Gordon versus the working definition: Lessons from a classic critique

Research on Social Work Practice

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 284-298

  Wakefield, Jerome C ^a,b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Conceptual foundations; Definition; Knowledge base; Social work; Values

Indexed keywords

EID: 26044440020     PISSN: 10497315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1049731503013003004     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. Bartlett, H. M. (1970). The common base of social work practice. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.
2. Boehm, W. W. (1958). The nature of social work. Social Work, 3, 10-18.
3. Gordon, W. E. (1962). A critique of the working definition. Social Work, 7(4), 3-13.
4. Gordon, W. E. (1965). Knowledge and value: Their distinction and relationship in clarifying social work practice. Social Work, 10(3), 32-35.
5. Holosko, M. J. (2003). The history of the working definition of practice. Research in Social Work Practice, 13(3), XX
6. Meyer, C. H. (Ed.) (1983). Clinical social work in the eco-systems perspective. New York: Columbia University Press.
7. National Association of Social Workers. (1958). Working definition of social work practice. Social Work, 3, 5-8.
8. Wakefield, J. C. (1988a). Psychotherapy, distributive justice, and social work: Part 1. Distributive justice as a conceptual framework for social work. Social Service Review, 62, 187-210.
9. Wakefield, J. C. (1988b). Psychotherapy, distributive justice, and social work: Part 2. Psychotherapy and the pursuit of justice. Social Service Review, 62, 353-382.
10. Wakefield, J. C. (1996a). Does social work need the eco-systems perspective?: Part 1. Is the perspective clinically useful? Social Service Review, 70, 1-32.
11. Wakefield, J. C. (1996b). Does social work need the eco-systems perspective?: Part 2. Does the perspective save social work from incoherence? Social Service Review, 70, 183-213.