Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM the Encyclopedia of Social Work, accessed online. (c) National Association of Social Workers and Oxford University Press USA, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the applicable license agreement governing use of the Encyclopedia of Social Work accessed online, an authorized individual user may print out a PDF of a single article for personal use, only (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 22 April 2018

The Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work

Abstract and Keywords

The Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work (GADE) is the social work organization committed to promoting rigor in North American social work and social welfare doctoral program. GADE plays a vital role in supporting social work doctoral programs in training future social work researchers, scholars, and educators. GADE develops and updates the aspirational guidelines for quality in PhD programs, provides support to doctoral programs and doctoral program directors in program administration, collaborates with other national and international social work organizations, and serves as the leading voice for doctoral education in the field. This article traces the history of GADE from the early beginnings of social work doctoral education in the early 20th century, through the establishment of GADE in the 1977 to promote the research doctorate, and ending with GADE’s activities today.

Keywords: doctoral education, graduate education, PhD programs, science of social work, research doctorate, practice doctorate

Introduction

The Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work (GADE) is a non-profit membership organization that was founded by a group of doctoral social work faculty for the purposes of advancing doctoral education in social work and social welfare. GADE members consist of universities that have a social work or social welfare doctoral program residing in a school or department of social work that also offers a fully accredited master’s degree in social work or social welfare or its equivalent.

There are currently 92 social work doctoral programs represented in GADE, including 82 doctoral programs in the United States, 9 in Canada, and 1 in Israel (Lightfoot & Beltran, 2016). GADE members include 82 PhD programs in social work or social welfare, which are primarily advanced research degrees, and 10 DSW programs, which are advanced practice doctorates. Doctoral program directors serve as the representatives of their doctoral programs in GADE.

The current mission of GADE is “to promote rigor in doctoral education in social work, focusing on preparing scholars, researchers and educators who function as stewards of the discipline” (GADE, 2016a). The purpose of GADE, as outlined in its constitution as amended in 2016, is to (GADE, 2016b):

  • Promote excellence in doctoral education in social work

  • Advance the quality of research conducted by doctoral students

  • Represent and promote the interests and concerns of social work/social welfare doctoral programs within academic departments, schools, universities, and in the larger profession

  • Provide opportunities and structures for networking and information exchange among members regarding curriculum development and all aspects of educational administration and program implementation

  • Stimulate the development of effective and innovative educational strategies

  • Support the success and professional development of diverse doctoral students and promote recognition of their achievements and contributions

  • Identify and publicize existing or potential funding sources and infrastructure support for doctoral education

  • Provide guidance and support to new or developing doctoral programs including international programs

  • Collaborate with other social work organizations to support the continuum of social work education and advance the profession with all constituent groups and funding sources

History of Social Work Doctoral Education Before GADE (1915–1970)

GADE wasn’t established to promote doctoral education until more than 60 years after the first PhDs in social work were awarded in 1920. While doctoral education has changed dramatically in the hundred years since the first doctoral program was established in 1915, the early history of doctoral education helped to shape the nature and activities of GADE today. Several themes repeatedly emerge through the history of social work doctoral education, including the critical role of doctoral education in strengthening the scientific rigor of the field of social work, the tension between research-focused and practice-focused doctorates, and the importance of standards or guidelines for ensuring the quality of doctoral education.

1915–1944: The Birth of Social Work Doctoral Education

Bryn Mawr College established the first PhD program in social work in 1915 and awarded the first PhD degrees in 1920 to Agnes Mary Hadden Byrnes and Gwendolyn Hughes (Kurzman, 2015). Conferring these degrees was a significant achievement, especially since Abraham Flexner had recently pronounced that social work was not a “profession” partially because it did not have enough of an intellectual or scientific basis (Austin, 1983). The University of Chicago’s School of Social Service Administration (SSA), under the leadership of Edith Abbot and Sophonisba Breckenridge, established the second PhD program in 1924. Abbot, who had a PhD in political economy, was a major proponent of social work education that resides within the academe (Costin, 1983) and promoted SSA for its “solid and scientific curriculum in social welfare” (Abbott, 1931, pp. 12–13). She saw social work as an enterprise that must be supported by a theoretical base, scientific inquiry, and defined in the larger social and environmental context (Costin, 1983; Wenocur & Reisch, 2001). SSA was a strong proponent of the scientific and theoretical basis of social work, evidenced also by the publication of the first academic social work journal, Social Service Review, in 1927. Abbot’s commitment to moving social work education within university walls went against the wishes of well-established social work educators, such as Mary Richmond, Graham Taylor, and Porter Lee, who felt that social work curriculum must be grounded in technique-based casework and its classes taught in social service agencies and settlement houses, alongside the communities social workers work with on a daily basis (Costin, 1983). Nevertheless, colleges and universities across the United States took notice as the need for an educated and specially trained class of social workers grew in the advent of the Great Depression and World War II (Austin, Antonyappan, & Leighninger, 1996; Costin, 1983; Wenocur & Reisch, 2001).

