the end cannot be attained without the means.

THE ORIGIN OF VALUES AND NORMS

Multiple values and norms are organized and linked in the cultures of human social systems, which are linked when they are internalized by human actors or institutionalized by corporate actors. Social values and norms, in contrast to personal, or internalized, values and norms refer to the values and norms of a social unit that encompasses more than one person. These may refer to the officially stated

or otherwise institutionalized values and norms of an organization or society, or to the collective, or shared, values and norms of the individuals who constitute a social unit such as an informal reference group, a formal organization, a society, or a societal subgroup defined by a shared characteristic. When a social value or norm refers to a collective property of the members of a social unit, it may be held with varying degrees of consensus by those who constitute that unit (Rossi and Berk 1985). An important difference between formal organizations and informal social groups or geographically defined social units is that formal organizations usually come into being for a specific purpose and are dedicated to particular types of activity and to achieving particular ends. As a result, their objectives are both narrower and more varied than those of other social units.

The Social Origin of Personal Values and Norms. The values and norms of individual persons derive from the social environments to which they are exposed. Through socialization, individuals become aware of and internalize social values and norms, which then become important internal determinants of action. An individual’s internalized values and norms reflect the values and norms of the society and the various subgroups and organizations within that society to which that individual is exposed, particularly, although not exclusively, in the early stages of the life course. Once social values and norms are internalized, they can direct the behavior of individuals irrespective of external influences. Internalized values and norms are a source of self-expectations and a basis of self-evaluation, with the subjective response to an outcome ensuing from the self-concept. Adherence to self-expectations enhances self-es- teem, producing a sense of pride and other favorable self-evaluations. Violation of self-expectations reduces self-esteem, producing guilt, self-depre- ciation, and other negative self-evaluations. To preserve a sense of self-worth and avoid negative self-evaluations, individuals try to behave in accordance with their internalized values and norms. Sociologists tend to see internalized values and norms as an important influence on human behavior, and this makes them see the social values and norms of society as governing and constraining the choices individuals make. Social values and norms also affect behavior because they are internalized by significant others and thus affect an

actor’s perception of other people’s expectations. To the extent that actors are motivated to comply with what they perceive the views of others to be, social values and norms become a source of external pressure that exerts an influence that is independent of an individual’s internalized values and norms.

Although change in personal values and norms occurs over the life course, there is some evidence that levels of stability are relatively high (Moss and Susman 1980; Sears 1983; Alwin 1994). It has been argued that values and norms that are more closely tied to the self-concept and considered more important are more resistant to change (Rokeach 1973; Glenn 1980). Those values and norms may undergo less change because they are internalized through conditioning-like processes that begin early in life and are strongly linked to existential beliefs. They tend to be tied to shared mental models that are used to construct reality and become embedded central elements of cognitive organization with a strong affective basis. Some types of values, norms, and attitudes (for example, political attitudes) are quite malleable into early adulthood and then become relatively stable. After this ‘‘impressionable,’’ or ‘‘formative,’’ period when change is greatest, they are relatively stable in midlife, and this stability either persists or declines in the later years (Alwin et al. 1991; Alwin 1994).

The pattern of life-course change and stability described above has been argued to be due to a number of influences. One is the process of biological and psychological maturation with age, which is most rapid in the early stages of life. As functional capacity develops, influences at that time have the advantage of primacy, and when they are consistent over a period of years, affective ‘‘mass’’ is built up. Nevertheless, some types of values, norms, and attitudes remain malleable into early adulthood, and strong pressure to change or weak earlier socialization can lead to resocialization in late adolescence or early adulthood (Sears 1981; Alwin et al. 1991). It is likely that change declines after early adulthood in part because individuals tend to act on previously formed values, norms, and attitudes as they seek new information and experiences. This selective structuring of new inputs enhances consistency over time, since new inputs tend to reinforce rather than call into question earlier ones.

Another influence on life-course change and stability in values and norms is change in social experiences and roles over the life course (Wells and Stryker 1988; Elder and Caspi 1990). These changes are extensive during the transitional years of early adulthood and may increase after retirement. They represent opportunities for change because they bring the individual into contact with new individuals, reference groups, and situations, and change in values and norms is likely to occur through both interaction with others and adaptation to situations. Role change can produce change as a role occupant engages in new behaviors, is exposed to new circumstances and information, and learns the norms governing role behavior. After early adulthood, a decline in the number of changes in social experiences and roles leads to greater stability in values and norms.

Sources of Change in Social Values and Norms. Change in social values and norms occurs through a variety of processes. One influence is historical change in the conditions of life that occurs through technological innovation, alterations in economic and social organization, and change in cultural ideas and forms. Historical change by definition involves ‘‘period effects,’’ but because those effects tend to be experienced differently by different birth cohorts (i.e., those at different ages when a historical change occurs), the influence of historical change on social values and norms occurs to some degree through a process of cohort succession.

Change in social values and norms also occurs through change in the social values and norms of subgroups of social units. This change can be of several types. First, change in the presence and size of subgroups with different values and norms produces change in the collective values and norms of the group. For example, the presence of new immigrant groups with different values and norms or a change in the relative size of groups with different values and norms affects the values and norms of the collective unit. Second, change in the degree of similarity or difference in the values and norms of subgroups can produce change in overall values and norms. On the one hand, acculturation through intergroup contact and similar experiences will reduce the distinctiveness of subcultural groups; on the other hand, segregation and increasing divergence in the life experiences of subgroups will widen their cultural distinctiveness.

Third, some subcultural groups may be more subject to particular period influences than others are, and this differential responsiveness can increase or decrease differences in values and norms among subgroups.

Another source of change in social values and norms is change in exposure to social organizations that exert distinct socializing influences. For example, exposure to religious, educational, or work organizations may produce differences in values and norms between those with such exposure and those without it. The extent to which exposure to different organizational environments is likely to affect personal values and norms depends on the distinctiveness of those environments, which also is subject to change. Thus, social values and norms are affected by both changes in the exposure of the population to different organizations and changes in what is socialized by those organizations.

THE ROLE OF VALUES AND NORMS IN

EXPLAINING BEHAVIOR

The ways in which values and norms influence behavior must be understood in a larger explanatory framework, and models of purposive action in all the social sciences provide that framework (Marini 1992). These models rest on the assumption that actors are purposive, acting in ways that tend to produce beneficial results. Although the models of purposive action that have emerged in various social sciences differ in the nature of the assumptions made about purposive action, they share the basic proposition that people are motivated to achieve pleasure and avoid pain and that this motivation leads them to act in ways that, at least within the limits of the information they possess and their ability to predict the future, can be expected to yield greater reward than cost. If reward and cost are defined subjectively and individuals are assumed to act in the service of subjective goals, this proposition links subjective utility, or value, to action. In sociology, a model of purposive action assumes the existence of actors who may be either persons or corporate actors. The usefulness of these models in sociology hinges on making appropriate connections between the characteristics of social systems and the behavior of actors (the macro–micro connection) and between

the behavior of actors and the systemic outcomes that emerge from the combined actions of multiple actors (the micro–macro connection).

In a model of purposive action, an individual actor (person or corporate actor) is assumed to make choices among alternative actions structured by the social system. Choices among those actions are based on the outcomes expected to ensue from those actions, to which the actor attaches some utility, or value, and which the actor expects with some probability. The choices of the actor are governed by beliefs of three types: (1) the perceived alternatives for action available, (3) the perceived consequences expected to result from each alternative, and (3) the perceived probabilities with which those consequences are expected to result. The choices of the actor also are governed by the actor’s preferences, or the subjective utility (rewards and costs) of the consequences expected to result from each alternative. Values and norms are among the preferences of an actor that influence action. As evaluative beliefs that synthesize affective and cognitive elements, they affect the utility of the outcomes expected to ensue from an action. Action often results not from a conscious weighing of the expected future benefits of alternatives but from a less deliberate response to internalized or institutionalized values and norms (Emerson 1987). The actor’s finite resources—the human, cultural, social, and material capital available to the actor that enables or precludes action—operate as influences on the choices made by the actor.

The component of a model of purposive action that makes the macro–micro connection links the characteristics of the social system to the behavior of actors and models the effects of social structure (both organizational and cultural) on the beliefs and preferences of actors as well as on the available alternatives for action and actors’ resources. In this component of the model, characteristics of the micro model are taken as problematic and to be explained. These characteristics include: (1) the beliefs and preferences on the basis of which an actor makes choices, (2) the alternatives available to an actor, and (3) the resources available to an actor. A third component of a model of purposive action makes the micro– macro connection, linking the behavior of individual actors to the systemic outcomes that emerge

from the combined actions of multiple actors. This link may occur through a simple mechanism such as aggregation, but it is more likely that outcomes emerge through a complex interaction in which the whole is not just the sum of its parts. The action, or behavior, of the system is usually an emergent consequence of the interdependent actions of the actors that compose it.

REFERENCES

Allport, Gordon W., Philip E. Vernon, and Gardner Lindsey 1960 Manual: Study of Values, 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Alwin, Duane F. 1994 ‘‘Aging, Personality, and Social Change: The Stability of Individual Differences Cover the Adult Life Span.’’ In D. I. Featherman, R. M. Lerner, and M. Perlmutter, eds., Life Span Development and Behavior, vol. 12. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

———, Ronald L. Cohen, and Theodore M. Newcomb 1991 Political Attitudes over the Life-Span: The Bennington Women after Fifty Years. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

———, and Jon A. Krosnick. 1985. ‘‘The Measurement of Values in Surveys: A Comparison of Ratings and Rankings.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 49:535–552.

Braithwaite, V. A., and H. G. Law 1985 ‘‘Structure of Human Values: Testing the Adequacy of the Rokeach Value Survey.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49:250–263.

Elder, Glen H., and Avshalom Caspi 1990 ‘‘Studying Lives in a Changing Society: Sociological and Personological Explorations.’’ In A. I. Rabin, R. A. Zucker, R. A. Emmons, and S. Frank, eds., Studying Persons and Lives. New York: Springer.

Emerson, Richard M. 1987 ‘‘Toward a Theory of Value in Social Exchange.’’ In K. S. Cook, eds., Social Exchange Theory. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Fallding, Harold 1965 ‘‘A Proposal for the Empirical Study of Values.’’ American Sociological Review

30:223–233.

Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen 1975 Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Gibbs, Jack P. 1965 ‘‘Norms: The Problem of Definition and Classification.’’ American Journal of Sociology

70:586–594.

Glenn, Noval D. 1980 ‘‘Values, Attitudes and Beliefs.’’ In O. G. Brim, Jr., and J. Kagan, eds., Constancy and Change in Human Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky 1979 ‘‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.’’

Econometrica 47:263–291.

D. L. Featherman, and R. M. Lerner, eds., Life-Span Development and Behavior. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Kluckhohn, Clyde 1951 ‘‘Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory of Action: An Exploration in Definition and Classification.’’ In T. Parsons and E. A. Shils, eds., Toward a General Theory of Action. New York: Harper & Row.

Lovejoy, Arthur O. 1950 ‘‘Terminal and Adjectival Values.’’ The Journal of Philosophy 47:593–608.

Marini, Margaret Mooney 1984 ‘‘Age and Sequencing Norms in the Transition to Adulthood.’’ Social Forces 63:229–244.

———, 1992 ‘‘The Role of Models of Purposive Action in Sociology.’’ In J. S. Coleman and T. J. Fararo, eds.,

Rational Choice Theory: Advocacy and Critique. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Moss, Howard A., and Elizabeth J. Susman 1980 ‘‘Longitudinal Study of Personality Development.’’ In O. G. Brim, Jr., and J. Kagan, eds., Constancy and Change in Human Development. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Parsons, Talcott, and Edward A. Shils 1951 ‘‘Values, Motives, and Systems of Action.’’ In T. Parsons and E. A. Shils, eds., Toward a General Theory of Action. New York: Harper & Row.

Rokeach, Milton 1973 The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.

——— 1985 ‘‘Inducing Change and Stability in Belief Systems and Personality Structures.’’ Journal of Social Issues 41:153–171.

Rossi, Peter H., and Richard A. Berk 1985 ‘‘Varieties of Normative Consensus.’’ American Sociological Review

50:333–347.

Schwartz, Shalom H., and Wolfgang Bilsky 1987 ‘‘Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

53:550–562.

Sears, David O. 1981 ‘‘Life-Stage Effects on Attitude Change, Especially among the Elderly.’’ In S. B. Kiesler, J. N. Morgan, and V. K. Oppenheimer, eds., Aging: Social Change. New York: Academic Press.

——— 1983 ‘‘The Persistence of Early Political Predispositions: The Roles of Attitude Object and Life Stage.’’ In L. Wheeler, eds., Review of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 4. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

Thornton, Arland 1985 ‘‘Changing Attitudes toward Separation and Divorce: Causes and Consequences.’’

American Journal of Sociology 90:856–872.

Wells, L. E., and Sheldon Stryker 1988 ‘‘Stability and Change in Self over the Life Course.’’ In P. B. Baltes,

MARGARET MOONEY MARINI

SOCIAL WORK

Social work has been defined as being ‘‘concerned with the interactions between people and their social environment which affect the ability of people to accomplish life tasks, alleviate distress, and realize their aspirations and values. The purpose of social work therefore is to (1) enhance the problem-solving and coping capacities of people,

(2) link people with systems that provide them with resources, services, and opportunities, (3) promote the effective and humane operation of these systems, and (4) contribute to the development and improvement of social policy’’ (Pincus and Minahan 1973, p. 9). A key difference between social work and sociology lies in the emphasis placed on intervention in social work. A social worker expects to be actively involved in the amelioration of social problems, while a sociologist typically focuses on understanding the nature and extent of social issues. Social workers establish a helping relationship with a client system (individual, family, small group, community), using their assessment skills and knowledge of helping resources to identify alternatives that may improve a situation.

PROFESSIONAL ROOTS

Professional social work is historically tied to the emergence of social welfare as a social institution. Social welfare as it has come to be known, can be traced to society’s numerous attempts to accommodate changes in economic and social relationships over time. The beginning of institutionalized social welfare is frequently ascribed to the English Poor Law of 1601. As the most critical part of modern social welfare’s foundation, the Elizabethan poor laws were characterized by the articulation and promulgation of the principle of public responsibility and obligation for the economic well-being of the people. However, ‘‘the Poor Laws in England and in American communities were not primarily concerned with poverty and how to eliminate it. Instead, they were concerned with pauperism and the potential claims on community

funds, the danger that paupers might get by without working’’ (Dolgoff and Feldstein 1984, p. 80). This continuing tension between public obligation and social control is one of several dualities that characterize the context of professional social work practice. Institutionalized social welfare is the environment in which the profession of social work has developed. The history of social welfare is paralleled by and enmeshed with the increasing professionalism of those who administer social welfare programs.

Early social work was characterized by two streams of activity: social reform and direct assistance to individuals and families. The practice of friendly visiting and the development of both the Charity Organizations Societies and settlement houses illustrate both types of effort. Representatives of Charity Organization Socities, the so-called friendly visitors, engaged in social investigation and moral susasion improve the lives of the poor. The thrust of those encounters was to place responsibility on the persons or families for their economic and social status, what is known now as ‘‘blaming the victim.’’ The work of the Charity Organization Societies formed the origins of the social work method later known as social casework.

