Interorganizational relationships between schools of social work and field agencies: Testing a framework for analysis

Journal of Social Work Education

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 265-274

  Boco, Marion ^a   Globerman, Judith ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033450353     PISSN: 10437797     EISSN: 21635811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10437797.1999.10778965     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Bocage, M., Homonoff, E., & Riley, P. (1995). Measuring the impact of the current state and national fiscal crises on human service agencies and social work training. Social Work, 40, 701-705.
2. Bogo, M., & Globerman, J. (1995). Creating effective university-field partnerships: An analysis of two inter-organization models. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 77(1/2), 177-192.
3. Bogo, M., & Power, R. (1992). New field instructors’ perceptions of institutional supports for their roles. Journal of Social Work Education, 28, 178-189.
4. Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5. Cassidy, H. (1982). Structuring field learning experiences. In B. W. Sheafor & L. E. Jenkins (Eds.), Quality field instruction in social work(pp. 198-214). New York: Longman.
6. Cohen, J. (1977). Selected constraints in the relationship between social work education and practice. Journal of Education for Social Work, 73(1), 3-7.
7. Epstein, I., & Grellong, B. A. (1992). Models of university-agency collaboration in research. Research on Social Work Practice, 2(3), 350-357.
8. Fellin, P. A. (1982). Responsibilities of the school: Administrative support of field instruction. In B. W. Sheafor & L. E. Jenkins (Eds.), Quality field instruction in social work(pp. 37-59). New York: Longman.
9. Frumkin, M. (1980). Social work education and the professional commitment fallacy: A practical guide to field-school relations. Journal of Education for Social Work, 76(2), 91-99.
10. Globerman, J. (In press). Hospital restructuring: Positioning social work to manage change. Social Work in Health Care.
11. Hess, P. M„ & Mullen, E. J. (Eds.). (1995). Practitioner-researcher partnerships: Building knowledge from, in, and for practice. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
12. Jarman-Rohde, L., McFall, J., Kolar, P., & Strom, G. (1997). The changing context of social work practice: Implications and recommendations for social work educators. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 29-46.
13. Lacerte, J., Ray, J., & Irwin, L. (1989). Recognizing the educational contributions of field instructors. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 5(2), 99-113.
14. McMahon, M. O., Reisch, M., & Patti, R. (1991). Scholarship in social work: Integration of research, teaching, and service. Washington, DC: National Association of Deans and Directors of Schools of Social Work.
15. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper and Row.
16. Raskin, M. (1994). The delphi study in field instruction revisited: Expert consensus on issues and research priorities. Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 75-88.
17. Rosenblum, A. F., & Raphael, F. B. (1983). The role and function of the faculty field liaison. Journal of Education for Social Work, 19(1), 67-73.
18. Rosenfeld, D. J. (1989). Field instructor turnover. In M. Raskin (Ed.), Empirical studies in field instruction (pp. 187-218). Binghamton, NY: Haworth.
19. Schneck, D. (1991). Integration of learning in field education: Elusive goal and educational imperative. In D. Schneck, B. Grossman, & U. Glassman (Eds.), Field education in social work: Contemporary issues and trends. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
20. Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21. Tropman, E. J. (1980). Agency constraints affecting links between practice and education. Journal of Education for Social Work, 75(1), 8-14.