As the Great Depression deepened in the 1930s, social workers became increasingly valued by government agencies and were given a larger share of the responsibility to determine how the US government responded to the deteriorating social, health, and economic conditions (Downey, 2009; Muncy, 1991). Newly established graduate programs in social work placed their students in various governmental agencies that conducted social welfare research in an effort to change or improve public policies that would benefit the poor (Muncy, 1991). Social work research was increasingly valued, and doctoral students were contracted to conduct studies to generate knowledge for government agencies, such as the Social Security Administration (Muncy, 1991). By the 1940s, four other colleges and universities had established doctoral programs in social work including Catholic University in Washington, DC, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, and St. Louis University in Missouri (Donahoe, 2000).

The end of World War II saw a rising need for mental health professionals and private and public service agencies began to recruit social workers to meet the task (Ketner, 1967; Wenocur & Reisch, 2001). At this time, social workers specializing in casework were already familiar with Freudian theory and had used psychoanalytic techniques in their work with clients (Costin, 1983). The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), established in 1946 under the United States Public Health Services, took the opportunity to fill its workforce and offered training grants that would require graduates with a masters in social work (MSW) to pursue a “Planned Third Year Program” (Donahoe, 2000; Ketner, 1967). This year-long program allowed new MSW graduates to earn a certificate or diploma in psychiatric casework (Kendall, 1960). With financial support through NIMH, third-year students received instruction and preparation in social work supervision, teaching, administration, and advanced practice (Kendall, 1954b).

The rise of the third-year programs coincided with the creation and adoption of a practitioner based doctoral program, the doctor of social work (DSW), which focused on advanced clinical practice beyond the MSW degree (Donahoe, 2000). The new third-year and DSW programs led to discussions among social work faculty and administrators regarding the distinction between these degrees and the PhD, which required a more extensive curriculum in theory and research methodology than the other two advanced degrees (Donahoe, 2000; Kendall, 1954b). As there was no formal group of doctoral educators or administrators, the early discussions about the state of doctoral education were facilitated by NIMH-funded projects. NIMH awarded the American Association of Schools of Social Work (AASSW), a forebear to the Council for Social Work Education (CSWE), a grant to create the doctoral and third-year committee (D&TYC) that would examine post-MSW programs (Donahoe, 2000; Kendall, 1960). This D&TYC released the first of “principles” for doctoral education, which were the first of six versions of principles or guidelines to ensure quality doctoral education (American Association of Schools of Social Work, 1949). By 1949, the social work doctoral education landscape had six PhD programs, six third-year programs, and one DSW program (Donahoe, 2000). The ongoing tension between research-based doctoral programs and practice-based doctoral programs continued as social doctoral programs grew through the 1980s.

1951–1970: Defining Social Work Doctoral Education

CSWE was established in 1952 after the merger of two prominent social work education organizations: AASSW, which represented primarily graduate-level schools of social work, and the National Association of Schools of Social Administration (NASSA), which represented baccalaureate-level schools (Hansan & Kendall, n.d.; Wenocur & Reisch, 2001). Throughout this merger, NIMH continued to fund D&TYC, later renamed the Committee on Advanced Curriculum (CoAC), whose membership was composed of 11 doctoral-level and third-year programs. The CoAC was mandated to: (1) promote interchange of ideas and experience; (2) clarify the objectives and nature of advanced programs; (3) formulate guiding principles for the establishment and maintenance of third-year and doctoral education of high quality; and (4) sponsor the production of published materials on the advanced curriculum (Kendall, 1960).

CoAC continued to assess post-MSW programs to better understand their role in social work education through workshops and consultation with member schools (Donahoe, 2000). In 1951, CoAC released a set of monographs that outlined new “guiding principles” for social work doctoral programs, which were centered on student selection, program administration, and curriculum (Council on Social Work Education, 1953). This would be the second set of guidelines for doctoral social work education. CoAC, while not an independent organization, operated with some level of autonomy, as its guiding principles were not standards for accreditation but rather were recommendations and suggestions to ensure quality doctoral education (Kendall, 1954a). While the principles were designed not be enforceable and had no enforcement mechanism, they were often challenged. In 1958, CSWE’s Commission on Accreditation sought to change CoAC’s guidelines into standards, arguing that doctoral education had many of the same concerns as other graduate programs, such as financing and personnel, and that these should be evaluated in the same way (Kendall, 1960). CoAC members, involved with the Commission on Accreditation, however, urged “extreme caution in the development of standards for the post-master’s program” due to: (1) the lack of consensus as to the nature and purpose of doctoral programs; (2) the discrepancy between the doctoral programs described and the degrees awarded; (3) the sacrosanct nature of the PhD within university circles; and (4) the lack of sufficient time in testing the “Guide Lines” to support the assumption that they are ineffective in controlling the development of unsound doctoral programs (Kendall, 1960).

Within the CoAC reports was a recommendation to phase out the third-year programs and a request for NIMH to provide similar types of training grants to social work doctoral programs that noted losing their competitive edge in recruiting potential students against similar disciplines such as psychology (Austin, 1997; Donahoe, 2000). While CoAC members examined the merits of a PhD degree versus a DSW, there was no consensus on which degree was preferable (Kendall, 1954b). CoAC, therefore, maintained its stance of neutrality and allowed each degree program to develop a curriculum on its own, and PhD and DSW programs were mostly indistinguishable (Donahoe, 2000). In 1961, CSWE received a 5-year grant from NIMH to create a post-MSW education task force (Donahoe, 2000). Composed of representatives from prominent schools with doctoral programs, the Advisory Committee on Advanced Education (ACAE) held meetings to discuss research and theory-building, distinguishing third-year programs from the DSW degree and taking on the possibility of standardization and accreditation for social work doctoral programs (Donahoe, 2000; Regensberg & Hollis, 1965). During this time, CSWE also hosted seminars and workshops led by prominent social work scholars to assess potential models of doctoral education in social work including examining doctoral programs’ student applicant pool, research and scholarly output, and current financial resources—integral parts of a program that can produce doctoral graduates who had a broad knowledge base and were adept at research (Kendall, 1960). This committee released the third set of guidelines for doctoral education, called “standards,” in 1964, which were not enforceable standards (Council on Social Work Education, 1964). ACAE also weighed in on whether the DSW or the MSW was the terminal practice degree, asserting that DSW programs produce scholar-practitioners while MSW programs produce social work practitioners.

Becoming GADE (1971–1993)

By the 1970s, doctoral programs in social work were being developed at a rapid rate to meet the demand of a growing profession (Austin et al., 1996; Wenocur & Reisch, 2001). Following its predecessors a decade ago, CSWE leaders created a working group, the Task Force on Structure & Quality in Social Work Education (TFSQSWE), dedicated to examining the quality of social work education programs at all levels (Bisno, 1974). Chairing this task force was Herbert Bisno, then dean of University of Louisville’s social work program, alongside Lillian Ripple, who was the director of the doctoral program at the University of Chicago (Bisno, 1974). Among the most controversial elements of the TFSQSWE report, also known was the “Bisno” or “Ripple” Report, was the recommendation to phase out the MSW degree and replace it with a 3-year doctoral degree, the social work doctorate (SWD). The BSW would become the terminal professional degree (Bisno, 1974; Cooper & Krantzler, 1976; Donahoe, 2000). The SWD would be accredited by CSWE and would exist alongside the non-accredited doctoral degrees, the PhD and DSW (Bisno, 1974). The TFSQWE recommendations were not received well by most social work organizational bodies (Dolgoff, 1975).

As a response to the TFSQWE Report, University of Chicago Dean Harold Richman gathered 53 deans and doctoral program directors in 1975 and wrote a response to the TFSQWE’s recommendations (Richman, 1975). The group argued against establishing the SWD as a clinical practice doctorate degree since it did not emphasize knowledge building adequately and recommended additional time to study and examine the issues and concerns (Richman, 1975). While the TFSQWE recommendations were tabled by CSWE the following year, the people that met to rally against the TFSQWE recommendations found that meeting together was beneficial (Holland, 1978). The next year, doctoral program directors met again at the University of Michigan to further discuss their issues and concerns related more specifically to doctoral education, which they felt were not being addressed adequately by CSWE. Their main concerns were the importance of developing research curriculum, offering faculty training opportunities, assessing doctoral programs’ needs and available resources, and providing a conduit for members to network and share information (Donahoe, 2000; Holland, 1978).

After another successful meeting in 1977 at the University of Southern California, doctoral program directors decided to officially form GADE with Tom Holland of Case Western University serving as its first chair (Holland, Rosen, & Stretch, 1980; Rosen, 1982). Over the next several years GADE met regularly and developed much of the structure of GADE that exists today. GADE was established as a membership organization in 1981, with universities rather than programs or doctoral program directors serving as members, and became the first independent social work organization that had a formal membership dues system, which allowed it to stay autonomous from CSWE and NIH (Holland et al., 1980). Many other organizations, such as NADD and BPD, were established soon after the establishment of GADE.

GADE’s overall purpose was to promote the interests of doctoral programs, to develop a structure for the exchange of information, to stimulate development of effective educational and research efforts, and to represent doctoral education to constituents. As there were only 40 eligible programs at the time of its founding, another key purpose of GADE was to provide resources and support for the development of new doctoral programs (Holland, 1978). GADE’s early activities focused on the current needs of doctoral programs, particularly supporting communication among the doctoral program directors, providing support to the developing PhD programs, and collaborating with other national organizations (Holland, 1978; Holland et al., 1980).

Of particular concern to the early members of GADE was the uneven quality of research training provided in social work doctoral programs, and one of the key reasons for founding GADE was to strengthen the research training in PhD programs (Procter, 1994a). GADE’s early years were a period of intense concern about research in social work (Austin, 1992; Procter, 1994a). The Task Force on Social Work Research (1991), commissioned by NIMH in 1988, lamented the crisis in social work research, highlighting the lack of research training that doctoral students receive, and listing a variety of recommendations, including strengthening research capacity in doctoral programs and developing doctoral program guidelines (Reinherz, Rindfiesch, Gilbert, & Seltzer, 1994). GADE published the proceedings of its first five meetings from 1976 to 1980, and true to its reason for forming, the proceedings focused extensively on how doctoral education does or should provide “training for scholarship and pursuit of professional knowledge through scientific research” (Rosen, 1982, p. 4), though they also covered program administration, curriculum design, and the role of practice in doctoral education. As a further means to develop research capacity, one of GADE’s other early activities was assisting DSW programs’ transition into research-intensive PhD programs (Procter, 1994b).

Along with promoting the capacity of its members, in the early years GADE began promoting doctoral education across the field and was involved with advocacy and collaborative efforts with other organizations. For example, GADE was instrumental in forming the Institute for Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR) in 1993. The IASWR grew out of a CSWE application to NIMH in the early 1980s to develop a clearinghouse for social work research. GADE, NADD, and other organizations concerned with social work research advocated for this to be a profession-wide effort to advance the research capacity and research knowledge base of the field involving multiple organizations, which then eventually became IASWR (Donahoe, 2000; Feld, 1984). This same collaboration led to the development of the Action Network for Social Work Education and Research (ANSWER) (Donahoe, 2000). Likewise, GADE and other social work organizations banded together to fight an NASW-supported initiative at Union University to develop a doctoral degree for clinical practice in a then unaccredited university, with GADE taking a lead voice in promoting doctoral program quality, which again strengthened ties among social work organizations (Saari, 1987). These collaborations among these various groups was the precursor to the currently existing leadership roundtable, which meets annually.

A final key activity of GADE’s early years was the development of the GADE Guidelines for Quality in Social Work Programs in 1992, based on one of the key recommended of the Task Force on Social Work Research. The formation of the 1992 GADE Quality Guidelines was funded by NIMH (GADE, 1992). While three earlier versions of principles or standards for social work doctoral education existed, all funded by NIMH, these older principles were not known to either current NIMH staff or GADE members active in developing the 1992 version (Donahoe, 2000), likely because those were all developed before the formation of GADE so there was no institutional memory. The 1992 GADE Quality Guidelines, similar to the previous principles, were aspirational guidelines for doctoral programs rather than standards to be used for accreditation, with an emphasis on the role of doctoral programs in research and knowledge development. The GADE Quality Guidelines have become an important part of the enhancement of doctoral education.

In 1985 GADE published its first doctoral program guide, now called the GADE Guide, which listed 49 GADE members, including 30 PhD programs and 19 DSW programs (Jorgensen, 1985). While there were only 47 members listed in the 1993 version of the GADE Guide, GADE had expanded to Canada, and listed 15 new programs under development (Wolock, 1993).

GADE Matures (1994–2016)

GADE grew rapidly in the 1990s and 2000s due to the development of many new PhD programs. By 2003, there were 70 PhD programs and 3 DSW programs represented in GADE. All of the original DSW programs had been closed or converted to research-based PhD programs by the mid-2000s. By 2003, GADE had also expanded its membership more internationally, with 7 PhD programs based in Canada, and 1 in Israel. GADE was now a firmly established organization. During this time period GADE updated its bylaws several times and is now governed by a board of directors with an elected president (GADE, 2016b).

Now a firmly established organization, GADE primarily supported its member organizations to better train the next generation of the scientific and social work education workforce through promoting social work doctoral education in varied venues throughout the field of social work, advocating for funding for social work research, and strengthening the research emphasis of social work doctoral programs. GADE members met annually at its annual conference, GADE leadership collaborated with other national organizations related to social work research and education, and GADE developed a well-used listserv for internal communication and a website and other materials for external communications and marketing. GADE also developed a series of awards to recognize outstanding social work doctoral students and mentors, including awards in student teaching, research, and service and faculty awards in leadership and mentorship.

GADE remained focused on promoting the research doctorate and supporting such programs during the 1990s and 2000s, with much of its activities related to the findings of the Task Force on Social Work Research. For example, one of its key activities included an NIMH-funded GADE Research Curriculum Task Force in which GADE developed and distributed research curricular materials to its members (Procter, 1994a). The scholarship on doctoral education and social work increased during this time period, with GADE members and others conducting research on a variety of aspects of doctoral education. GADE conferences became the venue for presenting new ideas in doctoral educations. Presentations at GADE meetings were often submitted for publication, and the journal Arete published a special edition on doctoral education consisting of papers that were presented at the GADE annual meeting in 2000. GADE revisited its GADE Quality Guidelines roughly every decade. Both the 2003 and 2013 GADE versions of the GADE Quality Guidelines were based on extensive work by GADE to assess trends in the field and needs of social work doctoral students and programs. For example, the 2013 update of the GADE Quality Guidelines drew from such scholarly work such as Anastas’ large study of social work graduates (2012), the new emphasis on the science of social work (Brekke, 2012), and a large national survey of doctoral faculty, administrators students (Petr et al., 2015).

While GADE was focusing on the crisis on research, another crisis related to doctoral education was looming—the lack of doctoral graduates to teach in schools of social work (Anastas, 2012). The Leadership Roundtable, which is a collaborative effort of the leaders of national social work organizations, including GADE, CSWE, NADD, BPD and others, convened a Task Force on Doctoral Education to study this issue broadly. Out of these efforts, CSWE provided a fellowship to a GADE member to do a comprehensive study of student needs (Anastas, 2012). A key issue that emerged is that many PhD graduates, while well prepared to conduct social work research and help build the social work knowledge base, were not necessarily prepared to for academic positions in schools or departments that emphasized teaching rather than research.

In the late 2000s, a new form of DSW program emerged, and these DSW programs began joining GADE. By 2015, there were eight DSW programs in the United States (CSWE Annual Statistics, 2016). Unlike the DSWs that had been phased out in the previous century, which were virtually indistinguishable from PhDs, the new DSWs were advanced practice degrees that did not emphasize advanced research methods. These degrees harken back to early efforts to strengthen advanced practice skills of social workers post-MSW, such as those promoted in the 1940s and 1950s, but could help address the faculty shortage at BSW or MSW programs at universities that did not have a research focus. The structure, format, length of degree time, and type of advanced social work practice emphasized by the new DSWs varied considerably. The DSWs did not fall under the GADE Quality Guidelines and were on the periphery of GADE’s mission and its original purpose to strengthen research-focused doctoral programs. While DSW programs joined GADE, GADE had not taken a position on the DSWs during their early years and had not expanded its mission to promote advanced practice degrees alongside PhDs. Despite most DSW programs being opposed to accreditation, CSWE voted to accredit DSW programs as advanced practice programs in 2016.

Current Activities of GADE

GADE’s activities continue to be influenced by broad trends in the field, particularly the renewed emphasis on the need for strengthening the pipeline of social work researchers through doctoral education (Lein, Uehara, Lightfoot, Lawlor, & Williams, 2017), the Grand Challenges Initiative in Social Work (Williams, 2016), and the changing nature of higher education as a whole. GADE currently focuses on four key goals: building the capacity of doctoral programs, being the leading voice for doctoral education in social work, recognizing excellence in doctoral education, and strengthening its own capacity to promote doctoral education (GADE, 2016a).

GADE engages in multiple activities to build the capacity of social work doctoral education, including hosting venues for formal and informal networking among doctoral administrators, doctoral faculty, and doctoral students; promoting research and scholarship in doctoral education; and publishing and distributing the GADE Guide for doctoral programs (Lightfoot & Beltran, 2016). Helping PhD programs achieve the aspirational goals of the GADE Quality Guidelines for PhD programs continues to be a central role for GADE. One of GADE’s major activities is its annual international conference for doctoral program directors, which in many ways is similar to the early GADE meetings in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This conference includes a mix of plenary workshops on how current trends in social work, higher education, or society affect social work doctoral education, such as the Grand Challenges Initiative (GADE, 2015), neoliberalism in higher education (GADE, 2017), or political attitudes of millennials (GADE, 2016c), as well as more practical workshops on doctoral program administration, such as on recruiting, funding students, supporting the development of student research plans, or administering preliminary exams. GADE also collaborates with CSWE and SSWR to co-sponsor events, workshops, and presentations related to social work doctoral education at other national conferences to reach doctoral students and doctoral faculty and distributes handouts of workshops online. GADE has recently resumed publication the GADE Guide (Lightfoot & Beltran, 2016), the program guide to doctoral programs, to help doctoral programs with recruiting.

Challenges

GADE currently has several challenges to address in the future. First, although PhD programs have had the purpose of training future social work researchers since their establishment a century ago, the field of social work has recently taken an even stronger stance in recognizing the key role that social work research can play in addressing societal problems and has advocated for more sophisticated methodological and theoretical scientific training in social work PhD programs (Fong, 2014). Thus, GADE’s activities in promoting the research doctorate and supporting PhD programs in training the next generation of social work researchers are continuing to grow in importance. However, despite this important role, GADE remains a completely voluntary organization without staff support and will likely need to adapt to provide the training and support needed to fill its growing role, perhaps through going back to its earlier history in seeking federal funding to support its efforts, developing new forms of revenue, or collaborating even more closely with SSWR or the St. Louis Group.

Second, while GADE was established to support and promote the research-based PhD, there are growing numbers of DSW programs joining GADE. But DSW programs differ greatly from PhD programs and need different types of support than GADE has historically provided. The role of post-MSW practice training has been contentious in the field of social work since the 1940s, such as the conflicts regarding third-year programs or the SWD proposal, though GADE did not exist during these earlier conflicts. GADE’s involvement in this issue will likely continue until GADE changes its mission to fit the new trend in practice doctorates, CSWE’s accreditation of practice doctorates leads to more structured opportunities for support and networking among practice doctorate programs through CSWE, or the advanced practice doctorates find a different venue to receive the types of support, standard development, and networking opportunities.

Finally, as higher education itself is changing rapidly, the nature of both doctoral education and university-based scientific research is changing as well. These changes include increased reliance on external funding in higher education despite decreased funding available, increased pressure on full-time faculty to produce outputs, decreased state funding of public universities, inflated tuition, and a growing dependence on contingent faculty in higher education (Lightfoot, 2017). GADE will need to provide support for doctoral programs to continually adapt to such changes. While GADE has a record of providing its members with training and exposure to newer trends in higher education, such as new mentoring models, the changing nature of peer-reviewed publications, or new forms of dissertations, this is an ever-important activity for GADE to help continue to build the capacity of future scholars.

References

Abbott, E. (1931). Social welfare and professional education. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

American Association of Schools of Social Work, Doctoral and Third Year Committee. (1949, January 31). Statement of principles. New York: American Association of Schools of Social Work.Find this resource:

Anastas, J. W. (2012). Doctoral education in social work. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Austin, D. M. (1983). The Flexner myth and the history of social work. Social Service Review, 57(3), 357–377.Find this resource:

Austin, D. M. (1992). Findings of the NIMH task force on social work research. Research on Social Work Practice, 2(3), 311–322.Find this resource:

Austin, D. M. (1997). The institutional development of social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(3), 599–612.Find this resource:

Austin, M. J., Antonyappan, J. M., & Leighninger, L. (1996). Federal support for social work education: Section 707 of the 1967 Social Security Act Amendments. Social Service Review, 70(1), 83–97.Find this resource:

Bisno, H. (1974). Structure and quality in social work education: Report of the Task Force on Structure and Quality in Social Work Education. Ann Arbor: Council on Social Work Education.Find this resource:

Brekke, J. S. (2012). Shaping a science of social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(5), 455–464.Find this resource:

Cooper, S., & Krantzler, B. (1976). Why the haste?: Editorials on the TSFQSWE proposals. Social Work, 1(47), 2–4.Find this resource:

Costin, L. B. (1983). Edith Abbot and the Chicago influence on social work education. Social Service Review, 57(1), 94–111.Find this resource:

Council on Social Work Education. (1953). Social work education in the post-master’s program, number 1: Guiding principle. New York: Council on Social Work Education.Find this resource:

Council on Social Work Education. (1964). CSWE standards for post-master’s programs, October, 1964. Ann Arbor: Council on Social Work Education.Find this resource:

Council on Social Work Education. (2016). Annual statistics on social work education in the United States, 2015. Alexandria, VA: CSWE.Find this resource:

Danto, E. A. (2008). Historical research. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Dolgoff, R. (1975). An analysis of the response to the reports of the Task Force on Structure and Quality in Social Work Education and the Task Force on Practice and Education. Ann Arbor: Council on Social Work Education.Find this resource:

Donahoe, J. N. (2000). Advancing doctoral education in social work: The development of organizations of doctoral programs, 1948–1992 (Unpublished Dissertation). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.Find this resource:

Downey, K. (2009). The woman behind the new deal: The life of Frances Perkins, FDR’s secretary of labor and his moral conscience. New York: Anchor.Find this resource:

Feld, S. (1984). Minutes, GADE Busines Meeting (Folder 6, Box 1). Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE) Records. Minneapolis, MN: Social Welfare History Archives—University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Fong, R. (2014). Framing doctoral education for a science of social work: Positioning students for the scientific career, promoting scholars for the academy, propagating scientists of the profession, and preparing stewards of the discipline. Research on Social Work Practice, 24(5), 607–615.Find this resource:

Fox, C. (2012). Three worlds of relief: Race, immigration, and the American welfare state from the progressive era to the new deal. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Find this resource:

Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education. (1992). GADE: Guidelines for quality in social work programs. New York: Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work.Find this resource:

Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education. (2015). GADE conference, linking "grand challenges" in social work to doctoral education, schedule. Retrieved from http://socwel.ku.edu/GADE.

Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education. (2016a). GADE strategic plan. Retrieved from http://www.gadephd.org/About-Us/GADE-Strategic-Plan.

Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education. (2016c). GADE conference, developing the next generation of social work scholars, agenda. Retrieved from http://ssw.unc.edu/gade?quicktabs_gade_tabs=0.

Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education. (2017). GADE conference, social work doctoral education in a changing landscape, conference schedule. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/ssw/gade/.

Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Eduction in Social Work. (2016b). GADE constitution. Retrieved from http://www.gadephd.org/About-Us/GADE-Constitution.

Hansan, J. E., & Kendall, K. (n.d.). Council on Social Work Education—Social Welfare History Project. Retrieved from http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/organizations/council-on-social-work-education/.

Harrington, D., Petr, C. G., Black, B. M., Cunningham-Williams, R. M., & Bentley, K. J. (2014). Quality guidelines for social work PhD programs. Research on Social Work Practice, 24(3), 281–286.Find this resource:

Holland, T. P. (1978). Planning for the future of GADE (Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work). In Opening Remarks Prepared for the 4th Annual Meeting of GADE (Folder 1, Box 1). Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE) Records. Minneapolis: Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Holland, T. P., Rosen, A., & Stretch, J. J. (1980). GADE-related correspondence, Council on Social Work Education (1978–1980) (Folder 13, Box 582). Council of Social Work Education, Post Master’s Records. Minneapolis: Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Jorgensen, L. (1985). Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work Program Guide (Folder 3, Box 5). Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE) Records. Minneapolis: Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Kendall, K. A. (1954a). Minutes, Committee on Advanced Curriculum in Social Work (Folder 11, Box 571). Council of Social Work Education, Post Master's Records. Minneapolis: Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Kendall, K. A. (1954b). Problem areas in advanced education for social work (Folder 11, Box 571). Council of Social Work Education, Post Master's Records. Minneapolis: Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Kendall, K. A. (1960). Correspondence, Council on Social Work Education Post Masters Programs (1959–1973) (Folder 1, Box 570). Council of Social Work Education, Post Master's Records. Minneapolis: Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Ketner, R. W. (1967). Changing patterns of service as they affect the social work role in a community mental health center (Doctoral Dissertation).Find this resource:

Kurzman, P. A. (2015). The evolution of doctoral social work education Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(1–2), 1–13.Find this resource:

Lein, L., Uehara, E. S., Lightfoot, E., Lawlor, E. F., & Williams, J. H. (2017). A collaborative framework for envisioning the future of social work research and education. Social Work Research, 41(2), 67–71.Find this resource:

Lightfoot, E. (2017). The chilling effect of neoliberalism in higher education on social work doctoral education. Presentation at the 2017 GADE Annual Conference, Minneapolis, MN.Find this resource:

Lightfoot, E., & Beltran, R. (2016). The GADE guide: A program guide to doctoral study in social work. St. Paul, MN: Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work.Find this resource:

Maas, H. S. (1964). Approches to advanced education: Differences within and among schools. Paper presented at Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada. Council of Social Work Education, Post Master's Records. Minneapolis: Social Welfare History Archives—University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Muncy, R. (1991). Creating a female dominion in American reform, 1890–1935. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Petr, C. G., Harrington, D., Kim, K., Black, B., Cunningham-Williams, R. M., & Bentley, K. J. (2015). Quality indicators and expected outcomes for social work PhD programs: Perceptions of social work students, faculty, and administrators. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(4), 648–667.Find this resource:

Procter, E. K. (1994a). Memorandum, GADE Research Curriculum Task Force (Folder 9, Box 1). Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE) Records. Minneapolis: Social Welfare History Archives-University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Procter, E. K. (1994b). Minutes, GADE Steering Committee Meeting (Folder 6, Box 1). Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE) Records. Minneapolis: Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Regensberg, J. C., & Hollis, F. (1965). Conference on Advanced Clinical Training in Social Work. New York. Council of Social Work Education, Post Master's Records. Minneapolis: Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Reinherz, H., Rindfiesch, N., Gilbert, N., & Seltzer, V. (1994). Report of the Task Force on Quality and Progress. Paper presented at GADE Annual Conference: Preparing for Practice Research Through Doctoral Education, Seattle, Washington, October 6–8. Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE) Records. Minneapolis: Social Welfare History Archives—University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Richman, H. A. (1975). Doctoral education response to the proposal for a practice degree (Folder 3, Box 1). Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE) Records. Minneapolis: Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Rosen, A. (1982). Doctoral education in social work: Issues, perspectives, and evaluation. Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Find this resource:

Saari, C. (1987). Minutes, GADE Busines Meeting (Folder 6, Box 1). Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE) Records. Minneapolis: Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Task Force for on Social Work Research. (1991). Building social work knowledge for effective services and policies: A plan for development. Austin: IASWR Publications. Retrieved from http://www.socialworkpolicy.org/publications/iaswr-publications/building-social-work-knowledge-for-effective-services-and-policies-a-plan-for-research-development-a-report-of-the-task-force-on-social-work-research-november-1991.html.Find this resource:

Wenocur, S., & Reisch, M. (2001). From charity to enterprise: The development of American social work in a market economy. Urbana/Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Find this resource:

Williams, J. H. (2016). Grand challenges for social work: Research, practice, and education [editorial]. Social Work Research, 40, 67–70.Find this resource:

Wolock, I. (1993). 1993 GADE social work program guide. New Brunswick, NJ: Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education.Find this resource: