BSW AUTONOMY ISSUES IN COMBINED BSW/MSW PROGRAMS.
Little research has been conducted on BSW program autonomy, and no research has been done to explore positive or negative effects of autonomy on program outcomes. The existing literature has focused on undergraduate programs located within host departments such as sociology, or multidisciplinary departments (Harper, Ramey, & Zook, 1991; Johnson & Hull, 1992; Phillips & Engel, 1994). These studies have examined management functions linked to autonomy, perceptions of power, and implications of the standard for programs in various administrative structures. Although combined BSW/MSW programs have been included in some study samples, there has been no focus on this specific programmatic arrangement.
BSW programs may face unique autonomy issues when located in combined BSW/MSW program structures, especially in this era of budget constraints and competing priorities. The importance of gaining a clearer picture of BSW programs in combined structures is underscored by the accelerated growth of new combined programs. As of fall 1999, there were 88 combined programs; 25 of these include MSW programs that received initial accreditation within the last 10 years. An additional 20 programs in combined structures are currently in candidacy for accreditation (18 MSW programs and two BSW programs) (A. M. Johnson, personal communication, December 9, 1999). Zeiger, Hobbes, Robinson, Ortiz, and Cox (1999) noted this recent trend of BSW programs developing MSW programs and the related organizational challenges that accompany program expansion.
Program autonomy has been considered important enough to merit inclusion in undergraduate accreditation standards since 1974 when they were first developed. Initially, autonomy standards required only that "administrative auspices of a program shall assure and support the integrity of the program" (Johnson & Hull, 1992, p. 313). In subsequent revisions, autonomy criteria were more clearly identified (e.g., separate budget, control of curriculum decisions, etc.). However, in spite of greater specificity, the concept of autonomy remains unclear, especially in light of the variety of administrative structures under which BSW programs operate. Sheafor (1979) identified four types: the academic department, the multidisciplinary department, the independent department, and the school of social work. He suggested that independent departments would require the least effort to ensure autonomy, while programs in academic departments or multidisciplinary departments would need to make the greatest efforts to resolve autonomy issues. He predicted that BSW programs in schools of social work "would need to make an active effort to maintain their position" (p. 48) and that they might encounter "difficulty in assuring that the baccalaureate program has adequate autonomy to secure and assign resources to achieve its specific program objectives" (p. 51).
A study by Halter and Gullerud (1995) included a comparison of autonomy, direct access to administration, and funding for recently merged (n=15), long-term merged (n=24), and freestanding, or independent (n=24) BSW programs. They defined autonomy as "having a major responsibility for decision making and a direct link to central administration" (p. 278). They found that freestanding BSW units generally had greater access to central administration and greater increases in institutional and grant funding than did merged BSW programs. Only 8% (n=2) of the freestanding programs reported a decrease in autonomy, whereas 25% (n=6) of the long-term merged and 47% (n=7) of the recently merged reported a decrease in autonomy.
In a study of autonomy and visibility in undergraduate education (N=232), Johnson and Hull (1992) defined autonomy to be "the degree of independence relative to budgetary, governance and administration, curriculum decision making, support staff, resources, and authority" (p. 315). While most programs reported "adequate" or "very adequate" administrative and governance structures, 38% (n=86) desired more. Although 13.5% (n=31) of Johnson and Hull's respondents identified themselves as part of a graduate school of social work, the findings of the study were presented in the aggregate, so it was not possible to discern unique responses and issues of this group.
Other research has examined the management functions of baccalaureate program directors and their perceptions of power and autonomy (Harper, 1990; Harper et al., 1991). In a study of BSW program directors' (N=223) perceptions of power and gender in administration, Harper (1990) identified six critical functions of the BSW director: budget allocation, student admissions, new faculty selection, program coordination, curriculum development, and program self-study. She developed a scale of BSW directors' perception of power; directors who perceived themselves as having the power to direct all six functions were at the highest level on the scale. Directors in independent structures reported the highest level of power; only one director in a combined BSW/MSW program reported the same level of power.
Harper et al. (1991), reporting on a 1987 study by Zook on the relationship between organizational structure and job satisfaction of BSW program directors, indicated a perceived lack of autonomy, "particularly for directors ... within graduate programs" (p. 178). Harper et al. attempted to identify management functions of program directors and their perceived ability to influence these functions. Management functions clustered in three areas: budget/resource distribution, program/curriculum management, and faculty administration. Using hierarchical regression, the authors investigated various sets of "power" variables. "Structural power" was defined as one of three possible administrative auspices of BSW programs. These three administrative auspices were independent (program operates as an autonomous structure with directors having access to communication with higher levels in the organization); academic (program is placed with other social sciences programs in a single unit under the direction of a social sciences dean); or graduate (program operates within a graduate social work program). Structural power variables significantly explained the variability in perceived power to influence all three management functions (21.4% of budget/resource distribution, 15.7% of program/curriculum management, and 13.4% of faculty administration). In particular, BSW directors in graduate programs reported a low power to manage. These findings suggest some unique power issues in combined BSW/MSW programs as compared to programs in other administrative structures.
These studies indicate that issues related to autonomy may adversely affect baccalaureate program directors' abilities to effectively manage their programs. The current study examines issues related to program autonomy, perceptions of BSW directors regarding equity of resource distribution, advantages and disadvantages for BSW programs in combined structures, and factors associated with perceived need for greater autonomy.
Given the apparent gap in the literature on BSW program autonomy, this exploratory study was designed to gather descriptive data specifically on combined programs. The authors developed a 37-item questionnaire based on autonomy factors identified in CSWE accreditation standards, autonomy issues identified in previous studies, and our own experience as BSW program directors in combined programs. The following areas were included: administrative structures; curriculum oversight; and BSW program directors' roles in budget, faculty hiring, retention, and deployment. The questionnaire also included items on the directors' perceptions of equity in resource distribution, general advantages and disadvantages of being in a combined structure, as well as program characteristics and demographic characteristics of BSW program director respondents. The questionnaire was pretested by one former BSW program director of a combined program and by three other colleagues familiar with combined structure issues; the pretesting resulted in some modifications of the instrument.
Questionnaires were mailed in April 1997 to BSW program directors in all institutions identified by CSWE at that time as having combined BSW/MSW programs (N=78). Two follow-up letters and a second questionnaire were sent at 3-4 week intervals to encourage participation in the study. Of the 78 program directors surveyed, 53 returned the questionnaire. Two of the 78 returned questionnaires were eliminated from analysis, as these respondents indicated that their BSW programs were not actually in combined structures, lowering the total of potential respondents to 76. The final sample included 51 responses, which is a 67% response rate.
Program Sample and BSW Program Director Characteristics
Of the BSW programs in the sample, 78% (n=39) were in public institutions, 12% (n=6) in private sectarian institutions, and 10% (n=5) in private nonsectarian institutions. (All reported percentages are valid percentages based on the number of respondents answering the particular question.) Most programs were located in freestanding schools of social work (57%, n=29), while 43% (n=22) were located in larger units, such as colleges of social sciences, arts and sciences, or human services. Student enrollments in BSW programs ranged from 45-400 (M=162, SD=95); MSW student enrollments ranged from 37-680 (M=273, SD=181). Only 16 respondents reported having doctoral programs, with enrollments ranging from 8-120 (M=39, SD=28). Eighty-eight percent (n=44) of the MSW programs represented in this study grant Advanced Standing to BSW graduates.
Most respondents were female (53%, n=27) and white (73%, n=35). Other respondents reflected the following ethnic diversity: 10% (n=5) African American, 8% (n=4) Latino/Hispanic, 2% (n=1) Asian/Pacific Islander, 2% (n=1) Native American, and 4% (n=2) "other" race/ethnicity. Most respondents were tenured (59%, n=29), and an additional 29% (n=14) were tenure-eligible. Only 12% (n=6) were not in tenure-eligible positions. Relatively few respondents held the full professor rank (18%, n=9); most were associate professors (44%, n=22) and assistant professors (30%; n=15). Only 8% (n=4) were in the instructor rank. The length of time respondents had been in the BSW program director role ranged from 1-32 years (M=6, SD=7). An interesting finding was that 45% (n=22) of the respondents had held the BSW program director role for two years or less, indicating recent turnover in these positions.
Administrative and Governance Structures
Most BSW program directors (90%, n=46) reported directly to the social work dean, director, or chair. One respondent reported directly to a dean who was not the social work dean or director. Only four respondents (8%) reported to an associate dean or associate director/chair of social work. The governance structure of most combined programs (88%, n=45) included faculty representing or familiar with the BSW program.
Program directors played various roles in budget development and administration. While 53% (n=27) reported they participate in budget development, only 28% (n=14) had a budget separate from the graduate budget. Of directors with separate budgets, 57% (n=8) indicated that they have the authority to administer or manage that budget, with two of these noting that this is a shared authority with the social work dean/director. Thirty-five respondents (71%) believed that fiscal resources were equitably distributed to the undergraduate program compared to the graduate program. Directors who did not believe that fiscal resources were equitably distributed noted disparities between BSW and MSW program allocation of financial aid and faculty research.
Faculty are typically hired to teach in both graduate and undergraduate programs (71%, n=36), although 29% (n=15) do hire specifically for BSW-designated positions. Most program directors (84%, n=42) indicated they are involved in the recruitment and hiring of faculty who will teach in the BSW program. A smaller percentage of program directors (65%, n=33) reported involvement in the promotion and tenure process for faculty who teach in the BSW program. Given that 41% (n=21) of respondents were not tenured, this may reflect limits of involvement within the context of institutional and school tenure and promotion policies. Since most faculty are hired to teach in both the undergraduate and graduate programs, as previously noted, it is not surprising that 98% (n=49) of respondents indicated there were no differential tenure and promotion expectations for faculty who teach in the BSW program.
Program directors were asked to indicate the degree of authority they have to determine faculty teaching assignments in the BSW program. Ten percent (n=5) indicated "total" authority, 35% (n=18) reported "a great deal" of authority, and 18% (n=9) reported "moderate" authority. Twelve respondents (24%) noted "some authority," and 14% (n=7) responded "little or none." When asked if the assignment of full-time faculty to the BSW program reflects an equitable distribution of faculty resources compared to the graduate program, 74% (n=37) responded yes, and 26% of respondents (n=13) indicated no. Respondents who did not perceive an equitable distribution provided comments that suggested a number of factors related to inequitable distribution. The most frequently cited factor was faculty attitude: disinterest, resistance, refusal to teach in the program (four respondents), or faculty identification with/preference for graduate teaching (two respondents). Other comments focused on BSW program reliance on adjunct, nontenure track, and assistant professors (three respondents), and the small size of the BSW program in comparison to the MSW program (two respondents).
Curriculum development and oversight are critical functions to ensuring program quality and integrity. Respondents were asked whether a designated portion/group of faculty were responsible for these functions; 66% (n=33) reported yes and 34% (n=17) reported no. Programs that did have a designated BSW curriculum group were asked to provide information concerning criteria and means by which faculty are included in this group. The most frequently cited basis for membership was a faculty member's teaching assignment in the BSW program; curricular expertise was also cited. Inclusion in this group was by faculty choice, appointment by the dean, election by faculty, or discretion of the BSW Program Director.
The BSW committee and the BSW program director, or these two working together, were cited most frequently as the individuals and groups responsible for BSW program outcomes evaluation. Several respondents indicated that there was a designated faculty person responsible for evaluation or a specific outcomes committee. One respondent identified the dean as responsible, another the school curriculum committee, and yet another said that no one had been assigned this responsibility.
Ultimately, faculty resources sufficient to support a program are its most critical curriculum resource. As previously noted, 26% of respondents perceived inequitable distribution in the number of faculty assigned to their BSW program. Another curriculum resource is availability of field practicum sites. Most respondents (90%, n=44) reported an equitable distribution of field placements appropriate for BSW students despite the need in combined programs for MSW foundation field placements.
Finally, program directors were asked to indicate the extent to which the BSW program has autonomy within the school/ department in curriculum decisions. Six percent (n=3) noted"total" autonomy, 57% (n=28) indicated "a great deal" of autonomy, and 22% (n=11) reported "moderate" autonomy. However, 14% (n=7) of respondents indicated less than moderate program autonomy in curriculum decisions: 8% (n=4) with "some" autonomy and 6% (n=3) with "little or none."
Administrative and Faculty Support of BSW Program
Although autonomy issues tend to focus attention on structures, functions, and degrees of responsibility or authority, the effectiveness of structures and equity of arrangements ultimately depend upon relationships between administrators and faculty, as well as attitudes regarding BSW education. In fact, one respondent indicated that "I'm not sure `autonomy' is the issue--more recognition of BSW issues/concerns, more respect for BSW program [sic] is more important than autonomy."
When asked their perceptions of supportiveness of deans/directors and combined program faculty toward BSW education, 10% (n=5) of respondents reported the dean as not supportive or somewhat supportive; 16% (n=8) reported the dean to be moderately supportive, and 75% (n=38) reported that the dean was considerably supportive to very supportive. Respondents reported somewhat greater support from administrators than from the faculty. Twenty percent (n=10) reported that faculty were not supportive or somewhat supportive; 26% (n=13) reported faculty to be moderately supportive, and 54% (n=27) reported faculty to be considerably supportive to very supportive.
Strengths and Issues of Combined Structures
Two open-ended questions asked respondents to indicate what they viewed as the advantages of BSW programs in combined structures, as well as major issues or concerns. Eighty-six percent of respondents (n=44) identified advantages, and 78% (n=40) identified issues and concerns. These data were analyzed using Glaser and Strauss's (1967) constant comparison method of content analysis.
The most frequently mentioned advantages were related to faculty resources, as in this respondent's comment: "the wealth of talent in the graduate program is utilized for the enrichment of the undergraduate program." Nineteen respondents listed specific advantages related to faculty resources, citing availability, diversity, expertise, and increased opportunities for scholarship, research, and mentoring. Thirteen respondents noted curriculum strengths, including clarity of undergraduate/graduate continuum, better preparation of BSW students for advanced standing, and overall quality of the curriculum. Other advantages identified were: faculty teaching in both programs as an enrichment opportunity for both faculty and students; increased socialization and enrichment opportunities for students, such as school-wide programs and shared BSW and MSW student organization activities; and greater status and visibility within the institution.
Respondents also commented on issues and concerns of BSW programs in combined BSW/MSW structures. The most frequently cited issue was the need for a great deal more attention and energy directed to the BSW program. Seventeen respondents identified this concern; a few characterized the BSW program with terms and phrases such as "second-class citizenship," "getting shortshrift," and being a "step-child." Eleven respondents expressed concern over the lack of faculty understanding of BSW education, and commitment to it; 10 respondents cited competition for resources. The following responses seem to represent the dilemmas for BSW programs in combined structures: "it is difficult to focus on unique BSW issues," and there is a "need for strong leadership from the program director to keep a balance of power and ... resources."
In addition to questions related specifically to budget, faculty, curriculum, perceptions of equity, and perception of administrative and faculty support, respondents were asked more generally whether they believe their BSW program needed more autonomy to realize program objectives. Most respondents (70%, n=35) reported they do not need additional autonomy, while 30% (n=15) did indicate a need for more autonomy.
The authors were particularly interested in identifying variables related to perceived need for more autonomy. Utilizing nonparametric statistics (chi-square and Mann-Whitney U), bivariate analyses were conducted for all variables showing adequate variability for such tests. Specifically, analyses were performed on program variables, BSW director variables, budget variables, faculty variables, curriculum variables and support variables. Each category of variables included subcategories, which are listed below:
* private versus public institution
* organizational structure
* BSW student enrollment
* MSW student enrollment
BSW director variables
* length of time in BSW director role Budget variables
* BSW director participation in budget development
* separate budget for BSW program
* equity of fiscal resources
* faculty positions specific to BSW program
* equity of faculty resources
* involvement of BSW program director in hiring and recruitment
* involvement of BSW program director in promotion and tenure
* BSW program director authority in teaching assignments
* designated group responsible for BSW development and oversight
* equity in availability of field practicum sites
* level of autonomy of BSW program within overall school/department curriculum decisions
* level of support from Dean/Director
* level of support from combined program faculty
Seven of the 20 variables investigated emerged as statistically significant. Table 1 provides significant results from the chi-square analyses and Table 2 illustrates significant findings from the Mann-Whitney U analyses.
Table 1. Chi-Square Analyses of Variables Related to Perception of Need for Increased BSW Program Autonomy (N=15) Need Increased Autonomy Variable n % [chi square](*) Gender of BSW Director Male 3 12.5 6.73(**) Female 12 46.2 Equity of Fiscal Resources Yes 7 20.0 6.50(***) No 8 57.1 Equity of Faculty Distribution Yes 8 21.6 6.50(***) No 7 58.3 Designated Group for Curriculum Development and Oversight Yes 13 40.6 4.35(***) No 2 11.8 (*) df=1, (**) p<.01, (***) p<.05 Table 2. Mann-Whitney U Analyses of Differences in Perception of Need for Increased BSW Program Autonomy Need Do Not Increased Need Increased Autonomy Autonomy Variable Mean Rank Mean Rank U(*) Teaching Assignment Authority 18.80 28.37 162.0 Dean/Director Support 16.37 29.41 125.5 Combined Faculty Support 18.83 28.41 162.5 (*) p<.05
The data in Table 1 show that in the category of BSW director gender, a higher percentage of females than males reported needing more autonomy. One budget-related variable, equity of fiscal resources, was significant. A higher percentage of those reporting inequity of fiscal resources reported a need for more autonomy than those who reported equity. Table 1 also shows a significant faculty-related variable. A higher percentage of those reporting inequity in distribution of faculty resources reported a need for more autonomy than those reporting equity of such resources. Finally, in the area of curriculum, one factor emerged as significant. A higher percentage of respondents reporting that their program had a designated group for BSW curriculum development and oversight reported a need for more autonomy than those respondents who stated that there was no such designated group in their program.
Table 2 shows significance in another faculty-related variable, teaching assignment authority. On a scale of 1-5 (1=BSW director has little or no authority to determine faculty teaching assignments in the BSW program, 5=total authority), the mean ranking of those respondents reporting a need for more autonomy was significantly lower than those who stated that they did not need more autonomy. The relationship between needing autonomy and levels of both administrative and faculty support was also significant. On a scale of 1-5 (1=dean/director is not supportive of BSW education, 5=very supportive), the mean ranking of those respondents reporting a need for more autonomy was significantly lower than those not needing more autonomy. Those needing more autonomy also had a significantly lower mean ranking of combined program faculty support (1=not supportive, 5=very supportive). In sum, those BSW directors who reported having higher levels of teaching assignment authority, dean/director support, and combined faculty support perceived less need for increased autonomy. There were no significant findings for any of the four investigated program variables.
Although the response rate to this survey was relatively high (67%), the sample is small due to the limited number of programs that have a combined BSW/ MSW structure. Findings are based solely on the self-reported perceptions of baccalaureate program directors and do not reflect observations and perceptions of other program constituents (e.g., deans/ directors, faculty, and institutional administrators).
Perhaps the most important limitation is the lack of clarity with which "autonomy" is defined in the literature. For example, previous studies have examined diverse factors that researchers have assumed relate to autonomy: decision making and access to central administration (Halter & Gullerud, 1995); degree of independence relative to decision making, governance, curriculum and resources (Johnson & Hull, 1992); and "power to manage" (Harper et al., 1991). In addition to definitional problems, autonomy has not been examined in terms of whether it actually affects the educational outcomes of BSW programs. There seems to be an assumption that autonomy has positive effects on program management, curriculum development, and ultimately the quality of student preparation for practice, but these relationships have not been studied. Although respondents in the current study may have less autonomy than freestanding BSW programs, they identified both positive and negative aspects of being in a combined structure with an MSW program. Additional research is needed to explore these questions about the effects of autonomy on program delivery and student outcomes.
The current study was guided by the researchers' assumptions concerning factors associated with autonomy, some of which may relate indirectly, such as administrative and faculty support for the BSW program, or BSW program directors' perceptions of equity between BSW and MSW programs. Despite these limitations, this study contributes to our understanding of autonomy issues in a unique administrative arrangement. Additionally, the bivariate analyses shed some light on the particular factors that contribute to program directors' perceptions of autonomy.
Although most respondents did not indicate a need for greater autonomy, almost one third (30%) reported such a need. This finding is similar to the results of research by Johnson and Hull (1992), who reported that 38% of BSW program directors in their sample desired more autonomy. However, only 13% of the 232 programs in their study represented combined BSW/MSW structures.
Seven variables were found to be significant in relation to perceptions of program autonomy: dean/director support, fiscal equity, equity in distribution of faculty resources, teaching assignment authority, faculty support of the BSW program, gender of the program director, and the existence of a designated faculty group for curriculum development and oversight. Results relative to dean/director support are not surprising; it is logical that program directors perceiving higher levels of support may, in fact, be afforded greater autonomy. Dean/director support may result in real or perceived equity in distribution of fiscal and faculty resources. The perception of equitable distribution of faculty resources maywell be related to two other significant variables: authority in making teaching assignments and faculty support of the BSW program. Clearly, if a BSW program director is afforded authority in making teaching assignments, he or she may perceive greater equity of faculty resources. However, faculty support of the BSW program is also essential for equity of faculty resources. As previously noted, faculty attitude (resistance, disinterest, and refusal to teach in the BSW program) was the most frequently cited factor among respondents who perceived inequitable distribution of faculty resources.
The finding that more female program directors than male program directors indicated a need for greater autonomy may be a reflection of power differentials in the larger society. Previous research on gender and a related concept--power to manage--has been inconclusive. In a study of factors related to perceived power by Harper (1990), gender emerged as a significant variable; however, in a later study (Harper et al., 1991), gender had little effect on management factors. Clearly, more research is needed regarding the specific influence of gender on perceived autonomy, power to manage, and other management variables. The current study collected data on the gender of BSW program directors only; further research on the interaction effects of the gender of both deans/ directors and baccalaureate directors may be warranted.
At first glance, findings relative to the existence of a designated faculty group for curriculum development and oversight may seem counterintuitive. It could be assumed that having a specialized group responsible for these functions would create a greater sense of autonomy within the baccalaureate program. However, either the makeup of the faculty group, or the level of authority this group possesses in relation to other decision makers may mediate perceptions of autonomy. For example, a designated group comprised solely of faculty teaching in the BSW program may affect perceptions of autonomy in one way, whereas a group comprised of faculty who teach across programs may affect perceptions of autonomy differently. If decisions from a BSW curriculum group must be approved by other governance structures (e.g., a school-wide curriculum committee) or administrators (e.g., associate dean or dean), autonomy may be perceived as compromised. Finally, the existence of a designated BSW faculty group may indicate that the entire faculty does not support or assume responsibility for the BSW program. In any event, the current finding raises important questions for additional research in this area.
Study findings suggest several implications for BSW program management. To begin with, deans/directors and BSW program directors need to understand the importance of administrator and faculty support in regard to enhancing perceptions of program autonomy. BSW program directors must engage in active communication and promotion of BSW program initiatives and achievements with their dean/director and the full social work faculty in order to develop institutional support. Deans and directors should actively demonstrate their support to the BSW program director both internally and externally (e.g., publicly recognize accomplishments and initiatives of the BSW program). Support for the BSW program also involves delegation of authority and equitable resource allocation. Deans/directors need to ensure that BSW program directors have adequate authority in making full-time faculty teaching assignments and that they are involved, along with other program administrators, in evaluating the equity of fiscal resources and full-time faculty distributed to undergraduate and graduate programs.
Findings relative to gender differences highlight the need for awareness and sensitivity on the part of administrators. As in all spheres of public life, gender issues may influence the nature of the transactions between deans/directors and BSW program directors as well as perceptions of these transactions. Therefore, open and honest dialogue about the possible effects of gender difference on administrative functions and relationships is recommended.
Finally, individual programs need to determine which kinds of governance structures are most supportive of BSW program autonomy in their particular institution. In some cases, a separate faculty group responsible for curriculum and development of the BSW program may enhance autonomy; however, in some settings, the opposite effect may occur. The decision to have a specialized BSW faculty group may be influenced by overall size of the faculty, institutional requirements regarding graduate and undergraduate programs, historical development and culture of the social work school or department, whether faculty teach across programs, and relative size of each program in terms of student enrollments. Regardless of the particular structure that is employed, programs must ensure that governance and curriculum systems promote support of the BSW program by the entire faculty.
Council on Social Work Education. (1994). Handbook of accreditation standards and procedures (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery ofgrounded theory. Chicago, IL: Walter de Gruyter.
Halter, A., & Gellerud, E. (1995). Academic mergers in social work programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 269-280.
Harper, K. V. (1990). Power and gender issues in academic administration: A study of directors of BSW programs. Affilia, 5(1), 81-93.
Harper, K. V., Ramey, J. H., & Zook, L. J. (1991). BSW program administration: Directors' perceptions of their power to manage. Journal of Social Work Education, 27, 176-186.
Johnson, H. J., & Hull, G. H. (1992). Autonomy and visibility in undergraduate social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 28, 312-321.
Phillips, N. K., & Engel, M. H. (1994). Autonomy in the baccalaureate social work program: Shifting the paradigm. In L. G. Gardella (Ed.), In memory of Ronald C. Federico: A BPD festschrift (pp. 32-40). Springfield, MO: Association of Baccalaureate Program Directors.
Sheafor, B. W. (1979). The social work program: Its place in higher education. In B. L. Baer & R. C. Federico (Eds.), Educating the baccalaureate social worker (pp. 33-59). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Zeiger, S., Hobbes, R., Robinson, M., Ortiz, L., & Cox, M. J. (1999). The impact of expansion: Adding an MSW program to an existing BSW program. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 5(1), 27-42.
Zook, J. (1987). Organizational structure and job satisfaction in baccalaureate social work programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Cleveland, OH.
Address correspondence to: Beverly Koerin, School of Social Work, Virginia Commonwealth University, P. O. Box 842027, 1001 W. Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23284-2027; email: email@example.com.
BEVERLY KOERIN is associate professor, JANE REEVES is assistant professor and BSW program director, and MICHAEL SHERIDAN is associate professor, School of Social Work, Virginia Commonwealth University. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Annual Conference of the Baccalaureate Program Directors, Philadelphia, October, 1997 and at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, New York, March, 2000.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||KOERIN, BEVERLY; REEVES, JANE; SHERIDAN, MICHAEL|
|Publication:||Journal of Social Work Education|
|Article Type:||Statistical Data Included|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2001|
|Previous Article:||FACULTY IN THE MIDDLE: THE EFFECTS OF FAMILY CAREGIVING ON ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS.|
|Next Article:||SOCIAL WORKERS' POLITICAL PARTICIPATION: STRENGTHENING THE POLITICAL CONFIDENCE OF SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS.|