Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorSpano, Richard
dc.contributor.authorThompson, John Brandon
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-27T10:57:23Z
dc.date.available2012-10-27T10:57:23Z
dc.date.issued2012-08-31
dc.date.submitted2012
dc.identifier.otherhttp://dissertations.umi.com/ku:12312
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/10222
dc.description.abstractThere is a historical tension in social work between the clinical and social reform perspectives. The original goal for this dissertation was to offer pragmatism as a philosophical orientation that would make sense of these two seemingly disparate perspectives by explaining how they may coexist. A historical analysis of nine key social work scholars and four major social work conferences was conducted in order to better understand this historical debate. The findings were unexpected as they reveal a historical understanding of social work in which pragmatism is already present in nearly all of the conceptions of social work analyzed. Moreover, all of the major social work scholars understand social work to be dual focused, meaning that there is no divide between the clinical and social reform perspectives--social work comprises both. Conclusions and implications for social work practice, research, education and policy are discussed
dc.format.extent275 pages
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherUniversity of Kansas
dc.rightsThis item is protected by copyright and unless otherwise specified the copyright of this thesis/dissertation is held by the author.
dc.subjectSocial work
dc.subjectHistory of social work
dc.subjectAddams, Jane
dc.subjectRichmond, Mary
dc.subjectPhilosophy of social work
dc.subjectSocial justice
dc.subjectSocial work theory
dc.titleRethinking the clinical vs. social reform debate: a dialectical approach to defining social work in the 21st century
dc.typeDissertation
dc.contributor.cmtememberKoenig, Terry
dc.contributor.cmtememberHolter, Mark
dc.contributor.cmtememberAntonio, Robert
dc.contributor.cmtememberJohnson, Toni
dc.thesis.degreeDisciplineSocial Welfare
dc.thesis.degreeLevelPh.D.
kusw.oastatusna
kusw.oapolicyThis item does not meet KU Open Access policy criteria.
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record