I promise to you at the outset of this article that this isn’t going to be another diatribe by a whining social work student about the gaps in his education, the soaring costs of tuition or any of the other number of things that a student could whine about. I want to draw your attention instead to an insidious problem that is infecting the “ Academy “. This isn’t my problem, or your problem, it’s our problem. What is this problem you ask? Well pull up a comfortable chair, clear some time from your busy schedule and let me tell you what I see happening.
As a developing individual who is gaining the necessary tools and experience to transform from a social work student into a social work professional I am acutely aware of all the nuances that I am exposed to. Our noble profession has roots that stretch deep into the soil of antiquity. Our early leaders and pioneers Mary Richmond and Jane Addams thought outside the box, they were controversial, they were cutting edge, they were revolutionaries. Of that we can be absolutely sure. Before the 1915 Conference on Corrections and Charities the question wasn’t even decided whether social work was a valid profession. Now that this question has been answered we face a new threat in the hallowed halls of social work, and that is nothing less than the gentrification and stratification of our profession. There are clear lines of demarcation being imposed upon our profession and it is doing damage and will continue to do so until we say and do something.
The lines that are being drawn place the developing social work student into a clearly defined camp with roles, rules and social norms. On one side of the arena we have the macro social workers, community organizers and administrators and on the other side we have the micro social workers, clinicians and licensed social worker. The laws of taxonomy give our world shape and form and definition, but the creation of two sub fields within our sacred profession is ripping our field in half. The schools are becoming recruiting fields where you fell almost forced to make a choice even before the ink is dry on your admissions contract. The micro teachers bash the macro and vice versa and the developing student feels caught in a web, but more importantly one feels the pull to make a choice. I have sat in classes and was actually afraid to tell the professor what my field of interest is because I didn’t want to offend them. In our MSW program we have a foundation and concentration year, as do most schools. At the end of the foundation year the student has to make a choice, this choice will literally lock him into a trajectory for the rest of his/her career. At our MSW orientation the heads of the Micro and Macro department come with the most charismatic and flowery speeches, you begin to feel this tremendous amount of pressure. What if I want to do both? What if I don’t want to be locked into your pedantic self-created world, what if I want to break out of your box and change the world? What if I want to be a community organizer all day and treat clients with CBT at night? Why are you limiting me?
We can no longer deny that our profession is split in half, I have seen the arguments on the Internet, I have witnessed the heated discussions and I am feeling the pressure to make a choice everyday I am in school. We need to find a way to erase or at the very least soften these lines of distinction. When we define something we limit its scope, we force it to behave a certain way to conform to an ideal. We are robbing our profession by forcing students to “ Choose a side “ and we are creating division and discord within our field. I don’t have the answer or the solution to this problem; it will take a much greater mind than mine to fix this. This problem is reaching an epidemic proportion and its time that we looked inward to address this issue before it is too late. Jane Addams didn’t conform, why should I and why are you making me?
Written by Kurt A. Wellman
Student Liaison
Sources:
Our authors want to hear from you! Click to leave a comment
Related Posts
Once you graduate you will realize there are two other groups within the profession. They are equally if not more strongly divided, and they are 1) practitioners, and 2) academics.
Post graduation you will see the two schools of practitioners become more linked and connected. We need each other to holistically treat our clients. Academics on the other hand, the ones who make you feel divisive now, become those with whom practitioners feel completely distanced. Academics are disconnected from the field and often don’t know basic services or resources. Practitioners are too busy saving the world to contribute to research that could improve the profession.
Thank you for the heads up. I appreciate you pointing this out to me.
I agree with Elizabeth. Her statement could not be more true. This is why I enjoyed having adjunct faculty or “community lecturers” for my classes as many still held their practitioner jobs along with teaching.
A very interesting perspective. When I was in graduate school, in the mid 90s, we had to choose a area of focus, for instance, criminal justice or child welfare. I also had the option to complete a dual track: administrative/clinical, which meant more practicum hours, but it left me feeling more rounded. To me it was worth it. Many students did not want to complete the extra work because they just wanted to be done.
I can say that in graduate school at the University of Utah there wasn’t a “push” to choose between micro and macro social work practice. If social work academia has gotten so far removed from the ” real world,” then the profession is slowly strangling itself.
This was really well said. I do think there is a definite lean towards one side within the program I attend. I graduated with a BA and a major in social work a couple of years ago, now I’m a macro focused MSW student (graduating May 2nd!).
I honestly felt as an undergraduate student that the line drawn in the sand was, socially of course, to value micro from 9-5 and be passionate about macro after the real work’s done. The result is an internship book in our office chock full of micro practicum opportunities, and my students truly believing that macro is some far off, no-man’s land. Even worse? I’m an advanced standing student and I’m the sole macro student of about 25 total people. My micro-focused peers find it amazing that I took on Psychopathology training and addictions studies because I wanted to learn those skills…”But you’re macro, right?”
I really don’t believe the problem here is the dichotomy between micro and macro–let’s be honest, good practitioners do a little bit of both! I think the problem is giving more weight ACADEMICALLY to one over the other. Once we’re in the field, the conversation and question at hand changes from “which side are you on?” to “we need help–are you willing?”
I value the difference in skillsets. The differences definitely exist, by the way, and should be taught. I think, however, that our teaching of the skillsets needs some reworking. Students of social work need to be practically exposed to macro volunteer opportunities early on. The same goes for the micro side–students should be able to identify micro employments opportunities or practice niches from the start. All social workers need to know what’s available to them, because our clients and communities suffer when we don’t use our God given talents.
if I didn’t have a mentor (or two) who pulled all that macro stuff out of this introverted body, I would not be where I am now, ready to meet my community and individuals within it, with confidence!
You create your own reality. -Jane Roberts