A Reply to Yvonne M. Johnson

Abstract

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Yvonne M. Johnson’s critique of my Social Service Review article, “Reinterpreting Abraham Flexner’s Speech, ‘Is Social Work a Profession?’: Its Meaning and Influence on the Field’s Early Professional Development” (Morris 2008). My article presents findings from a Gadamerian hermeneutic inquiry that explores various topics: the meaning of Flexner’s criteria of a profession, his assessment of social work’s professional standing, the field’s multiple interpretations of his criteria and assessment throughout the 90 years since his speech, and the speech’s influence on the field’s early professional development. Contrary to Johnson’s critique, my interpretation of Flexner’s text (1915) is based on a sound methodology derived from a philosophical perspective. It is unclear what methodology, if any, Johnson uses in deriving either her understanding of the text or her critique of my interpretation. Instead, Johnson falls into the very trap that my article identifies; she seems to interpret his meaning through a contemporary lens. For example, she uses recent editions of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary. Since ancient times, scholars have used hermeneutics to interpret religious, legal, historical, and literary texts. Interpretations sometimes differ because they are often guided by varying philosophical and methodological principles. My inquiry is guided by Hans-Georg Gadamer’s seminal work, Truth and Method (1989). Five principles guide the inquiry: