The preparation and mentoring of Social Work Field Directors within the Academy

An exploratory study

by

Sibyl Renée Beaulieu

A Banded Dissertation Proposal

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor in Social Work

St. Catherine University - University of St. Thomas

School of Social Work

Submitted to: Adviser Name

July / 2018
 Table of Contents

Adviser/ Faculty/ Content Consultants ....................................................................................... 3

Banded Dissertation Review and Approval Dates ...................................................................... 3

Banded Dissertation Revision History........................................................................................ 3

Introduction to the Scholarship Agenda of the Banded Dissertation.......................................... 4

Conceptual Framework Guiding the Scholarship Agenda ......................................................... 9

Scholarship Product Number One ............................................................................................ 11

Scholarship Product Number Two............................................................................................ 13

Scholarship Product Number Three.......................................................................................... 17

References ................................................................................................................................. 18

Appendices................................................................................................................................ 23
Adviser/ Faculty/ Content Consultants
Adviser:

Faculty for DRSW723: Engaged Scholarship:

Faculty for DRSW726: Writing for Publication:

Content Consultant (optional):

Banded Dissertation Review and Approval Dates

Review Date:

Original Approval Date:

Revision One Approval Date:

Revision Two Approval Date:

Banded Dissertation Revision History

Revision – Version Number One:

Revision Date:

Summary of Revisions Made:

Revision – Version Number Two:

Revision Date:

Summary of Revisions Made:

3
Introduction to the Scholarship Agenda of the Banded Dissertation
In this section, provide an introduction to the scholarship agenda or focal topic area of the BD.
Provide the rationale for the Banded Dissertation (use APA Style throughout proposal). You will
develop this section more fully into the final Background/ Literature Review for your completed
BD.

Field Education is the culminating educational process in social work academics and long

considered by many as the signature pedagogy of social work education within the academy. The

Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) in their 2008 Educational Policy and Accreditation

Standards (EPAS) states “Signature pedagogy represents the central form of instruction and

learning in which a profession socializes its students to perform the role of practitioner... In

social work, the signature pedagogy is field education.” (CSWE 2008, pg. 8). CSWE’s position

highlights that the focus of field education is to synthesize theoretical and conceptual aspects of

classroom learning into true-to-life practice within an agency setting (CSWE, 2008).

The term signature pedagogy for social work was first introduced by Lee Shulman who

explained it as the way a specific profession characterizes its form of teaching approach and

learning (Shulman, 2005). Field education, when considered in light of being the signature

pedagogy of social work education, deserves a more prominent place in the academy as the

primary method of preparing social work students for eminent entrance into practice. However,

for many programs, pre-eminence of field education is lacking and this translates in how field

directors are prepared for administering field. Value ascribed to field education is demonstrated

in the authority, significance and value ascribed to the director (Lyter, 2012). In her study

examining the perspectives of field directors, Lyter found several challenges highlighted,

including poor understanding of field as the signature pedagogy, insufficient resources available

to field directors regarding their status, power, and autonomy, and the complexity of demands

within the university setting (2012). Lyter also references work by Hawthorne and Holtzman

4
(1991), who further specify that while there is a lack of research specific to the field director’s

role, evidence exists that highlights the challenges of field education administration in a myriad

of ways including “… lack of status, lack of job seniority, and lack of job opportunity (Lyter,

2012, pg. 181).

Kilpatrick & Holland (1993) note that the history and emphasis of field education in

social work education should be causative of numerous scholarly citations involving the “design

and administration” of this area of social work curricula (pg. 124) but find a failure of such in

their research. More current studies reveal that mentoring, while well-documented in literature

as advantageous, (Brown & Warner, 2005) remains limited regarding field director mentoring

and field administration leadership (Wilson, Valentine & Pereira, 2002; Ellison & Raskin, 2012,

Ellison, Moore & Johnson, 2014).

Mentoring is described as a bi-directional learning relationship involving mutual trust

respect and commitment, where the mentor “supports the professional and personal development

of another by sharing his or her life” (Zellers, Howard & Barcie (2008) pg. 555, in Ellison,

Moore & Johnson (2014)). There is a rich abundance of research on both formal and informal

mentoring in other professions, (Blackburn, Chapman & Cameron, 1981; Bogat & Redner, 1985;

Darling, 1985). More recent studies explore the need for mentoring in academe, promoting the

mentor-protégé relationship, the role of departments in mentoring, , developing a professorial

network, mentoring of field directors and guidance for mentoring in higher education (Bigelow

& Johnson, 2001; Johnson, 2002; de Janasz & Sullivan, 2001; Brown & Warner 2005; Johnson,

2007; Blue & Kominkiewica, 2013; Ellison & Raskin 2014);

Ellison and Raskin (2014), state, “Mentoring is a method of guiding new academicians in

the ways of the academy. Its dual goals are to socialize new faculty in their roles as learned

5
professionals and to improve their opportunities to succeed in professional pursuits” (pg.69).

Mentoring by definition means “a trusted counselor or guide” (Merriam/Webster, 2017). These

authors suggest that mentoring is not only beneficial to social worker education but also has

positive benefits regarding work outcomes and faculty satisfaction (Ellison & Raskin, 2014).

The national study conducted by Ellison & Raskin (2014) of mentoring and field

directors found less than fifty percent of directors experienced formal mentoring, and for those

that did, it was primarily through informal means. Despite evidence supporting mentoring of

faculty, findings of another study by the same authors suggest that only 45% of respondents

received or were receiving mentoring in their role as field directors and 55% received no

mentoring at all. (Ellison & Raskin, 2014). The authors go on to discuss how non-mentored field

directors learn their roles and what they desire from mentoring if attainable. (pg. 79). Seventy-

eight percent of respondents not mentored, stated that talking to other field faculty was their

preferred method of mentoring (Ellison & Raskin, 2014).

The scarcity of research data on how field faculty is prepared for their positions continues

to be an area of under-examined study. There are studies that posit field practicum faculty often

enter field education with no specified training on the administration of field education and that

many learn through on-the-job, “trial and error” experiences (Dalton, Stevens & Mass-Brady,

2011, Ellison & Raskin, 2014). The research found shows that mentoring is impactful and

desired by field educators but often not as available as needed.

Viewed as the signature pedagogy of social work education by CSWE and thus the

academy, this seeming lack of preparation within the academy invariably leads to questions

regarding how the preparation and mentoring of field director’s in field education administration

takes place. How intentional is preparation and mentoring of newly hired field director’s by the

6
universities and social work departments that hire them? What processes exists within the

Academy that ensures quality leadership of those responsible for overseeing the desired

outcomes of field education? There exists solid information regarding the changing milieu of

field education and its impact on field faculty, but very little written specifically on how field

directors are prepared, trained or mentored to administrate a field education program (Buck,

Bradley, Robb & Kizner, 2012).

More importantly, how does this preparation and mentoring as it currently exists within

the academy, reflect the NASW ethical standards taught in social work education?

This banded dissertation examines what preparation if any, occurs through the academy

to field directors as administrators of field education. What ensures that field directors are

prepared to take on the responsibilities of field administration in a knowledgeable and competent

manner? How prevalent and intentional is formal preparation of field director’s through

mentoring by experienced directors? What on-going, field specific mentoring, do universities

and specifically the schools or departments of social work who hire field directors offer? How

does the academy ensure new and existing directors have the knowledge, political savvy,

networking skills and other characteristics and talents needed, to lead out in field administration

and achieve desired outcomes of social work education? Does the current existence or lack of

preparation and mentoring of field directors by the academy reflect the ethical values of the

profession’s code of ethics? These questions remain largely unanswered and drive the writer’s

research focus.

There are several reasons why this is an important topic. The role and responsibility of a

field director requires much skill and effort and is often highly challenging and complicated with

manifold aspects to be navigated (Hunter, Moen & Raskin, 2016). Hunter, Moen & Raskin’s

7
study examined the various areas of field administration and found several areas of complexity

that require navigation including competition with other field programs for agency placement,

budgetary restraints, student demography changes, student specific demands for placement and

university administrative focus on student satisfaction, scholarship and funding priorities that

lack the primacy of pedagogy (Hunter, Moen & Raskin, 2016).

Field director positions are multifarious within the department. Field directors balance

the duality of administrative and academic responsibilities ascribed to them. The changing

demography with the academy, society and politics shapes the context of field education (Buck,

Bradley, Robb & Kizner, 2012). Field administration responsibilities include working with other

faculty to aid in conceptualizing how class room learning connects to the field setting.

Additionally, field directors facilitate the variances of program policies to state regulations, while

being knowledgeable of federal laws, the university’s policies which are both academic and

student affair driven. (Hunter, Moen & Raskin, 2016). Field Directors direct and plan within the

context of the current social, economic, political and environmental milieus of our country and

the world at large.

In my own experience as a field director, concerns of daily administration of field

involves agency vetting, student preparation for site placement, legal restraints due to criminal

background issues of students, an increasing number of students with unresolved mental health

issues, networking with an ever-shrinking pool of agency resources due to competition with

other programs, keeping accurate statistics and records for public access, knowing and applying

policy of the university, social work program and field manual revision, carrying a teaching load,

engaging students, meeting varying student needs and gatekeeping of students entrance into the

profession.

8
 All of these important areas of field administration require a level of political, social and

business savvy which is not often a primary focus of practice as a practitioner, but is vital to

effective field education administration. The confluence of these role obligations creates a

dynamic that is both exhilarating and extremely demanding for the director of a field education

program. These are predominantly learned attributes, not inherent to all who take on the role of

field director. It thus becomes important to examine how those who are responsible for

administering the signature pedagogy of social work education – are trained, mentored and

prepared by the academy once hired for this multi-faceted aspect of administering field, and

whether preparation is reflective of the ethics promulgated by social work education and the

profession. When viewed in this light, the concerns gains traction that the academy may need to

address preparation of field faculty with greater intentionality and focus.

Conceptual Framework Guiding the Scholarship Agenda

In this section, provide an overview of the conceptual framework guiding the scholarship
agenda. The conceptual framework may be an established theory or clearly articulated system of
concepts, expectations, assumptions, or beliefs that support and inform your scholarship agenda
and research. The conceptual framework and its components should be clearly articulated and
linked to the elements of your BD.

The conceptual frame work for this banded dissertation revolves around two of the

ethical principles of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics. The

National Association of Social Worker’s Code of Ethics under Ethical Standard 1.04(b)

Competence states: “Social workers should provide services in substantive areas or use

intervention techniques or approaches that are new to them only after engaging in appropriate

study, training, consultation, and supervision from people who are competent in those

interventions or techniques” (NASW Code of Ethics, 2017).

9
 The code also states under section 3.08 Continuing Education and Staff Development,

“Social work administrators and supervisors should take reasonable steps to provide or arrange

for continuing education and staff development for all staff for which they are responsible.

Continuing education and staff development should address current knowledge and emerging

developments related to social work practice and ethics” (NASW Code of Ethics, 2017).

These two ethical standards serve as the primary construct from which the banded

dissertation examines the preparation and mentoring of field directors by the academy. Field

education is the central method of socializing and preparing students to enter the field as

practitioners (CSWE, 2008) and touted as the signature pedagogy. The banded dissertation

examines whether field directors within the academy receive training and preparation for

administering a field education program, especially in light of field education being the signature

pedagogy. The banded dissertation also seeks to determine whether social work programs that

hire field directors, are demonstrating these two ethical standards in how they are mentoring field

directors to lead out in field education. The banded dissertation examines whether hiring field

directors without provision of position-specific training and mentoring, meet these two ethical

standards which are taught in every social work school and program. What are the means,

methods and processes that exist internally within the academy - that promote successful and

competent field administration by those hired to the position? Are these means, methods and

processes adequate to manifest these two ethical standards effectively?

While there are some practitioners and academics who can step into the role of field

director with a high level of competence because of natural ability/affinity to the characteristics

that produce effectiveness (e.g. assertiveness, networking, collaborating, ease in dealing with

obstacles, fearlessness, persistence, macro level effective judgment demonstration and problem-

10
resolution skills, just to name a few); or they have prior management or leadership roles that are

transferable to field administration, not all social workers have these natural abilities. These two

social work ethical principles seem to call for a focused and intentional level of cultivation,

guidance and development through purposeful mentoring to produce efficacy of leadership.

Finally, the banded dissertation seeks to provide recommendations for internal processes

within the academy, to ensure adherence to the two ethical standards that prepare, mentor and

give on-going guidance to field directors in the administrative roles that field practicum

encompasses. A recommendation for academy training of the field director position is a focus

for this research. Additionally, formulation of uniform required characteristics, knowledge and

skills of a competent field director will result from this banded dissertation.

Scholarship Product Number One

In this section, provide a description of the first dissertation product - a publishable article that
is completed in the context of the course DRSW723: Engaged Scholarship. This dissertation
product may be a theoretical/conceptual article or a research-based article (one of each is
required for the Banded Dissertation). Provide a description of the manuscript, the purpose of
the study or paper (address methodology if a study). Identify 2-3 journals that you may submit
the manuscript to following completion, with a rationale statement for the ‘fit’ with each journal.
The final BD product should be formatted for submission to the journal of your choice.

The first product is a conceptual paper in the form of a scholarly personal narrative. Nash (2004)

states a scholarly personal narrative is injecting one’s own story into the narrative and that when

done well, delivers to the reader incremental pieces of insight that traditional forms of scholarly

research does not (Nash, 2004). Scholarly personal narrative is a constructivist approach and as

Nash notes “All narratives, and here I am including narratives regarding valid research and

scholarship in the academy, are as much stories about their adherents as they are by their

adherents. Each of us is both constructivist and constructed” (Nash, 2004, pg. 36). This paper,

entitled “The Mis-education of a Field Director” examines the writers own experience entering Commented [WR1]: I love this title

11
into field education, the training and mentoring that did exist in an informal manner and the lack

or limits of formal training and mentoring experienced. It discusses how I came to formulate the

process of being a field director independent of mentoring and training and how being a field

director helped me formulate a cogent process to administer field education within the academy.

This paper examines the benefits of mentoring and highlights how the writer’s personal

experiences created “mis-education” that would have been offset by formal mentoring and

training internally from the University of hire.

In this retrospective account, the writer examines the events that transpired as she entered

into administering field education for the university of hire; current thought on the benefits of

mentoring field directors; what aspects of practice prepared the writer for field administration

and those that did not; what mentoring means to a woman of color who administers field

education in the academy; what the writer has learned are key elements and characteristics

needed to be an effective field education administrator; and recommendations that the writer

feels would benefit any social work professional in taking on a field director position.

The intended audience of this conceptual paper is social work educators, administrators

and academe, so the following journals are the focus of submission for publication:

1. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work.

This peer reviewed journal seems a good fit primarily because it focuses on women in

Social Work. While my paper is not a feminist paper per se, it does address analysis

of the lived experience of a woman of color in an administrative role in the academy.

It is also a good fit because this journal encourages new works.

2. A second journal for consideration is Reflections. This peer reviewed journal focuses

on publishing narratives and personal accounts that address a wide variety of topics

12
 including those of educators. This journal is a good fit because this topic provides

additional perspective on the topic of mentoring of field directors evaluates my

personal experience and provides recommendations to resolve the dilemma posited in

the paper.

3. A third journal for consideration is The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work. This

peer reviewed journal emphasizes contributes that focus on bachelor social work

education. It is a good fit for submission because it particularly seeks articles and

offerings that focus on the issues found in bachelor level education.

Scholarship Product Number Two

In this section, provide a description of the second dissertation product - a publishable article
that is completed in the context of the course DRSW726: Writing for Publication. This
dissertation product may be a theoretical/conceptual article or a research-based article (one of
each is required for the Banded Dissertation). Provide a description of the manuscript, the
purpose of the study or paper (address methodology if a study)., Identify 2-3 journals that you
may submit the manuscript to following completion with a rationale statement for the “fit” with
each journal. The final BD product should be formatted for submission to the journal of your
choice.

Product number two will be a write up of the research study conducted for this

disseration. The title of the study is entitled The Preparation and Mentoring of Field Directors

within the Academy; An Ethical Practice Dilemma or Not? This is a research-based article.

The premise of this study seeks to explore whether formal mentoring and training occurs

with Field Directors once hired into the academy. The exploration seeks to examine the

experiences of field director’s and their narrative regarding how they were prepared to

administer field education within their institution. Of import is whether this preparation was

internal, rather than external to the department or school that hired them.

There are some assumptions this study seeks to confirm as founded or refuted based on

the outcome of the study. The first assumption is that formal training and mentoring of field

13
faculty specific to field administration does not occur at a high rate within the Academy. The

second is that limited-to-no formal mentoring occurs once the field director is in the position and

that the narratives reported will confirm that “on-the-job or “trial-and-error” methods have

primacy as the way most field directors learn to administer field education programs. The final

assumption is that the lack of intentional mentoring, preparation and training of field directors in

administration of the field education program is in opposition to two specific ethical principles

held as sacrosanct within the academy and profession. These two ethical principles are the

foundation of this study and will be discussed further in the conceptual framework section.

The purpose of this study examines the preparation, mentoring and guidance processes

that exist within the academy for Directors of Field Education juxtaposed against the National

Association of Social Workers (NASW) ethical standards, specifically Ethical Standard 1.04(b),

Competence; and Ethical Standard 3.08, Continuing Education and Staff Development (NASW

Code of Ethics, 2017).

The first ethical standard examined is competence, which states “Social workers

should provide services in substantive areas or use intervention techniques or approaches that are

new to them only after engaging in appropriate study, training, consultation, and supervision

from people who are competent in those interventions or techniques” (NASW Code of Ethics,

2017). This study examines whether or not effective and appropriate preparation and mentoring

of field directors is occurring within the academy who hires practitioners into these

administrative positions.

14
 The second ethical standard examined is Continued Education and Staff Development.

This standard directs that “Social work administrators and supervisors should take reasonable

steps to provide or arrange for continuing education and staff development for all staff for which

they are responsible. Continuing education and staff development should address current

knowledge and emerging developments related to social work practice and ethics” (NASW Code

of Ethics, 2017).

This study utilizes a descriptive, exploratory approach to ascertain the state of preparation

that field director’s experience within the academy. The study will provide an electronic survey

to participants, focused on obtaining data and narrative regarding their experience with post-hire

training, mentoring and leadership provided by the academy, to fulfil their role as a social work

field administrator. An analysis of the findings, associations and themes from the narratives will

be utilized to establish whether the two ethical standards are demonstrated in how field directors

are mentored and trained specifically for the administering of field education within the

academy.

The survey instrument will include some demographic questions which the writer

replicates from a recent survey (2015 State of Field Education Survey, pg. 2). The survey will

ask 10-15 questions to identify data and narratives from respondents on the topic. Sampling

replicated from this survey has similarity in that respondents are sought from field directors of

schools of social work. (2015 State of Field Education Survey, pg. 2). However, the sample

respondents for this study are chosen from the North American Network of Field Educators and

Directors (NANFED) listserv and the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) listserv. The

sample group focus will isolate Directors of Field Education only, excluding assistant directors,

field liaison or other field faculty serving in a non-administrative capacity. Confidentiality will

15
be address through the use of study codes on completed questionnaires. A separate document

containing identifying information will be kept in a separate file location and access will be

restricted to the primary investigator. To prevent cross-copying from respondents on both

listservs, the link will not be replicable to prevent it from being copied and sent to others. A

survey engine such as Qualtrics, Survey Monkey or some other platform - will be utilized to

ensure that respondents can only access the survey once, whether they belong to both listservs or

not.

The survey will have questions limited to 15 or less to ensure a better rate of return. The

survey salience and exclusivity are important regarding mentoring directed towards field

directors. This focus will help in the rate of return, as a lack of formal mentoring appears to be a

thematic occurrence for many existing field directors. Respondents will help to by providing

data that will formulate the basis for cogent recommendations to the Academy regarding

mentoring strategies for up and coming field directors. Finally, the survey request specifically

asks the help of field directors in addressing this important topic, which may increase

participation by respondents (Scantron, 2018).

There are three primary journals for submission of this research study for consideration.

1. The Field Scholar – Simmons. This journal is peer reviewed by members of a panel

of field educators from across the country and abroad. The journal seeks papers on of

original. This journal is an excellent foil for this reach on field educator preparation

and mentoring.

2. Journal of Leadership Studies. This peer reviewed journal invites submission from

scholars and practitioners on a wide variety of topics. The focus is to appeal to

16
 readers who are leaders and educators from multiple disciplines. This study would fit

best under the categories of ethics and motivation and retention.

3. Journal of Social Work. This journal is peer reviewed and invites articles that address

six primary areas. The best fit would be under social work theory, research, policy

and practice.

Scholarship Product Number Three

In this section, provide a description of the third scholarship product which may be a
publishable article or a presentation at a peer-reviewed state, regional, national or
international conference or the development of a new course at the BSW or MSW level
complete with detailed peer-reviewed documentation including a stated teaching philosophy,
pedagogy, syllabus, and course materials (e.g., bibliography, handouts, PowerPoint lecture
slides, grading rubrics, assignments and exams). The new course option must be clearly
connected to the BD topic or theme.

Provide a description of the dissertation product. If a conference presentation, provide the

information on the conference possibilities you are considering for submission and the focus of
your presentation; specify type of presentation (e.g. paper, poster, workshop) and target
audience(s) for the proposed product (e.g., BSW/MSW; curriculum content focus, etc.). It is
imperative that you identify and articulate the time factors related to a presentation including
dates for proposal submission, acceptance and presentation, and alternate plans if presentation
is not accepted, to ensure completion by the end of year #3 of the DSW program. The
presentation must be completed at the latest during your last semester in the DSW program.

The final product is a conference poster presentation on the research study conducted.

A conference poster would consist of a presentation of the study conducted “The

Preparation and Mentoring of Field Directors within the Academy; An Ethical Practice

Dilemma or Not” utilizing information of that study to highlight incidences of mentoring that

occur, demographics of who received mentoring, differentiation of gender, level of practice

experience, graduate or post graduate degree or other areas of variance that emerged from the

data and whether the data supported adherence to the ethical standards or not.

1. Submission to CSWE 2019 Field Education Track. Submission proposals go out in

January for finalization in late April/May. I would submit the proposal for a poster

17
 presentation in January. Presentation of an electronic poster would occur in

November 2019. The target audience would be field faculty and social work

administrators, as well as conference attendees.

2. A second conference consideration would be SSWR 2020 Annual conference in

January. An ePoster submission is required. The date for submission is April 30,

2019.

3. A third consideration is Baccalaureate Program Directors Annual Program Meeting

2020. The presentation would be in March 2020. Proposals are submitted in late

Spring.

References
Include references used in the construction of your Banded Dissertation proposal. You may also
include a bibliography of articles and materials related to your project.

Blackburn, R.T., Chapman, D.W., & Casas, A. (1991). “Cloning” in academe: Mentorship and

academic careers. Research in Higher Education, 15(4), 315-327.

Blue, E. T. &Kominkiewica, F. B. (2013, March). All faculty need mentors: Learning beyond the

classroom. Paper presented at an annual conference of the Baccalaureate Program

Directors, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

Bigelow, J. R. & Johnson, W. B. (2001).Promoting mentor-protégé relationship formation in

graduate school. The Clinical Supervisor, 20, 1-23.

Bogart, G. A., & Redner, R. L. (1985). How mentoring affects the professional development of

women in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice16, 851-859.

Brown, D., & Warner, M. (2005, September). Mentoring faculty: Role of departments in

developing strong relationships in academic careers. American Society of

18
 Anesthesiologists, 69, 9.

Buck, P.W., Bradley, J., Robb, L., & Kizner, R.S. (2012). Complex and Competing Demands in

Field Education: A Qualitative Study of Field Directors’ Experiences. Field Educator,

2(2).

Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards.

Alexandria, VA: Author.

Dalton, B., Stevens, L., & Maas-Brady, J. (2011). “How do you do it?” MSW Field Director

survey. Advances in Social Work, 12, 276-288.

Darling, L. A. W. (1985). What to do about toxic mentors. Journal of Nursing

Administration, 15(5), 43–45. doi:10.1097/00005110-198505000-00008.

De Janasz, S.C. & Sullivan, S.E. (2001). Multiple mentoring in academe: Developing the

professorial network. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 263-283

Ellison, M.L., Moore, W., & Johnson, A. (2014). Mentoring Experiences of Undergraduate

Social Work Faculty: Navigating the Academic Maze. Journal of Sociology and Social

Work 2(2), 191-218

Ellison, M.L., & Raskin, M.S. (2014) Mentoring Field Directors: A National Exploratory

Study, Journal of Social Work Education, 50(1), 69-83,

doi: 10.1080/104377797.2014.856231.

Hunter, C. A., Moen, J. K., & Raskin, M. S. (2016). Social work field directors: Foundations for

excellence. Chicago, IL, US: Lyceum Books.

Kilpatrick, A. C., & Holland, T. P. (1993). Management of the field instruction program

in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 7, 123-136.

doi:10.1300/J067v07n01_10.

19
Lyter, J. S. (2012). Potential of field education as signature pedagogy: The Field Director role.

Journal of Social Work Education, 48, 179-188.

Lyter, J. S. (2012). Potential of field education as signature pedagogy: The Field Director role.

Journal of Social Work Education, 48, 179-188.

Mentor. (n.d.). Retrieved July 29, 2018, from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mentor.

National Association of Social Workers, W. D. (2016). Code of Ethics of the National

Association of Social Workers retrieved on July 29, 2018 from

https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-

English.aspx.

Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134, 52-59.

Wilson, P. P., Valentine, D., & Pereira, A. (2002). Perceptions of new social work faculty

about mentoring experiences. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(2), 317–333.

Bibliography

Ayala, J., Drolet, J., Fulton, A., Hewson, J., Letkemann, L., Elliott, G., Judge-Stasiak, A.,

Blaug, C., Tétreault, A. G., & Schweizer, E. (2018). Field Education in Crisis:

Experiences of Field Education Coordinators in Canada. Social Work Educator 37(3),

283-293.

Braun, S., Nazlic, T., Weisweiler, S., Pawlowska, B., Peus, C., & Frey, D. (2009).

Effective leadership Development in Higher Education: Individual and Group Level

Approaches. Journal of Leadership Education. 8(1), 195-206.

Brilliant, E. L. (1986). Social Work Leadership: A Missing Ingredient? Social Work,

20
 31(5), 325-331.

Buck, P.W., Bradley, J., Robb, L., & Kizner, R. S. (2012). Complex and Competing

Demands in Field Education. The Field Scholar: A Scholarly Journal from the Simmons

College School of Social Work, 2(2), (np).

Collins, P.M., Kamya, H. A., & Tourse, R.W. (1997) Questions of Racial Diversity and

Mentorship: An Empirical Exploration. Social Work 42(2), 145-152

Ferrigno, T.B., & Muth, R. (2004). Leadership Mentoring in Clinical Practice: Role

Socialization, Professional Development and Capacity Building. Educational

Administration Quarterly. 40(4), 468-494.

Goldkind, L. & Pardasani, M. (2013). Social Workers as Senior Executives: Does

Academic Training Dictate Leadership Style. Advances in Social Work. 14(2),

573-593.

Jackson, B. L., (2001). Exceptional and Innovative Programs in Educational

Leadership: The National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration.

University Council Education Administration, (np).

Lager, P.B., & Robbins, V. C. (2004). Guest Editorial: Field Education: Exploring the

Future, Expanding the Vision. Journal of Social Work Education 40(1), 3-11.

Mertz, L.K.P., Fortune, A.E., & Zendell, A.L. (2007). Promoting Leadership Skills in

Field Education. Journal of Gerontological Social Work. 50(1/2), 173-186.

Mundy, M.A., Kupczynski, L., Ellis, J.D., & Salgado, R. L. (2011). Setting the Standard

faculty professional development in higher education. Journal of Academic

21
 and Business Ethics. 42(7), 997-1009

Nash, R. J. (2004). Liberating Scholarly Writing: The Power of Personal Narrative. New York,

New York: Teachers College Press.

Rank, M.G., & Hutchinson, W. S. (2000). An Analysis of Leadership within the Social

Work Profession. Journal of Social Work Education. 36(3), 487-502.

Improving Survey Response Rates: Four Tactics to Increase Participation. (2018).

In Scantron – Smart Starts Here. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from

http://scantron.com/articles/improve-response-rate

Simon, C.E., Bowles, D.D., & King, S.W. (2004). Mentoring in the Careers of African

American Women in Social Work Education. Affilia 19(2), 134-145

Werthheimer, M.R. & Sodhi, M. (2014). Beyond Field Education: Leadership of Field

Directors. Journal of Social Work Education, 50(1), 48-68

Woolever, J. & Kelly, J. (2014) Leadership and Leadership Development. Encyclopedia

of Social Work (np).

Wilson, P. P., Valentine, D., & Pereira, A. (2002). Perceptions of New Social Work

Faculty About Mentoring Experiences. Journal of Social Work Education 38(2),

317-333.

22
Appendices
Include an Appendix that provides a timeline you construct of the tasks and timing needed to
complete each of the 3 Banded Dissertation products. Parallel work will be required across the
projects so managing the timing of tasks across the 3 products is essential. Additional
Appendices may include additional detail on Banded Dissertation products such as: details of
research studies, information on journals you may submit to, conference information, etc.

23