Residents of settlement houses, Jane Adams included, were friendly visitors who came to stay. A group of middle-class or upper-class individuals moved into residence in a poor area in an effort to study neighborhood conditions firsthand and work with neighborhood residents on solving neighborhood problems. While some settlement house efforts focused on assimilation, later programs focused on improving conditions in immigrant communities. In cities across the nation, settlement houses helped acculturate vast numbers of immigrants in the early part of the twentieth century. Settlement house activities emphasized teaching English, health practices, occupational skills, and environmental changes through cooperative efforts. Settlement house staff developed social group work, community organization, social action, and environmental change efforts. Furthermore, settlement house workers were active in the legislative arena, gathering and promulgating facts in order to influence social policy and legislation.

An early and continuing cleavage in the profession has its origins in differing explanations of social dysfunction. Some early social workers es-

poused the theory of the social causation of social problems and sought governmental actions to meet needs as well as developing coalitions for reform and institutional change. The educational foundation came from sociology, economics, and political science. Others emphasized individual causation of social problems, promoting an individually focused therapeutic approach to helping. These social workers identified the need to draw on psychological theory but emphasized the individual interacting with a social environment. These two primary orientations would feed the development of professional social work and provide the basis for conflict within the practice community and in professional social work education

PROFESSIONALIZATION

An issue throughout the development of professional social work has been the nature of its professional status. In 1915 Abraham Flexner critiqued the professional status of social work at the National Conference of Charities and Corrections. Although Flexner criticized social work as lacking a specific skill for a specific function, he also recognized its professional spirit. The ideal-type model of a profession has been the conception against which social work has measured itself through much of its history. Greenwood’s (1957) analysis examined the extent to which social work possessed five classic traits of a profession: systematic theory, authority, community sanction, an ethical code, and a professional culture. Characterizing social work as a less-developed profession, Greenwood concluded that it possessed these attributes to a moderate extent. The predominant direction of the field, however, has been to continue its professional development along all five dimensions. The recent emphasis on building the empirical base of practice coupled with more stringent licensure requirements by states are indicators of the continued progression of social work toward greater professional status. It would be incorrect to assume, however, that this direction is embraced by the profession as a whole. For those whose dominant professional identification is with the field’s social action tradition, increasing professionalization means being co-opted. Achieving the public acceptance accorded to a profession can distance social workers from their constituencies and limit confrontational strategies that are central to advocacy for the oppressed.

In the 1920s the practice of social work emerged in so-called fields of practice or settings: family and child welfare and medical, psychiatric, and school social work. Social workers defined their central problems and responsibilities as being characteristic of their particular fields. The concept of method also emerged during this period. Method developed first around casework and later in relation to both group work and community organization. Methods were based on selected theories of human behavior drawn from psychology and sociology. Setting referred to the organizational context within which services were delivered.

This combination of method and field of practice or setting fragmented professional social work, slowing the development of an integrated theoretical base for practice across methods and settings. Social casework theory and method developed to a large extent in isolation from group work and community organization. The curricula for professional social work education followed the same pattern, with separate tracks for each method. It took until the 1970s for the development of a conceptual approach based on the essential components of professional practice regardless of where a social worker was employed. Pincus and Minahan (1970) articulated a conceptual framework for generalist practice, that is, for social work service delivery across practice settings. This approach encompassed three major components: the social systems in relation to which a social worker carries out his or her role, the stages of planned change or problem-solving processes, and interactional and analytic skills for data collection, analysis, and intervention.

VALUES, ETHICS, AND THE

BUREAUCRATIC CONTEXT

Since social work as a profession is concerned with social change and the improvement of the conditions in which people live, its orientation cannot be value-free or purely theoretical. A defining characteristic of social work practice is a fundamental commitment to knowledge, skills, and a core set of professional values to enhance the wellbeing of people and ameliorate environmental conditions that affect people adversely. Among the values and principles that guide professional practice are respect for individual worth, dignity, the right to self-determination, and active partici-

pation in the helping process; helping clients obtain needed resources; demonstrating respect for and acceptance of the characteristics of diverse populations; a commitment to the promotion of social change to achieve social and economic justice; an understanding of the dynamics of oppression and discrimination, along with attention to populations at risk; and a holistic view of the interactions between people and the complex environment in which they live. These values are embedded in the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (1994). The code focuses on the conduct and comportment of a social worker as well as ethical responsibilities to clients, colleagues, employers, the profession, and society.

