THE DELPHI STUDY IN FIELD INSTRUCTION REVISITED: EXPERT CONSENSUS ON ISSUES

AND RESEARCH PRIORITIES

Author(s): Miriam S. Raskin
Source: Journal of Social Work Education , Winter 1994, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Winter 1994),
pp. 75-89
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Council on Social Work Education

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/23043175

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.com/stable/23043175?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Council on Social Work Education are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Social Work Education

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE DELPHI STUDY IN FIELD INSTRUCTION REVISITED:

EXPERT CONSENSUS ON ISSUES AND RESEARCH PRIORITIES

Miriam S. Raskin

A 1980 study using the Delphi technique identified field instruction

issues and research priorities. In this article, the author reports the
findings of a study undertaken to determine if the issues and priorities
have changed in the past decade. Twelve national experts reached a
consensus on 29 of 61 statements/issues and on three research priorities
for the next decade. As in 1980, the study participants viewed the Delphi
technique as having strength in gaining consensus, allowing dialogue
between geographically separated experts, and serving as an effective
means of learning for participants. The prioritized research agenda
developed by the experts in 1991 includes the need for empirical analysis
of outcomes related to field education; models to ensure quality of field
instruction; and processes to help field instructors assist students,
especially in integrating classroom and field instruction.

work community agree on solutions to im

THE ies,
volume of published
and books articles,
about field stud
instruction mediate or long-range issues facing the
lags behind the professional literature deal core curriculum component of field educa
ing with other areas of the social work tion?
curriculum. During the past few years, how In 1980, a three-phase national study
ever, the development of the field educa (Raskin, 1983) used the Delphi technique
tion symposium at the Council on Social (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963) to identify field
Work Education (CSWE) Annual Program instruction experts and issues and to estab
Meeting has helped to focus attention on lish research priorities for field education.
field instruction. Yet, field directors con Study results showed how 15 experts
tinue to identify the overwhelming major reached consensus on the issues and prob
ity of "experts" in field instruction as agency lems that faced field education and admin
staff and faculty liaisons, and identify only istration during the late 1970s and early
a small number of individuals who empha 1980s. The study also described five re
size conducting research, writing grants, or search priorities.
publishing on field instruction. The criteria What has changed in field instruction
used to determine expertise in field instruc during the past decade? Have new issues
tion are different than in other curriculum evolved and have old issues been resolved?
areas and have not changed in the past Have new experts emerged, and how would
decade. Without a strong base in field they evaluate the relevance of the impor
related research, how can the profession tant concerns in field instruction of 10 years
identify the elements of a research agenda ago? How rigorous, systematic, and effec
in field instruction? How can the social tive was the research of the past decade in
addressing the priorities identified by the
Miriam S. Raskin is professor and director of experts
the of the 1980 Delphi study? The cur
social work program, George Mason University.rent study replicated the Delphi technique

Journal of Social Work Education Vol. 30, No. 1 (Winter 1994)

© by the Council on Social Work Education, Inc.

75

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

to answer the following questions: WhoDirectors

are of field instruction were asked
the identified field education experts of the
to identify experts in field instruction. Sixty
1990s? What are the critical problems
ninein
respondents generated 201 names of
field, and can the experts reach consensus
experts; at least 2 respondents named only
15 of the 201 individuals—these became
about these problems? What new scientific
knowledge is required for constructive
the panel of experts. The panel reached
planned change in field instruction? agreement by consensus on issues that
pointed to a lack of accomplishment in
field instruction. Panelists also agreed that
Summary of the 1980 Delphi Studythey could not concur with many of the
statements that were of a positive nature or
showed progress.
A national survey of directors of social
work field instruction identified 15 experts
in field education (Raskin, 1983). Those Methodology
experts reviewed 28 statements derived from
the professional literature and indicated The current study and the 1980 study
their agreement or disagreement with each used similar methodology. In the current
statement. During the three rounds of re study, the author sent a questionnaire to the
view, the panelists remained anonymous. 450 directors of field instruction of all ac
Dialogue between experts was conducted credited undergraduate and graduate pro
through the mail only. grams, asking them to list individuals whom
Of the 28 statements, the experts reached they considered to be experts in field in
consensus on 13: on 6, there was agreement struction and to rank each according to
with the statements (e.g., Training to take expertise. A follow-up letter was sent to
on the role of field instructor by agency nonrespondents. Of the 450 field directors,
workers has not received adequate profes 150 (33.3%) returned questionnaires (27
sional attention); on 7, the panelists did not from graduate schools, 95 from undergradu
agree with the statement (e.g., Ethical is ate programs, 19 from combined programs,
sues are adequately covered in field in and 9 who did not indicate their affilia
struction); and there was no consensus on tion). The field directors identified 220
15 statements (e.g., We can justify having experts; a nominee had to receive five or
individuals with other than social work more votes (2%, n = 5, of the respondents)
degrees supervise students in the field). to be placed on the expert list. This proce
In addition, the experts agreed to the dure reduced the list to 14 experts. Two of
following five research priorities: the identified names were removed from
this list because one person was deceased
1. How does one test for the attainment of and the other was the author.
specific skills established as objectives Each expert was asked to participate in a
to be achieved in field instruction? three-round Delphi study. In addition, each
2. What are appropriate learning objectives was asked to identify experts in field in
and related tasks for undergraduates and struction. Of the 12 individuals contacted,
first- and second-year graduate students? 11 agreed to participate (one declined be
3. What makes for an effective professional cause of publishing deadlines), and from
experience in terms of field instruction the names of other experts submitted, one
learning assignments and characteristics additional person agreed to participate.
of field teachers? Hence, 12 experts participated in the 1991
4. What types of learning experiences con Delphi study.
tribute most effectively to the achieve One current study objective was to de
ment of different content and skill by termine what had changed in the past de
different students?
cade. Therefore, in preparation for the three
5. How does planning for field instructionofficial rounds of the study, panelists were
fit into the overall educational and cur sent the 28 statements that comprised the
riculum planning process? 1980 Delphi study. They were asked to

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIELD INSTRUCTION PRIORITIES

consider the issues debated in 1980 and

as the core for the Delphi rounds, resulting
make comments regarding their current im pool of 50 items, plus the 11 from
in a final
portance and relevance to field education.
the previous Delphi study, for a total of 61
issues.
Participants were also asked to use their
Allthe
expert judgment and to evaluate each of responses in the three rounds were
28 statements as to whether the issue were returned to the author; no panel member
no longer relevant and should not be in knew who else was participating in the
cluded in the current study (rated 1); whether study. Round 1 was sent to the panel in
the issue's relevance were uncertain and it August 1991; the study was completed in
elicited no strong feelings (rated 2); or September 1992.
whether the issue were still relevant and After the author compiled the responses
warranted further discussion and inclusion in Round 1, each panelist received feed
in the 1991 study (rated 3). back on the median response for each item
The top five research priorities identi
and his or her own vote, and a chance to
vote again in Round 2. In addition, each
fied in the 1980 study also were included;
panelist received a packet with all written
participants were asked to indicate if the
issue had received sufficient research at comments for each of the 61 items. The
tention in the social work literature; if there
comments provided an opportunity to share
were still a need to systematically study information with other panelists.
that specific area of field instruction; or During if Round 2, panelists were asked to
the participant believed the issue was, orsubmit is, five research priorities. During
a research priority in field instruction.Round In 3, panelists voted for the last time to
addition to this preliminary round, a second agree or disagree with each of the 61 items.
difference from the 1980 study was that In addition, each person voted for the top 3
participants were asked to develop five research priorities from the 52 that were
statements they thought were critical issues submitted. As in the 1980 study, two supple
in the field in 1991. (In the 1980 study, mental
the questionnaires were included dur
author developed the statements from the ing Round 3: the first determined the
literature.) experts' views on the effectiveness of the
Participants voted that 15 of the 28 state Delphi technique and the second asked for
ments from the 1980 study were still rel written permission to use the names of par
evant. A statement was retained if 70% ticipants in a publication or presentation.1
(n = 8) of the panelists rated the issue a "3" Statistical consensus was derived by us
(the issue was still relevant); this percent ing the quartile deviation. The quartile de
age was deemed to represent a strongviation ma is calculated by determining the
jority of the panelists. Of these 15 quartile range, subtracting the lowest num
statements, 11 were incorporated verbatimber, and dividing that number by two. A
into the current study; the other 4 state quartile deviation of 1.00 or less indicates
ments from the 1980 study that were judged consensus by the group. Results were re
to be still relevant were reflected in the ported to panelists at the end of Round 3.
items submitted for the 1991 study. Al Figure 1 presents a summary of steps of the
though the four statements did not appear Delphi technique. Of the 15 identified ex
verbatim, the issues were addressed in the perts who participated in the 1980 Delphi
current study. Panelists also strongly agreed study, 2 were identified again and 1 was
that the 1980 research priorities had not part of the 1991 panel (the second person
received sufficient attention and that there was deceased); 3 who were identified in
1980, but for various reasons did not par
was a need to study them further. There was
only moderate agreement that three of the ticipate, were again identified, and 2 of
five research priorities were still impor
tant. Therefore, only two of the 1980 re 'Participants were Marion Bogo, Alex Gitterman,
Urania Glassman, Bart Grossman, Reva Fine
search priorities were retained. From the 60 Holtzman, Lowell Jenkins, Alfred Kadushin, Elaine
items submitted by panelists, duplicate Marshack, Amy Rosenblum, Dean Schneck, Brad
items were eliminated; the remainder served Sheafor, and Julianne Wayne.

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

those 3 experts participated in the current A

study. Over the past 10 years, five social
Questionnaire to field directors of all accredited
work educators have been identified by bachelor of social work (BSW) and master of social
national surveys as field education experts; work (MSW) programs to identify and rank experts
four of those experts have participated in
one or both of the Delphi studies. ik.
B

Follow-up letter to nonrespondents

Results

The response rate was 100% {n = 12) for 150 responses received
each of the three rounds. Although the num iL
C
ber of participants was small, the response
220 names submitted
rate during each round allowed the votes to
be based on substantial dialogue and knowl
^
edge. However, because the initial response D
rate by the directors of field instruction was
Expert selected if 5 or more respondents
modest, their opinions about who was a
identified; 14 met criteria
field instruction expert may not constitute
a representative profile of all who can be 2 eliminated
considered experts in field education.
X.
The panel consisted of six females and E
six males. Eleven were social work educa
tors in the United States and one was from Letter to 12 experts requesting participation and
identification of experts
Canada. The experts represented the fol
lowing U.S. geographical areas: West Coast 11 agreed to participate; 1 additional
(« = 1); Midwest (n = 4); and East Coast expert identified and agreed to participate
(n = 6). All participants had an_MSW de ik
F
gree, and more than half had a doctorate. In
contrast to the 1980 panel, all had contrib Pre-round of 1980 Delphi statements and reached
priorities; submission of critical issues by experts for
uted a substantial number of publications
1991 study
in field instruction. Nine individuals were
serving as director/assistant of field instruc
tion, or had served in this capacity in the ifc.
past. No panelist had fewer than 15 years of G

practice and academic experience, and each Round 1 —

had served as a social work field instructor. Round 2 —
Round 3 —
Ten of the 11 participants who responded
to the supplementary questionnaire agreed
ik
or strongly agreed that the Delphi tech H
nique was an effective means of gaining
consensus and learning for panelists. Of the Feedback; medians; upper and lower quartile
of 61 statements; research priorities generated
11,9 agreed or strongly agreed that it also
and voted on; aggregated summary of comments by
was an effective means of dialogue. Com panelists
pared with the 1980 study, a greater per
centage of experts in the current study found
the Delphi technique generally more effec ik
tive. /

The panelists achieved consensus on 29Final summary; results of medians and consensus;
of 61 statements. The panelists reached panel members' views of effectiveness
of Delphi Technique; identities of participants
strong consensus and strongly agreed with
who gave permission to use their names
24 statements, reached moderate consensus
on 2 statements, and reached strong con Figure 1. Summary of the Delphi Procedure

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIELD INSTRUCTION PRIORITIES

sensus that they disagreed with 3 state instruction. [1980 panelists achieved
ments; they reached no consensus on 32 consensus that they agreed with the state
statements (Table 1). Of the panelists, at ment; 1991 panelists did not achieve
least 70% (n = 8) voted to include 11 items consensus.]
from the previous Delphi study that they 2. To a large extent, the cooperative rela
viewed as still relevant to field instruction. tionships between school and field have
The panelists from both studies agreed on been explicated better in theory than in
only 6 of those 11 statements: practice. [1980 panelists did not achieve
1. The literature has shown that there is an
consensus; 1991 panelists achieved con
sensus that they agreed with the state
association between the quality of su
ment.]
pervision and the learning that takes
3. Ethical issues are adequately covered in
place. [No consensus achieved.]
field instruction. [1980 panelists
2. Although we have accreditation stan
achieved consensus that they disagreed
dards for social work programs, the vari
with the statement; 1991 panelists did
ety of settings, learning opportunities,
not achieve consensus.]
levels of supervision, and evaluation in
struments does not really allow us to In Round 1, there was expert consensus on
know how well prepared our students only 10 statements; in Rounds 2 and 3,
are. [No consensus achieved.] consensus was achieved on 26 and 29 state
3. The ultimate success of field work de
ments, respectively.
pends on the convergence of the school'sThe top three research priorities had gen
educational objectives, the teachingeral re headings that comprised statements/
sources available within the agency, and
research questions that centered on similar
the needs of each student. [No consensus
issues. The first priority identified was
achieved.] Empirical Analysis of Outcomes Related to
4. a. The role of the faculty field liaison is The experts submitted nine state
Field.
well defined. [1980 panelists did not
ments, which were grouped together by the
achieve consensus.] researcher. Two additional questions that
b. The role of field faculty (liaison) is made up this cluster were from the 1980
largely undeveloped. [1990 panelists Delphi study and voted on by the 1991
did not achieve consensus.] panelists. Priority research needs of a de
5. Training to take on the role of field cade ago were recast by the experts as still
instructor by agency workers has not a top priority for investigation in field in
received adequate professional attention. struction. Research questions that composed
[Consensus achieved that panelists this first priority included the following:
agreed with the statement.]
6. Practitioners who become field instruc • What are the empirical outcomes of field
tors are sufficiently versed in theories ofinstruction or competency objectives of
learning and can easily apply educational field?
principles to student learning needs. • What do students learn to do as a result
[Consensus achieved that panelists dis of field instruction that they could not do
agreed with the statement.] before?
• How does one test for the attainment of
Of the five remaining statements that the
specific competencies?
1991 panelists indicated were still relevant,
• To what degree does quality field in
the votes showed no agreement between the
struction make a difference in the prepa
1980 and 1991 panelists. Some examples
ration of students for effective practice?
include:
• How do we better measure student field

1. The concept that adults learn differently performance?

from children must be incorporated into The second research priority was Models
the planning and implementation of fieldto Ensure Quality of Field, which com

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Table 1. Levels of Consensus

Strong
Strong Moderate Consensus/ No
Statements Consensus Consensus Disagreement Consensus

The concept that adults learn differently from x

children must be incorporated into the

planning and implementation of field instruction.
New faculty have less practice experience and x

professional commitment than in earlier eras

and are pressed to engage in research and
publication. Therefore, it will remain increasingly
more difficult for field education to maintain its
central role in the curriculum.

Agency cutbacks have had a major impact on the x

educational experience of students.

The student's field assignment should provide x

opportunity to do work in a cutting-edge area.

That is, the field setting should model proactivity
with a hard-to-reach population or in a difficult
social problem area.
There should be more emphasis on advanced x

education for experienced field instructors.

School resources for field instruction are inadequate x

and fragmented; therefore, there is little control

of the content and quality of field teaching.
Administrative support for field education is x

frequently sporadic and inconsistent.

Empirical studies of the outcomes of field instruction— x

what have the students actually learned to do that

they couldn't do before—are sorely needed.
We cannot continue to provide quality field instruction x

and assume our responsibility for a monitoring

function in a time of diminishing agency
and faculty resources.
Social work education needs to develop some solid x

data on the cost of operating a quality field

instruction program.
Practical rather than educational factors remain a x

dominant force in the field placement process.

Worksite placements require individual planning to x

ensure that an adequate educational experience

will be available.

To a large extent, the cooperative relationships x

between school and field have been explicated

better in theory than in practice.

Settings chosen for field instruction should reflect the x

mission of the profession to serve disadvantaged

clients and should promote the publicly supported
systems on which these clients depend in under
graduate and both years of graduate school.
Schools, agencies, and CSWE can play major roles in x

enhancing recognition and status of field instruction/

teachers. The profession has yet to come to a clear
agreement on standards and quality of field education.

(table continues)

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIELD INSTRUCTION PRIORITIES

Table 1. Levels of Consensus

Strong
Strong Moderate Consensus/ No
Statements Consensus Consensus Disagreement Consensus

The position of the field work director should be x

tenure track.

Most field instructors actually don't know what the x

student is doing in contact with the client.
The field practicum should be viewed as a laboratory x
for the total curriculum rather than as a separate
sequence or component of the school curriculum.
For many reasons, field instruction remains the most x
unevenly taught (in relation to quality) of the courses
in the social work curriculum.

Because students, field instructors, and field faculty x

are rarely sued, liability issues should have minimal
impact on field instruction.
The role of field faculty (liaison) is largely undeveloped. x
The profession needs to develop some solid data on x
the costs and benefits to agencies that provide
field instruction opportunities.
The literature has shown that there is an association x
between the quality of supervision and the learning
that takes place.
Tensions between agency and school theoretical x
perspectives seem to be more problematic at the
MSW level than the BSW level.

The methods taught in the field should be congruent x

with the best professional knowledge about what
works with disadvantaged multiproblem clients.
Large turnover of field instructors, resulting in x
inexperienced field teachers for large numbers of
students, is the major problem in the field education
of social work students.

We need to re-identify the basic objectives and content x

of field education, as different from the class, yet
continue to reinforce the school's major curriculum
thematic emphases.
Field education should be recognized within the x
university, department, and profession as the most
sophisticated form of teaching in social work education.
Procedures that maximize integration of field and x
school have been developed and are used by schools.
Field instruction departments cannot take into account x
the impact of students' lives being more stressed due
to increased financial, social, and mental health
problems because there are enough other factors to
consider and these added factors would make
placement planning impossible.
The impact of ideology (prevailing orthodoxies as well x
as contrary beliefs) needs examination in the field
enterprise.

(table continues)

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Table 1. Levels of Consensus

Strong
Strong Moderate Consensus/ No
Statements Consensus Consensus Disagreement Consensus

NASW [National Association of Social Workers] and x

CSWE should take some responsibility for field

instructor training workshops that set some national
standards for field instruction and elevate the task
of instruction in the program.

Despite the generic or multimethod objectives many X

schools have for their students in the field, the case

work method remains the most highly conceptualized
form of practice by most field instructors.
Practitioners who become field instructors are suffi X

ciently versed in theories of learning and can easily

apply educational principles to student learning
needs.

The lack of fit between classroom courses and field X

teaching is still evident in field instruction.

Issues of breadth and depth in field instruction have X

not been resolved.

Field instructors should be social workers. X

Grading is a major issue in field education. X

The role of the Field Education Department still X

needs to be clarified.

Schools of social work should place students for field X

work only in public or voluntary agencies, not in

services operated by private contractors.
Schools and field education departments have not X

found effective ways to handle the situation of

students already in the program—even in field—who I
by virtue of their personal problems or values
appear inappropriate for field.
Personal safety and security issues need attention X

in field.

Students should be prepared to engage in conscience, X

knowledge, and value guided practice.

Decreasing numbers of school-based faculty members X

have agency liaison skills. These include the ability

to help field instructors make educational assessments
of their students and to plan teaching interventions
accordingly.
The role of the faculty field liaison is well defined. X

There is still a need to develop an empirical base to X

identify the educational processes that produce

effective instructors who are able to educate
effective graduates.
The lack of institutional support for field instruction X

in the university creates the view that field work is

administrative and not education/academic (i.e.,
matching students to agencies rather than developing
educational units, models, etc.).

(table continues)

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIELD INSTRUCTION PRIORITIES

Table 1. Levels of Consensus

Strong
Strong Moderate Consensus/ No
Statements Consensus Consensus Disagreement Consensus

Field instruction programs should make use of the

total agency for teaching not just a single mentor
apprentice relationship.

Regular task supervision in combination with MSW x

field instruction can satisfactorily meet the need for

professionally guided social work field education.

The extent to which the total school faculty actually has x

a commitment to field instruction, rather than

assigning field instruction to lower status and lower
credentialed staff, has little to do with shrinking
dollars in higher education.

Part-time programs demonstrate that the concentration x

and arrangement of field work hours do not influence

the achievement of learning objectives by students.

We have been slow to respond to the prediction that x

social workers will soon be practicing in a managed

care environment.

The financial and time pressures on social work x

students have resulted in school's accommodations

bringing about compromises in the quality of the
field experience.

Field instruction programs have not satisfactorily x

specified precisely what it is that students should be

learning in the field and how well they should learn it.

Relevant empirical research on major and sensitive x

areas/issues in field education should be further

recommended. Field instruction programs have not
satisfactorily specified precisely what it is that
students should be learning in the field and how well
they should learn it.
Although we have accreditation standards for social x

work programs, the variety of settings, learning

opportunities, levels of supervision, and evaluation
instruments does not really allow us to know how well
prepared our students are.

Field liaison work should be concentrated in positions x

where it can be given priority rather than "sprinkled"

all over the faculty.

Training to take on the role of field instructor by agency x

workers has not received adequate professional

attention.

The ultimate success of field work depends on the x

convergence of the school's educational objectives,

the teaching resources available within the agency,
and the needs of each student.

The curriculum objectives of the school are of primary X

importance in determining students' learning tasks

in the field.

Ethical issues are adequately covered in field instruction.

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

prised eight statements. Examples trated

of on
refield instruction. Two edited books
search questions included: on field instruction also were published
• What mechanisms can be used to assure
during the past decade. One featured em
pirical studies that were either previously
an even (and high) quality among field
published or were new to the literature
instruction experiences?
(Raskin, 1989). The second incorporated
• What flexible field work arrangements
papers that had been presented at the field
can be found to meet educational needs
instruction symposium at the CSWE An
and student availability, in light of the
nual Program Meetings from 1985 to 1990
reality of the concurrent employment (Schneck, Grossman, & Glassman, 1991).
needs of the student?
Table 2 summarizes the focus of the field
• How do we better prepare field instruc
instruction articles published since the 1980
tors to help students develop frameworks
Delphi study. Of the five research priorities
for resolving ethical dilemmas in prac identified by the experts in the 1980 study,
tice?
only two addressed the priority of field
• How can students be taught to be
instruction outcomes. According to the 1980
empathetic?
and 1991 Delphi panelists, empirical stud
ies of outcomes in field education are the
The third priority was Processes to Help
most important research needed as the so
Field Instructors to Help Students. Seven
questions helped to define this researchcial work profession moves into the 21st
century.
need, including:
The Delphi experts in the current study
• How can field instructors be prepared toidentified some areas that have appeared in
help students integrate classroom learnthe literature during the past 10 years but
ing with the realities of practice? were not identified as concerns of field
• How do we more effectively integrate instruction in the 1980 study. Examples ar
the instructional program in the class field work training agreements (Gelman
with the instructional program in the 1990); gatekeeping (Hartman & Wills, 1991
field? Moore & Urwin, 1990, 1991); managed
• What tools (process recording, audiovi care, worksite placements (Abbott, 1986);
sual tape, case conference, and so forth)
liability (Gelman, 1990; Gelman & Wardell,
do field instructors use to guide students
1988); turnover of field instructors (Bogo
as they develop a framework to examine & Power, 1992); task supervision (Marshack
their practice, and how effective was the
& Glassman, 1991); and personal safety
endeavor? and security. In addition, during the 1980s,
• What effect does field instructor train practica in industrial social work (Gould,
ing have on the quality of field instruc
1984) were innovative and on the cutting
tion? edge. The 1991 Delphi participants indi
cated that placements that focus on the
Between 1965 and 1981, 6% of the ar
homeless, substance abuse, and people with
ticles published in the Journal of Social AIDS were cutting edge.
Work Education addressed field instruc
tion. Social Work published a total of six
articles during the period (Raskin, 1983). Discussion
From 1983 to 1992, Social Work did not
publish any articles on field instruction; Experts over the past 2 decades have
and 7.7% of the articles published during indicated a need for outcomes research or
that period in the Journal of Social Work the empirical testing of field work effec
Education focused on field-related topics.tiveness. The available literature, however,
In 1987, The Journal of Teaching in Social has focused primarily on groups (e.g., stu
Work began publication. Articles in this dents, field instructors, and liaisons) that
journal also were reviewed; 7.1% concen are accessible to researchers, and the meth

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIELD INSTRUCTION PRIORITIES

Table 2. Number of Field Instruction Articles Appearing in Both

the Journal of Social Work Education (1983-1992)
and the Journal of Teaching in Social Work (1987-1992)

Focus No. of Articles

Students 11
Field instructors 8
Liaison 3
Supervision 3
Social work programs 2
Field director 2
Cutting-edge placements 2
Learning contract 2
Evaluation 2
Research 2

Placement types 2
Integrative seminar 1

Computers 1
Outcomes 1
Volunteer work 1

Training agreements 1
Field curriculum 1
Agencyschool 1
Integration theory and practice 1
Transfer of skills 1
Gatekeeping 1

odologies have continued to be in the form pretest and posttest design and /-tests, the
of self-reports, opinions, perceptions, and authors determined that the course helped
descriptions. Although these contributions to increase the ability of field instructors to
are valuable, field instruction researchers think critically. The authors called for out
must begin to address the outcomes of field comes research: "Further research must be
instruction in a more systematic and em undertaken to determine whether they [field
pirical manner. instructors] can operationalize that ability
In 1980, experts could not agree on the
in the context of the workplace with a
following statement: No field instruction practicum student by applying a critically
program should be offered without provi reflective approach to field instruction" (p.
sion for immediate as well as long-term 175).
evaluation of its effectiveness. A decade of Based on their own experience and re
research, experience, and academic reali search conducted by Rosenfeld (1989), Bogo
ties found the 1991 experts placing out and Power (1992) recognized that field in
comes/effectiveness research in field structor turnover is high in social work
instruction again as the top priority for programs.
the Studies have shown (Lacerte,
following decade. Apparently, researchers Ray, & Irwin, 1989; Rosenfeld, 1989; Strom,
recognize the need for evaluating 1991; effecWatt & Thomlison, 1980) that cer
tiveness and outcomes. For example, Rogers tain factors influence why field instructors
and McDonald (1992) evaluated a 10-week intend or do not intend to continue as field
course designed to teach critical thinking instructors. However, prior research de
to field instructors. Through the use of a signs did not follow up to see which field

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

instructors continued and which of the vari dents were placed in voluntary agencies.
ables identified were associated with ac
Age and prior work experience were not
associated with better outcomes. The re
tual continuance. Bogo and Power found
sults
that in 64% of the cases they surveyed theof that study have implications for
field instructors actually did not take placements
an (matching) and for developing
other student because of agency-related student assignments.
reasons such as reorganization or inadequate The third research priority identified in
space; in 36% of the cases, the reason in the current study was creating methods to
volved a personal life event such as preg help field instructors assist students, espe
nancy, health problem, or job change. cially in integrating class and field educa
Apparently, "university supports, although tion. There is much emphasis on theory and
considered helpful by new field instructors, practice in field instruction training
are not variables that will determine intent (Walden & Brown, 1985). Yet, Strom (1991)
to continue or continuance" (Bogo & Power, found that only 6% of social workers (MSW
1992, p. 186). supervisors) and 12% of non-social work
ers (non-MSW supervisors) felt that the
Intrinsic rewards are important to field
instructors; the rewards influence the detraining offered by the schools (five bacca
sire of new instructors to continue as field laureate programs) contributed to their skills
instructors, but organizational and personalas supervisors. Similarly, Bogo and Power
life events intervene and affect actual con (1992) found that 31 % of new field instruc
tinuance. Strom (1991) found that privi
tors who were assessing organizational/
leges offered by schools do not induceagency support indicated that teaching
continued supervision of students. Of theory was unimportant to them: "These
course, income or financial incentive vari practitioners did not value the linkage of
ables have not yet entered the equation in theory and practice as a teaching methodol
any published study. Would a significant ogy" (p. 184). The literature of the past 10
stipend affect an individual's continuance years has supported the Delphi participants'
in the role of field instructor? The studies identification of the third research issue as
indicate that research must go beyond sur a priority and their disagreement with the
veying the intent of field instructors and statement, "Procedures that maximize inte
begin to address the many factors that gration
ap of field and school have been devel
pear to be related to observed behavior. oped and are used by schools."
In 1988, Neugebogen conducted an evalu In addition, Tolson and Kopp (1988)
ative study in field practicum, based onstudied
10 the ability of students to apply prac
years of data for MSW administration stu tice evaluation skills learned in the class
dents. He determined the relationship be room to their work with clients in the field.
tween dependent variables, such as tasks The authors wanted to determine, among
performed by students, auspice of the other things, whether the articulated model
agency, and the prior experience of stu was working. The literature supported the
dents, and the independent variables of stuconclusion of field instruction experts from
dent performance (both in the field and on both Delphi studies that there is a need to
the job after graduation) and student satis find ways to help field instructors assist
faction. The author was interested in an students in integrating theory and practice.
swering the question, "What types of An field
emerging professional theme since the
experiences result in the best outcomes?" 1980 study has been practice evaluation.
(p. 153). That outcome study showed that, According to Tolson and Kopp, "The prac
for MSW administration students, better tice evaluation skills taught in the class
outcomes occurred when student tasks were room had only a minimal impact on the way
at the upper organizational levels, when in which students practiced" (p. 132). They
students worked with line staff, when stu believed that greater articulation between
dents performed interactional tasks and class and field would be difficult because
interorganizational functions, and when stu the faculty and field instructor would need

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIELD INSTRUCTION PRIORITIES

to invest more time. Economic realities of

show which (if any) of the faculty field
higher education and social agenciesliaison
pre roles and functions make a differ
ence in student learning, in student field
vent this required investment of time. Tolson
and Kopp, however, seem to have con and job performance, and in students' abil
curred with the first research priority iden ity to integrate theory and practice. How
tified by the panelists in the current study, ever, according to the 1991 Delphi study
that is, conducting an empirical analysis of experts, the problem lies not in the defini
outcomes related to the field. According to tion of the role of field liaison but in the
Tolson and Kopp, "The findings from this implementation of that role:
and other studies indicate that investiga
tions similar to this one are imperative ifPerhaps there is more development in the
we want to know whether our educational literature but there's precious little in
programs have the desired impact. It is notpractice.
sufficient to assume that content taught in
the classroom will transfer to practice" (p.Role development exceeds role imple
133). mentation.
Furthermore, concerns and questions
about the roles and responsibilities of the
field liaison remain unclear. For example, Our energies need to be spent more on
determining how to increase faculty
the current study showed that only three
articles were written about field liaisons in performance of the role than in further
defining it.
the Journal of Social Work Education and
the Journal of Teaching in Social Work
during the past decade. The Delphi panel
Reading the comments and reflecting on
ists in the current study could not reach a my experiences, I think there is a histori
consensus about the role of the liaison; the cal "ideal" model as reflected in the lit
literature seems to reflect a lack of consis erature and guidelines which obviously
tent implementation of the role. In 1986, a does not work in today's environment.
national study was conducted to determine The panelists continue to identify why it
the criteria for selecting liaisons, measur doesn't work. Therefore, is it not time to
ing expectations, and devising methods for start discussing and developing new mod
evaluating perceptions of the importance els that meet educational goals and that
of liaison duties (Smith, Faria, & faculty feel committed to enacting?
Brownstein, 1986). The study expanded the
number of identified liaison roles and func Field instruction researchers apparently
tions. The authors concluded that schools have recognized and are beginning to carry
operationalize the role of the liaison basedout the critical self-examination necessary
on their own needs and philosophy, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of programs.
that
more research is needed to determine which The cumulative effect of such knowledge
should contribute to enhanced field mod
roles and functions are critical to quality
practicum education. Those critical roles els, student performance, and overall so
cial work education.
and functions should be required of liaisons
by all schools; secondary roles and func
tions should be left to the discretion of each Conclusion
school. "Such research would further clarify
as well as standardize the role of the liai The percentage of published articles and
books on field instruction in the literature
son" (p. 77).
has increased slightly during the past de
In carrying out the type of research rec
ommended by Smith, Faria, and Brown cade. Yet, the number of identified experts
in the field has remained approximately the
stein, the first research priority of the 1991
same. Panelists from two studies found the
Delphi study should be addressed. That is,
an outcome study would be undertaken to Delphi technique effective in gaining con

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

REFERENCES
sensus and in stimulating dialogue and
learning. In both studies, panelists did not Abbott, A. A. (1986). The field placement contract: It
reach consensus on slightly more than 50% maintaining comparability between employment-r
of the items under study. The need for and traditional field placements. Journal of Social
outcomes research in field instruction is a Education, 22(1), 57-66.
Bogo, M., & Power, R. (1992). New field instructors'
priority that has remained constant over
tions of institutional supports for their roles. Jour
time. As it moves into the 21st century, the
Social
Work Education, 25(2), 178-189.
profession can call upon these recognized
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental a
field instruction experts for guidance and
tion of the Delphi Method to the use of experts. M
consultation. ment Science, 9(3), 458-467.
Gelman, S. R. (1990). The crafting of field work t
To empirically test for outcomes may agreements. Journal of Social Work Education, 26
mean introducing an innovative or alterna
75.
tive program under CSWE guidelines. Gelman,
As S. R., & Wardell, P. (1988). Who's responsible? The
long as those who develop programs fear
field liability dilemma. Journal of Social Work Education,
24( 1), 70-78.
the consequences of the accreditation proc
Gould, G. M. (1984). Developing industrial social work field
ess, hypothesis testing requiring radical
placements. Journal of Social Work Education, 20(2), 35
changes will not occur. There is no extrin42.
sic reward for trying something innovative
Hartman, C., & Wills, R. M. (1991). The gatekeeping role in
and empirically evaluating the results. Nosocial work: A survey. In D. Schneck, B. Grossman, & U.
Glassman (Eds ), Field education in social work: Contem
program wants to be out of compliance withporary issues and trends (pp. 310-319). Dubuque, IA:
standards. Although there is a CSWE-ap Kendall/Hunt.
proved mechanism to develop program in Lacerte, J., Ray, J., & Irwin, L. (1989). Recognizing the
novations, the great majority of schools of educational contributions of field instructors. Journal of
social work do not want to undertake the Teaching in Social Work, 3,99-113.
Marshack, E., & Glassman, U. (1991). Innovative models for
required CSWE process. Perhaps this is field
oneinstruction: Departing from traditional methods. In D.
reason why surveys, opinions, and satisfac
Schneck, B. Grossman, & U. Glassman (Eds ), Fieldeduca
tion questionnaires are the primary meth tion in social work: Contemporary issues and trends (pp.
84-95). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
odologies used in field instruction research.
Moore, L. S., & Urwin, C. A. (1990). Quality control in social
Furthermore, it is difficult to generalize
work: The gatekeeping role in social work education. Jour
from the 32 statements for which there was
nal of Teaching in Social Work, 4, 113-128.
no consensus. The experts who submittedMoore, L. S., & Urwin, C. A. (1991). Gatekeeping: A model
the statements for the current study viewed
for screening baccalaureate students for field education.
Journal of Social Work Education, 27, 8-17.
each area as important. Each issue is an
Neugebogen, B. (1988). Field practica in social work admin
area with which programs are grappling, istration: Tasks, auspice, selection criteria and outcomes.
but the profession has not been able to Journal of Social Work Education, 24(2), 151-158.
address and resolve the problems. Raskin, M. (1983). A Delphi study in field instruction: Iden
The challenge to the profession is to tification of issues and research priorities by experts. Arete,
initiate further work on the three research 8, 38-48.
Raskin, M. (Ed). (1989). Empirical studies in field instruc
priorities and to illuminate other issues that
tion. New York: Haworth Press.
were not associated with consensus. Higher Rogers, G., & McDonald, L. (1992). Thinking critically: An
education is being forced by the economy, approach to field instructor training. Journal of Social Work
Education, 28(2), 166-177.
state budgets, and consumers to make
Rosenfeld, D. J. (1989). Field instructor turnover. In M. S.
changes. Can social work education, espe Raskin (Ed.), Empirical studies in field instruction (pp.
cially field instruction, demonstrate its ef 187-211). New York: Haworth Press.
fectiveness in training practitioners? It canSchneck, D., Grossman, B., & Glassman, U. (Eds ). (1991).
be done if the profession is willing to take Field education in social work: Contemporary issues and
risks and use the scientific method to de trends. Dubuque, LA: Kendall/Hunt.
Smith, H. Y., Faria, G., & Brownstein, C. (1986). Social work
velop an enlarged, empirical knowledge faculty in the role of liaison: A field study. Journal of Social
base about what constitutes cost-effective Work Education, 22(3), 68-78.
field instruction and how to develop highly
Strom, K. (1991). Should field instructors be social workers?
Journal of Social Work Education, 27(2), 187-195.
educated, caring, ethical, and professional
social workers.

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIELD INSTRUCTION PRIORITIES

Tolson, E. R., & Kopp, J. (1988). The practicum: Watt, S., & Thomlison, B. (1980). Trends and issues in th
Clients,
problems, interventions and influences on student field preparation of social work manpower: A summar
practice.
Journal of Social Work Education, 24(2), 123-134. report. Canadian Journal of Social Work Education, 6,137
Walden, T., & Brown, L. N. (1985). The integration 158.
seminar:
A vehicle for joining theory and practice. Journal of Social
Work Education, 2/(1), 13-19.

Accepted 7/93

Address correspondence to: Miriam S. Raskin, George Mason University, Social Work Program, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax,
VA 22030-4444.

This content downloaded from

111.94.36.63 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:23:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms