Transcriber’s note
On Page 87 the line: “Settlement work, educational and
vocational guidance.” is missing a corresponding number.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
A DEFINITION OF
SOCIAL WORK
ALICE S. CHEYNEY
A THESIS
IN SOCIOLOGY
PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
PHILADELPHIA
1923
COPYRIGHT 1923
BY
ALICE S. CHEYNEY
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. WHY THIS DEFINITION IS ATTEMPTED 5
II. THE CHARITABLE ELEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK 8
III. THE SCIENTIFIC ELEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK 16
IV. THE TESTIMONY OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE
OF SOCIAL WORK 27
V. THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRAINING SCHOOLS FOR
PROFESSIONAL SOCIAL WORKERS 47
VI. THE ANSWER TO ITS CRITICS 55
APPENDIX 81
BIBLIOGRAPHY 89
CHAPTER I
WHY THIS DEFINITION IS ATTEMPTED
What social worker has not been asked to define social work and found
himself at a loss? It is easy to describe his own particular tasks but
it is not easy to characterize the profession as a whole or to say why
its very diverse phases are identified with one another. Why should we
apply the term “social work” to hospital social service and probation,
but not to nursing and interpreting, services which seem to stand in a
similar relation to medicine and the courts?
Definitions of social work are not yet to be found in dictionaries
or encyclopedias. A certain amount of characterization appears in
current literature, by implication or by mention of one feature here
and another there. Some general descriptions say of it things which,
though true, do not distinguish it.[1] Probably no strict definition
is possible. The field of social work is constantly extending; its
functions are multiplying by geometric progression; its means are
undergoing continuous adaptation and in all its phases it shades off
into other kinds of work or attracts allied work to its own likeness.
The inconvenience of this state of affairs is a constant subject of
complaint and for at least three reasons we badly need some sort of
definition.
In the first place whenever we talk without first agreeing on
the meaning of terms we are wasting time and giving unnecessary
opportunity for bad blood. The term “social work” is now used in
several entirely different senses. One man, in using it, is referring
to a characteristic technique, which to him is its distinguishing
feature, such, for instance, as social case work; another is thinking
of a certain function in social economy, for instance, the relief
of distress; a third is designating a policy in social reform, a
temporizing policy, for example. So long as this latitude of use
continues we will talk at cross purposes whether in discussion of
specific ways and means or in the evaluation of social work as a factor
in human affairs. Any definition would make it easier for us to agree
or explicitly disagree on what we mean by social work.
In the second place while the nature and purpose of a calling are
perceived cloudily or not at all it does not manifest the coherence
and momentum which inspire constructive work. Its followers are in
danger of floundering among isolated tasks or finding their sense of
continuity and purpose in the mere observation of correct procedure.
Social work while feeling an implicit affinity in its many forms,
often seems to suffer from lack of any essential principles or any
demonstrable obligation or responsibility, other than those incumbent
on the community as a whole. The process of definition offers a means
of bringing to light any principles or responsibilities especially
pertaining to it.
Thirdly social work now suffers unnecessarily in reputation and support
(even among its own practitioners) for disappointing demands which
would never have been made were its nature better understood. Every
undertaking has its limitations and when known and understood they
constitute no reproach. But the preoccupations and aspirations of
social work are such as to tempt its proponents to enlarge on infinite
possibilities, forgetting in their enthusiasm to state that these
possibilities can only be realized if the ministrations and advices of
social work are accepted in many places where it has no enforceable
influence. The limits set to any single line of human endeavor working
by itself are very narrow, and for social work, as for other things,
they are in practice promptly reached. Social work when it stands
thus at the end of its powers seems to have betrayed the confidence
placed in it. A limiting definition would show that the fault lies not
in social work but in unreasonable expectations. Such a definition
would be its best defense from antagonistic critics and disappointed
followers.
Yet “social work” in spite of all uncertainty does stand for something
real. Annually there meets a National Conference of Social Work with
2637 individual and group memberships representing 46 States, the
District of Columbia, Cuba, Hawaii, the Philippines and Canada and
6 foreign countries.[2] There has lately been formed an American
Association of Social Workers[3] composed of master workmen in its
several lines, who must qualify in terms of preparation or experience
and who are associated for the purpose of maintaining a high standard
of work. All this indicates that there is a general concept of social
work, and if there is such a thing it must be amenable to some sort of
description or analysis. Though water-tight definition seems impossible
it is frequently not necessary. If any characteristics can be found
which appear in all the forms of social work and not in activities
unrelated to it they will at least serve the three practical purposes
for which definition is so urgently needed.
Materials for analysis are not wanting. Social work has had its
national conference for fifty years, its magazine for thirty-six[4]
and its schools for twenty-five[5] and the conference reports,
the magazines and the school curricula constitute a competent
body of evidence that can be consulted either in cross section
or in chronological perspective. If we forego expectation of a
precise and all-mentioning definition and adjust our demands to the
practicabilities of the case we may hopefully challenge these compact
sources of information, together with the dispersed literature of the
subject, with observation and experience to stand and deliver a working
definition.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] For examples see Appendix I.
[2] Conference Bulletin, published by the National Conference of Social
Work, Nov., 1922, Vol. 26, No. 1, 25 E. 9th St., Cincinnati, Ohio.
[3] 130 E. 22nd Street, New York.
[4] “Charities,” which has since become the “Survey,” was first
published in 1887.
[5] The New York School of Philanthropy opened its full term winter
course in 1904; a summer school had been opened in 1898.