A distinguishing characteristic of social work is that the majority of its practitioners are employed by a variety of public and private social welfare agencies. Some social workers are employed by agencies that are sanctioned to function as agents of social control, while others have the authority to determine eligibility for benefits and services. The bureaucratic environment, however manifested, dramatically shapes the practice of social workers. The process of professional socialization is designed to instill a culture, a set of values and expectations, that may conflict with the work environment.

Professionals’ autonomy can be circumscribed by organizational commitments, policies, and procedures. In these circumstances, just whose agent is the professional social worker: the agency’s, the client’s, the community’s, or his or her own as an autonomous professional? In an organizational context, what form can a social worker’s social action efforts take? How far can an employed social worker go in challenging an agency’s priorities, policies, and procedures before his or her services are no longer desired? How long does it take before a professional social worker starts to identify more as an agency employee than as an autonomous professional? Given the range of practice settings and the variety of roles of social workers, there are no easy answers to these questions. These realities can produce a conservatizing effect on social work, limiting many workers’ willingness or ability to take risks as autonomous professionals in the name of social justice and reform. In these circumstances, one can see how theories of individual causation can prevail over

explanations that invoke the influence of larger social forces in the creation and amelioration of social problems. This tension, with its roots in the origins of the profession, continues, as demonstrated by the overwhelming preference of students and professionals for work with individuals and families, mostly in the psychotherapeutic model.

THE KNOWLEDGE BASE AND

EMPIRICALLY BASED PRACTICE

The creation of a systematic body of theory has been under development from the early days of the profession. Richmond’s Social Diagnosis (1917) organized the contemporary theory and method of social work and formulated a data collection approach designed to serve as the foundation for diagnosis. Richmond organized and analyzed the naturalistic observations she made while working with individuals and families. Her work is the origin of psychosocial history taking and treatment plan development and perhaps the core of social casework practice methods. Richmond’s contribution to the organization of what eventually would become social casework practice is legendary, forming the bedrock of clinical social work. Her approach, later to be known as empirically based practice, represents one of the two major streams of knowledge and theory development in social work. The other major focus has relied heavily on the application of social science (primarily sociological and psychological) theory to the explanation of social problems and the development of interventions to ameliorate those problems.

The breadth of social work practice (encompassing work with individuals, families, groups, and communities and including social work program administration, public policy development, and social planning) provides a rich and continually changing field for exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory empirical efforts. The early 1970s was a benchmark in the development of the profession’s knowledge base. Along with the massive investment in social programs of the 1960s came the realization that good intentions and humane values are not enough. Funders focused increasingly on outcomes. Attention was shifted to the development of empirically based justifications for programs, services, and budgets. Program evaluation became the dominant focus of much of

social work research during this period, including methodology, design, outcomes, and professional accountability. This direction came to be known as the practice effectiveness movement. As articulated by Fischer, the question became, ‘‘Is Casework Effective?’’ (Fischer 1973; Fischer and Hudson 1976).

During this period, a study of the effects of adult protective services by Blenkner et al. (1971) at the Benjamin Rose Institute in Cleveland created a furor. An early social experiment, this demonstration program, which employed skilled caseworkers, was reported to be associated with more negative effects than was the control program, which employed less highly trained workers. After one year, the findings were alarming. The experimental group manifested higher death rates, higher utilization of protective services, higher rates of institutionalization, a nonsignificant increase in contentment, and a nonsignificant decrease in symptoms of emotional disturbance. The authors concluded that the ‘‘effect of more skilled social workers on the clients was to ‘overdose’ them with help. This led to more concrete assistance, including institutionalization, which in turn was responsible for the higher death rate. . . . More highly trained social workers were apparently more lethal’’ (Tobin 1978). These findings could not demonstrate the effectiveness of professional social work intervention, illustrate accountability, or be used to justify program expenditures.

This study and the controversy it generated shifted attention from program description to research design, sampling, and data analysis. Investigators (Berger and Piliavin 1976; Fischer and Hudson 1976) reanalyzed the data in an attempt to discover alternative explanations for the findings. Berger and Piliavin argued that although randomization had been used to assign clients to groups, the experimental group was older and more mentally and physically impaired than were the controls. Fischer and Hudson (1976) challenged the sample size used in Berger and Piliavin’s regression analysis and demonstrated that age, mental status, and physical status, although separate variables, produced an additive effect. The nature of the debate had shifted: Methodological issues had become the basis of discussion. Values and good intentions alone would no longer be sufficient grounds for justifying programs or demonstrating professional accountability.

THE PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER

Concern with the outcomes of social work interventions led to the concept of the social worker as both practitioner and researcher. From this perspective, social workers are seen as having the opportunity and responsibility to develop methods and skills from an empirical base, from the experience provided in their own practice to develop, test, and refine practice innovations. Embedded in this movement toward practitionerbased empirical practice was the notion that evaluation and research were too critical to leave in the hands of a group of research ‘‘specialists.’’ Perhaps more fundamental is the belief that social work research is too important to leave in the hands of those who are not social workers: ‘‘It is the practicing professional who encounters and struggles with current issues and who is most sensitive to the critical knowledge gaps in the field. Thus social workers are in the best position to formulate and conduct the needed research and evaluation and they must be committed to acquiring the understanding required to direct the helping effort’’ (Grinnell 1996, p. 5)

These developments coincided with the expansion of doctoral education in social work. While past doctoral preparation often focused on the development of advanced clinical skills, contemporary training at the doctoral level is almost exclusively research-based, designed to provide students with the skills needed to contribute to the empirically anchored knowledge base of the profession. As a result, a cohort of social work researchers has been trained over the last twenty years, and this group has developed a body of theory and knowledge that has been generated directly as social work research. Social work no longer defers to sociology for the methodological sophistication to evaluate its programs and practice outcomes.

SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL WORK

Over time the link between social work and sociology has been strong, although the two fields have grown increasingly distant. There can be little doubt, however, regarding the importance of sociological theory and research for the development of the knowledge and theoretical base of social work practice. For example, social stratification, conflict theory, deviance, organizational

theory, community development and dynamics, family studies, occupational sociology, criminology, and life-span theories are only a few areas of sociological theory development and research that have informed and directly influenced both the theory and the practice of social work. Landmark social program evaluation studies were undertaken by sociologists, some of whom were members of faculties of social work, in the late 1950s and 1960s (Meyer and Borgatta 1959; Meyer et al. 1965).

Clearly, social work and sociology are related, although there are fundamental differences. Sociologists study and analyze social organizations and institutions. The emphasis has been on theory development, primarily through positivistic approaches, focusing on measurement and design issues. Although the development of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967) has been a major conceptual contribution in sociology, it has not been the dominant influence. Although there are reform-minded, ‘‘radical’’ sociologists, they are a minority. Sociologists are interested in understanding the ‘‘why’’ of human interaction. Sociology observes; it maintains a detached posture.

In contrast, social workers attempt to apply theories of social organization and interaction to improve social functioning. Social workers go beyond understanding social problems in their efforts to improve social functioning; social work intervenes. The goal is engendering progressive social change, improving social conditions, creating more humane delivery systems, and problem solving with individuals, families, groups, communities, and organizations and in public policy. Social workers develop and implement interventions in the form of programs, policies, and services in the context of public funding and demands for professional accountability. The orientation is toward outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and cost-bene- fit analyses.

There has been and continues to be tension in the relationship. Heraud notes that ‘‘the social worker may be able to participate actively in policy making through social science research; there is considerable need for research related to both intended and unintended consequences of social policy . . . there is considerable need in the initial stages of such research for intuition and speculation. Instead of only using the sociologist at this stage, who may be a distant figure, the social