Prospective Social Workers Research Articles

Summary of the round Table Discussion of the Teaching of Social Statistics to Prospective Social Workers

The Committee on Social Statistics of the American Statistical Association, in conjunction with the Committee on Sociology and Social Work of the American Sociological Society, held a joint session in connection with the meetings of the two Societies in Cleveland, on December 31, 1930, devoted to a discussion of the teaching of social statistics to prospective social workers. This session was in the form of a round table, led by Ralph G. Hurlin, Director of the Department of Statistics of the Russell Sage Foundation, and was presided over by the writer. The discussion centered around three questions: (1) the purpose, (2) content and (3) method, which should characterize a beginning course in social statistics to future social workers. Dr. Hurlin, who has had a great deal of experience in the last few years in dealing with social work statistics in connection with the material which he has been gathering from family welfare and other social agencies throughout the country, with respect to the amount of relief given, number of cases handled, etc., based his discussion on his experience in gathering, treating and interpreting the data, and also on his experience in teaching prospective social workers in the Training School for Jewish Social Work. He raised the question as to what should be the purpose of a course in social statistics for social workers. Should it be looked upon as discipline? Should it aim to give the case workers a critical point of view? Or should it aim to give them tools for treating quantitative data? He made it clear that the content of the course would depend very largely upon the aim set for it. In like manner would the method of teaching vary with the purpose which the course or courses are to serve. Thus if the aim is to provide the students with discipline, a great deal of laboratory work and drill would be necessary. If, however, only critical ability and a point of view are to be developed, then drill would be of less importance and emphasis would have to be placed on analysis of statistical studies. Similarly, if the course primarily aims to give intensive training in statistical procedures, it would have to be built up along lines different from those necessary if only a critical point of view is aimed at. In the discussion which developed the following points were emphasized: First, that since it is impossible to tell what type of work the

Summary of the Round Table Discussion of the Teaching of Social Statistics to Prospective Social Workers

Summary of the Round Table Discussion of the Teaching of Social Statistics to Prospective Social Workers

Can Sociology Be Made Real to Social Work Students Through the Problem Method?

be to sensitize students to these cultural influences so that they will appreciate them, will make diagnoses, and plan treatment with them in view, and not regard the problem as merely medical, economic, and familial. It is probable that the amount of social work material in the introductory course will increase. Current sociological research is concentrated somewhat on social problems and disorganization, and the materials are taken in part from the records of social agencies. In the course of time this research work will percolate through to the introductory course, and will serve as descriptive of cultures or illustrative of social processes. I am not sure that this is an entirely desirable trend but it may make the introductory course somewhat more valuable for social workers than it would otherwise be. In summary, the introductory course in sociology should be preceded by a general orientation course, should be confined to descriptions of cultures in modern America and to the analysis of the processes by which cultures and cultural habits change. It should describe cultural change both as Ogburn does, with emphasis on the group and as Cooley and Thomas do, with emphasis on personality. This course should be regarded as of value to prospective social workers for exactly the same reason that it would be valuable for other students. The factual data may be taken somewhat more from the social work fields than mathematical proportions would justify, partly because of the availability of the material and partly because of the value of studying behavior under experimental controls. The introductory course, however, should not be determnined in any specific way by the needs of the social workers, and particularly it should make no effort to touch social problems, techniques of social work, or the administration of social agencies. For social workers it should be a pre-vocational course and not a vocational course.

The Content of Introductory Sociology Courses for Prospective Social Workers

T | aHE first question that arises on consideration of this topic is, Why should sociologists discuss the relation of their introductory course to social work? Economists, political scientists, psychologists, and other social scientists do not specifically take social work into account in planning their introductory courses. Why should sociologists? This discussion is not an attempt to 'sell sociology to sales-resistant social workers. Neither is it an application by maladjusted sociologists, who have been unable to agree regarding the content of their introductory course, to charitably-minded social workers for aid. The sociologists do not appear here either as salesmen or clients. When this program was started it was expected that the conference would be confined to teachers of sociology. As an after-thought and at the suggestion of a social worker it became a combined conference of social workers and sociologists. This provides a part of the answer to the questioni. This cooperate effort to consider the content of the introductory course is a continuation of the discussions of previous years regarding the relation of sociology and social work. For that reason I wish to summarize briefly the results of the previous investigations and discussions of this relationship. First, historically sociology and social work had independent origins. Second, they are tending in recent years to converge on certain common problems of research, namely the problems of human behavior in a cultural situation. Third, the concepts of sociology have not been of great value to social workers, partly because they have not been verified and been made sufficiently specific for application, partly because social workers have not had enough training in sociology to appreciate and use the concepts. Fourth, the sociologists have secured much assistance from the records of social agencies and from the generalizations which social workers have derived from their experience. On the other hand many sociologists have been disappointed in these records because the records contain so little information regarding the processes and mechanisms of human behavior and also because the data have been conceptualized by social workers and their reliability thereby reduced. Fifth, social work is not merely applied sociology. Social work is dependent upon all sciences, and sociology may be applied in various fields. Sociology is thus coordinate with other sciences rather than being the fount of knowledge fromii which social work is sustained. Sixth, some members of each group scoff at the other group. Some social workers assert that students who have had no sociology are better prospects than those who have had sociology. Perhaps theywould say the same thing regarding economics, political science, psychology, psychiatry, biology, college work in general, and perhaps high school work in general. The specific contribution of any one of these disciplines cannot easily be isolated. On the other hand, some sociologists scoff at social work as relatively futile, and are equally contemptuous of the other applications of social knowledge. Seventh, most sociologists and most social workers agree regarding the potential value of the other procedure, find some value in it now, and are willing