P1: MRM/RKP P2: MRM

Sociological Practice [sopr] pp074-296875 February 16, 2001 12:21 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2001

The Founding of the Clinical Sociology

Association: A Personal Narrative
John F. Glass1

This paper discusses the rediscovery of clinical sociology in the 1970s and the
founding of the Clinical Sociology Association in 1978. The author recounts
his role in these events and traces their origin in his personal life.
KEY WORDS: clinical sociology; applied sociology; social intervention; humanist sociology;
sociological practice.

INTRODUCTION

1998 marked the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Clinical Soci-
ology (CSA) Association, now known as the Sociological Practice Associa-
tion. As one who was instrumental in the founding of CSA and who served
as its first president, I want to recall how this came about and share some
personal background that culminated in my organizing a roundtable discus-
sion on clinical sociology at the American Sociological Association (ASA)
meetings in New York on September 3, 1976. Until that time, there was no
organized movement to recognize and promote sociological practice.

The Revival of Clinical Sociology

At the 1972 ASA meetings I read H. Warren Dunham’s paper “Clin-

ical Sociology: Its Nature and Function” (Dunham 1972/1982). It was my
first acquaintance with a sociologist using the term and led me to the all
but forgotten article “Clinical Sociology” written over 40 years earlier by
Louis Wirth (Wirth 1931) in the American Journal of Sociology, the premier
1 4242 Wilkinson Avenue, Studio City, California 91606-1661; e-mail: jglasshouse@earthlink.net.

75

1522-3442/01/0300-0075$19.50/0 °
C 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: MRM/RKP P2: MRM
Sociological Practice [sopr] pp074-296875 February 16, 2001 12:21 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

76 Glass

journal in the field. This discovery strongly justified and reinforced my inter-
est in clinical sociology. Wirth made a strong case for the significant role that
sociologists can and did play in the study, diagnosis, and treatment of person-
ality disorders. He emphasized the necessity of combining theoretical with
practical interests and gave examples of sociologists working in child guid-
ance clinics to bring their perspective together with that of the psychiatrist,
social worker, and psychologist.
I envisioned clinical sociology as the direct application of sociological
thinking and knowledge to problem solving and change at the individual,
group, organization, or community level. The clinical sociologist is essen-
tially a change agent rather than a researcher or evaluator. The intervention
may involve a redefinition of the self, role, or situation. Based on my fa-
miliarity with humanist psychology and sociology, educational innovation,
and applied behavioral science, I argued that clinical sociology’s value ori-
entation be humanistic, holistic, and multidisciplinary, and that sociological
concepts such as role, reality construction, norms, values, and culture be key
tools of clinical professionals. Here I was greatly influenced by my reading of
and contact with social psychologists and applied behavioral scientists such
as Warren Bennis, Chris Argyris, and Ronald Lippitt (Bennis et al. 1976) who
consulted and worked with organizational change. My chapter “Organiza-
tions and the Workplace” (Glass 1994) in Using Sociology (Straus 1985/1994)
reflects some of that influence.
For 4 years (1972–76) I was the only sociologist on the faculty of the
California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP) in Los Angeles. While
coordinating a series of courses under the rubric of “Culture and Society”
and teaching psychology graduate students how to do community and or-
ganizational consulting, I realized the absurdity that we were not training
sociologists to do the same. Sociology has a central and legitimate role in
intervention and change facilitation that necessitates the consideration of
social systems (Glass 1991). For example, in Seymour Sarason’s influential
book The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change (Sarason 1971,
p. 12) he states
. . . individuals operate in various social settings that have a structure not compre-
hensible by our existing theories of individual personality. In fact, in many situations,
it is likely that one can predict an individual’s behavior far better on the basis of the
knowledge of the social structure and his position in it than one can on the basis of
his personal dynamics.

The whole field of family therapy is based on such analysis. Philip

Zimbardo’s famous prison experiment, which had to be aborted when the
students randomly assigned as guards became brutal, is a classic example of
this (Haney et al. 1981). Another example is William Foote Whyte’s study
of the restaurant as a social system and his diagnosis of what seemed like
P1: MRM/RKP P2: MRM
Sociological Practice [sopr] pp074-296875 February 16, 2001 12:21 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Founding of the Clinical Sociology Association 77

personality problems as rather being rooted in the social structure (Porter

1962).
In 1976, I took it upon myself to organize and chair a roundtable dis-
cussion at the ASA meetings in New York. In the one page hand-out for the
roundtable, entitled “Clinical Sociology: A New Profession?” I (Glass 1976)
wrote

By defining sociology narrowly as an academic discipline we have short-sightedly

given up by default the opportunity to train and develop practitioners in social change
and human services. . . . Sociology can be both an academic discipline and a practicing
profession analogous to the academic and clinical branches in psychology.

The roundtable was attended by 10 persons, including Jonathan

Freedman, who had already begun writing a clinical sociology text together
with Barry Glassner (Glassner and Freedman 1979). An informal network
began; we met at the 1977 ASA meetings the following year where I pre-
sented a paper, subsequently published (Glass 1979), expanding the ideas
I had outlined at the roundtable: the origins of clinical sociology, applying
sociological theory to practice, and the training and employment of clinical
sociologists.
In the Summer of 1978 Roger Straus edited the first issue of the Clinical
Sociology Newsletter listing regional coordinators Margaret Hall, Suzanne
Powers, and Hugh Gardner. A number of sessions on clinical sociology were
scheduled at the ASA meetings. These events led to an organizational meet-
ing and the formation of the Clinical Sociology Association. About 30 of
us were there September 7 at 6:30 p.m. in the Imperial Ballroom of the
San Francisco Hilton. I gave a brief history of the events leading up to this
meeting, Alfred McClung Lee spoke of his writings in the field and urged a
close relationship with the new Association for Humanist Sociology, and a
steering committee and a number of task forces were set up. We were en-
couraged to join the newly formed Sociological Practice Section of the ASA,
and made plans to schedule sessions on clinical sociology at regional soci-
ology meetings. Publications soon followed. An entire issue of the journal
American Behavioral Scientist, guest edited by Roger Straus (1979), was de-
voted to clinical sociology, including articles by Alfred McClung Lee, Barry
Glassner, Jan Fritz, and myself, among others. Jan Fritz served as the first
editor of the official journal of CSA, Clinical Sociology Review, appearing
in 1982, which contains a symposium on clinical sociology introduced by Jan
Fritz and myself (Glass and Fritz 1982).
A number of the founding and early members already were practicing
clinical sociology. Julia Mayo was doing psychiatric work at St. Vincent’s
Hospital in New York, and Sue Powers at the Cleveland Clinic got her ti-
tle changed from psychiatric social worker to clinical sociologist in 1977
P1: MRM/RKP P2: MRM
Sociological Practice [sopr] pp074-296875 February 16, 2001 12:21 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

78 Glass

because part of her duties included teaching sociology (systems theory,

group dynamics, marriage and family, sex and gender roles, and the like) to
psychiatric residents and nurses. In the second issue of the Clinical Sociol-
ogy Newsletter, Sue wrote “. . . most psychotherapists deal with the notion
of ‘get yourself together and social things will fall into place’; my approach
as a therapist has been ‘get things social together and you will have yourself
together.’ ” Linda Hedden at a VA Hospital in Georgia, also, as I recall, had
the title “Clinical sociologist.” Jonathan Freedman was Director of Educa-
tion and Training at Hutchings Psychiatric Center in Syracuse. Roger Straus
was practicing as a sociologically oriented counselor in California. In 1975
I obtained a California Marriage and Family Counselor license, which at
that time was possible to get with a graduate degree in sociology. I had a
small private counseling practice for several years and found my sociology
background invaluable (Glass 1973, 1979).
Marie Kargman, a lawyer and clinical sociologist, had been practicing
since the 1950s as a marriage and family therapist; influenced by Talcott
Parsons at Harvard, she published a paper entitled “The Clinical Use of So-
cial System Theory in Marriage Counseling” (Kargman 1957). Elliott Jaques,
with an M.D. degree and Ph.D. in Social Relations from Harvard, had been
working for years with large organizations and developed a technique, social
analysis, which is intrinsically sociological, a method of doing consultancy
research to assist organizations in making changes for themselves (Jaques
1982). Charles Cleveland was doing market and management research from
a sociological perspective in Des Moines, and Art Shostak (Shostak 1966)
was doing and writing about action research and directed social change, to
name just a few others.
The details of the beginnings of the CSA and subsequent developments
during the first decade are very well documented by Elizabeth Clark (1990),
who served as the fourth president of CSA for 4 years beginning in 1985. The
name of the Association was changed in 1986 to Sociological Practice As-
sociation, to increase membership and visibility, and to better represent the
varieties of clinical and applied sociology, the term “practice” encompassing
both.
In the two decades since the beginnings of CSA, the field of practice
has blossomed as evidenced by numerous publications, the development
of a Sociological Practice Section in the ASA, and the Society for Ap-
plied Sociology, founded in 1979. Thanks to the invaluable work of Jan
Fritz, second president of CSA, and others, there has been a discovery,
almost entirely forgotten and/or ignored, of a rich legacy of sociological
practice, going back to the nineteenth century (Clark and Fritz 1990; Fritz
1989, 1991a, b; Kallen 1995). The Clinical Sociology Handbook (Fritz 1985)
contains over 600 annotations of publications, book reviews, presentations,
P1: MRM/RKP P2: MRM
Sociological Practice [sopr] pp074-296875 February 16, 2001 12:21 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Founding of the Clinical Sociology Association 79

and unpublished manuscripts developed between 1931 and 1982. Jan Fritz
also contributed historical data in a number of issues of Clinical Sociol-
ogy Review and she and Elizabeth Clark coedited an issue of Sociological
Practice (Fritz and Clark 1989) containing nine articles on the history and
development of clinical and applied sociology. David Kallen, past president
of CSA and long time editor of the Clinical Sociology Review, is currently
working on a history of clinical sociology.

THE PERSONAL IS SOCIOLOGICAL

Let me now speak, more personally and biographically, about the ori-
gin of my interests that led to my conception of, and advocacy for, clinical
sociology. I see myself, as I suspect others who were founding members saw
themselves, as a marginal person, in the sociological sense developed by
Simmel and Stonequist. My “marginality” began with being born Jewish, in
Nazi Germany, in Berlin, in 1936. My parents, brother, and I were extremely
lucky, thanks to the Quakers, to finally leave Germany early in 1939. We
spent a year in England as refugees in transit waiting for our quota number
to come up. We sailed to New York in March of 1940 and moved to Chicago
a year later.
In 1945, my parents sent me to Circle Pines Center, an interracial ed-
ucational center and summer camp in Michigan, cooperatively owned by
its members, which celebrated its 60th anniversary in 1998. Circle Pines
Center’s mission was to promote cooperation as a way of life. Even today,
I feel a sense of community and belonging there that I have never really
found anywhere else. I made many lifelong friends there. The liberal, co-
operative, and democratic values I learned through work and play at Circle
Pines have influenced me greatly; that, together with an ability to see out-
side the box, so to speak, along with a desire to make a difference in the
world, were undoubtedly related to my becoming a sociologist, and to my
becoming involved in numerous social causes, the most recent, health care
reform.
My first introduction to sociology was in 1957 when a dorm mate at the
University of Illinois, where I majored in industrial administration, gave me
a copy of Robert Merton’s Social Theory and Social Structure (Merton 1957).
I was fascinated by some of the articles in it, such as “Bureaucratic Structure
and Personality.” I was finishing a B.S. degree there in Industrial Adminis-
tration, which included 2 years of engineering, which was not for me. My
father was an electrical engineer, and I studied engineering in part to please
him. After 2 years in the Army, while I was a student in the M.A. program
in Labor and Industrial Relations at the University of Illinois, I took two
P1: MRM/RKP P2: MRM
Sociological Practice [sopr] pp074-296875 February 16, 2001 12:21 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

80 Glass

influential sociology courses, political sociology with Joe Gusfield, and in-
dustrial sociology with visiting professor Guenther Roth, the Max Weber
scholar.
In 1962 I moved to Los Angeles and began working on my Ph.D. in
sociology at UCLA. I was awarded a research assistantship at the Institute
of Industrial Relations and was assigned to the management program, which
was heavily involved with sensitivity training (T-Groups). These groups, with
their origins in Kurt Lewin’s work, were staffed in part by faculty of the
Division of Behavioral Science in the Graduate School of Management in-
cluding Bob Tannenbaum, Jim Clark, and Fred Massarik who did some of
the pioneering work with T-groups, experiential learning, and organization
development (Tannenbaum et al. 1961). I became very much involved as
a group leader, researcher, and participant. I saw the T-Group as a means
for individuals to see themselves as others see them, try out new behaviors,
learn about group process, identity, roles, leadership, socialization, and other
sociological processes (Glass 1968, 1973; Glass and Frankiel 1968; Glass and
Glass 1981).
Through the Behavioral Science Division, where I also worked as a re-
search assistant, I came in contact with Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Eric
Trist (Sociotechnical Systems), Warren Bennis, and others doing research
and consulting in group dynamics, organization development, and personal
growth. In 1972 I attended a 4-week Social System Change training program
in Applied Behavioral Science at the NTL Institute in Bethel, Maine, where
the curriculum was small group leadership, organizational development and
consulting skills, and group relations theory (Tavistock), all of which fur-
thered my interest in applying sociology.
One of the highlights of my graduate study in sociology was the oppor-
tunity to work with, and learn from Melville Dalton, whose book Men Who
Manage (1959) is one of the finest participant observation studies we have.
His account of how he did his research (Dalton 1959, 1964) is most relevant
to the sociological clinician because participant observation is inherent in
clinical work. My doctoral dissertation was a participant observation study
of the Neighborhood Youth Corps (Glass 1968) that grew out of a Labor
Department sponsored study that I collaborated on with Prof. Dalton.
The human potential movement began flourishing in California in the
1960s while I was a graduate student. I joined the Association for Human-
istic Psychology (AHP), was active as a book reviewer, conference partici-
pant, and writer. The humanistic psychology movement was established as a
“third force,” an alternative to the behaviorism and psychoanalytic traditions
that were so much part of mainstream psychology. The scholars, therapists,
and researchers involved in humanist psychology took a normative position
P1: MRM/RKP P2: MRM
Sociological Practice [sopr] pp074-296875 February 16, 2001 12:21 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Founding of the Clinical Sociology Association 81

that advocated the development of human potential, choice, awareness, and

freedom (Bugenthal 1967). I discovered that John Seeley, former chair of the
sociology department at Brandeis; Alfred McClung Lee; and David Riesman
were the only other sociologists who were members of AHP!
As I got more involved with humanistic psychology, I wondered why
there wasn’t a humanistic sociology movement. Sociology had a grand
tradition of humanist thinkers: Marx, Cooley, Mead, W. I. Thomas, C. Wright
Mills, Herbert Blumer, Alvin Gouldner, and Alfred McClung Lee, to name
just a few, but their work did not constitute a recognized force in sociology.
I began to wonder how humanistic psychology might apply to the sociology
of the day, which was coming under attack by radical sociologists and others
who were rebelling against the dominant structural-functional “value free”
sociology, based on quantitative research, much of it trivial, that had an ad-
justment, adaptation, conformity outlook on human nature and had little
interest in solving social problems.
Besides writing many book reviews for the AHP Newsletter, I published
a two page paper entitled “Toward a Humanistic Sociology.” This was the
first time I (Glass 1970, p. 2) mentioned clinical sociology in print:
Consulting, doing research, working with groups does not mean going in and telling
them what to do, but rather helping them to define their own goals, problems and
possible courses of action. This is essentially at the sociological level what the good
clinical psychologist does at the individual level, and I am sure that someday the
profession of clinical sociology . . . will become recognized and esteemed.

Alfred McClung Lee responded to the paper and this was the begin-
ning of a continuing dialogue with him which, I believe, contributed to his
cofounding the Humanist Sociology Association in 1976 at the same ASA
meeting where I gave my roundtable on clinical sociology.
I published several papers that advocated a humanist sociology (Glass
1971a, b), urging that a humanistic viewpoint in both psychology and sociol-
ogy focus on enhancing choice, freedom, and the development of potential
in human beings, and that our task as sociologists is to look at which values
and institutions are conducive to rather than repressive of human well being,
growth, and development.
Another consequence of my interest in humanistic and applied behav-
ioral science was a (then) radically different approach to teaching. While still
a graduate student, I wrote a prize winning essay on improving graduate ed-
ucation, subsequently revised and published with my wife (Glass and Glass
1968). We discussed the need for interaction between teacher and student
beyond one lecturing and the other taking notes, the importance of self-
knowledge, and the integration of cognitive with experiential learning. We
noted that graduate programs included nothing on learning how to teach,
P1: MRM/RKP P2: MRM
Sociological Practice [sopr] pp074-296875 February 16, 2001 12:21 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

82 Glass

and we saw the value of students being part of an interdisciplinary learning

community together with faculty.
I began teaching at San Fernando Valley State College (now California
State University at Northridge) in 1968, 2 weeks after the tumultuous Demo-
cratic Convention in Chicago in August. This had already been a momentous
year: the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, and
student protests worldwide over educational reform and the war in Vietnam.
Two weeks after I arrived on campus, students started a sit-in over the sta-
tus of minority students, leading to the arrest of 250 of them. The sociology
department was run by a group of very conservative faculty who were not
sympathetic to student concerns and, unlike my students, were not receptive
to my “clinical” approach to teaching.
I often would begin classes with some experiential exercise to allow stu-
dents to become acquainted with each other and create a climate of openness
and trust. I asked students to keep journals and do a self-assessment of their
learning experience. I would often give take-home, do-in-class exams, where
the student would have a list of six or eight questions ahead of time, but didn’t
know which two or three they would have to answer in class without books
or notes. I encouraged students to study together and learn from each other.
Most students responded favorably to these innovations and were deeply
grateful to have an alternative to the traditional lecture classes so prevalent
at the time.
My wife Judith (Ph.D. in Labor Economics) was Chair of the Social Re-
lations Department (Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, and Economics)
at Immaculate Heart College in Los Angeles. The college undertook a
2-year educational change project under the direction of Carl Rogers, then at
the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute in La Jolla, that led to an innova-
tive teacher training program, a faculty–student mentoring program, and a
humanistically oriented interdisciplinary curriculum. We subsequently pub-
lished another paper, “Humanistic Education: A Tale of Two Professors”
(Glass and Glass 1981) describing our experiences with college teaching. In
that I described the ways that humanistic social science and applied behav-
ioral science influenced my teaching.
In 1971 I collaborated with John Staude, a sociologist at Sonoma State
College, in editing a collection of humanist writings from sociology, psychol-
ogy, and organizational change, Humanistic Society: Today’s Challenge to
Sociology (Glass and Staude 1972). It contained articles by C. Wright Mills,
Peter Berger, Alfred McClung Lee, Alvin Gouldner, Amitai Etzioni, John R.
Seeley, Robert Nisbet, Lewis Coser, to name some of the sociologists, along
with a group of psychologists, organization theorists, and other humanis-
tically oriented social scientists. One of my favorite articles in the book is
Allen Wheelis’s “How People Change.” Originally published in Commentary
P1: MRM/RKP P2: MRM
Sociological Practice [sopr] pp074-296875 February 16, 2001 12:21 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Founding of the Clinical Sociology Association 83

(then a far more liberal journal than now!) it also appeared in The Desert
(Wheelis 1970). Wheelis defined freedom as the awareness of alternatives
and the ability to choose. It still is one of the most incisive arguments for
the existence of human freedom and choice, a view scarcely found in most
deterministic sociology.
I have already mentioned the role that my interest in humanist sociol-
ogy played as a foundation for clinical sociology. I wish to add a few words
about the central role that Alfred McClung Lee and Betty Lee played both
as an inspiration and as role models for a more engaged and humane sociol-
ogy. Toward Humanist Sociology (Lee 1973) clearly spells out the role that
sociology should play to identify and magnify the individual’s potential in
society and the role of society in nurturing human values.
Al and Betty Lee started the Society for the Study of Social Problems
in 1950–51, and cofounded the Association for Humanist Sociology in 1976.
I was at the founding meeting, and was an active member for a number
of years. Al and Betty were at the founding meeting of the CSA in 1978,
where Al’s inspiration and support gave us a big boost. Lee’s definition of
clinical sociology appeared in 1944 in H. P. Fairchild’s Dictionary of Sociology
(Fairchild 1944, p. 303). The Sociological Practice Association can boast of
two of its members being elected President of the ASA: Alfred McClung
Lee and Amitai Etzioni.

CONCLUSION

I have outlined here some of the factors that led to the founding of the
CSA in 1978. I have not attempted to carry the story beyond the beginnings
of CSA; others have done that very well as noted.
The rebel in me, the inclination to see things in new ways, see things
others don’t see, make connections, create networks, are qualities developed
from my life experiences that are likely related to my “rediscovery” of clinical
sociology. I have been a facilitator and networker much of my life. I like
getting people and ideas together in hopes that an outcome will emerge
beyond what I could do or would want to do myself. I have never been
much of a researcher and prefer activities that involve direct interaction
with others. I have sometimes taken solace from Abe Maslow, who once
said “I’m someone who likes plowing new ground, then walking away from
it. I get bored. I like discovery, not proving. For me the big thrill comes with
the discovery.”
In this brief paper, I cannot begin to do justice to all those persons
whose efforts went into the successful rebirth of clinical sociology. I am
deeply grateful to them for making my dream a reality and carrying it on.
P1: MRM/RKP P2: MRM
Sociological Practice [sopr] pp074-296875 February 16, 2001 12:21 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

84 Glass

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paper is a revision of a paper entitled “Remembering our His-

tory: The Founding of the Clinical Sociology Association” presented at a
special session, “Practicing What We Teach: Celebrating 20 Years of Clinical
Sociology,” at the American Sociological Association annual meeting in
San Francisco, August, 1998. I especially thank David Kallen and Judith
Glass for their encouragement and helpful suggestions.

REFERENCES

Bennis, Warren G., Kenneth D. Benne, Robert Chin, and Kenneth E. Corey (eds.). 1976. The
Planning of Change, 3rd edn. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bugenthal, James F. T. 1967. Challenges of Humanistic Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.
Clark, Elizabeth J. 1990. “The Development of Contemporary Clinical Sociology.” Clinical
Sociology Review 8:100–115.
Clark, Elizabeth and Jan M. Fritz. 1990. “Sociological Practice: Defining the Field.” Sociological
Practice 8:239–242.
Dalton, Melville. 1959. Men Who Manage. NY: Wiley.
Dalton, Melville. 1964. “Preconceptions and Methods in Men Who Manage.” In Sociologists at
Work, edited by Phillip E. Hammond. New York: Basic Books.
Dunham, H. Warren. 1972. “Clinical Sociology: Its Nature and Function.” Paper presented at
ASA Meetings, New Orleans; edited version reprinted 1982, in Clinical Sociology Review
1:23–33.
Fairchild, H. P. 1944. Dictionary of Sociology. New York: Philosophical Library.
Fritz, Jan M. 1985. The Clinical Sociology Handbook. New York: Garland.
Fritz, Jan M. 1989. “The History of Clinical Sociology.” Sociological Practice 7:72–95.
Fritz, Jan M. 1991a. “The Emergence of American Clinical Sociology: The First Courses.”
Clinical Sociology Review 9:15–26.
Fritz, Jan M. 1991b. “The Emergence of American Clinical Sociology.” In Handbook of Clinical
Sociology, edited by Howard M. Rebach and John G. Bruhn. New York: Plenum.
Fritz, Jan M., and Elizabeth J. Clark (eds.). 1989. Sociological Practice 7:9–95.
Glass, John F. 1968. Organizational Dilemmas in the War on Poverty: Contrasts in the Neighbor-
hood Youth Corps. Unpublished Dissertation, UCLA.
Glass, John F. 1970. “Toward a Humanistic Soiology.” Association for Humanistic Psychology
Newsletter 6(4):1, 2.
Glass, John F. 1971a. “The Humanistic Challenge to Sociology.” Journal of Humanistic Psychol-
ogy 11:170–183. Reprinted in John F. Glass and John R. Staude, eds. Humanistic Society:
Today’s Challenge to Sociology. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Glass, John F. 1971b. “Toward a Sociology of Being: The Humanistic Potential.” Sociological
Analysis 32(4):191–198.
Glass, John F. 1973. “The Presentation of Self and the Encounter Culture: Notes on the Soci-
ology of T-groups.” Small Group Behavior 4(4):449–457.
Glass, John F. 1976. “Clinical Sociology: A New Profession?” Unpublished abstract presented
at Roundtable Discussion, ASA Meeting, New York, September 3.
Glass, John. 1979. “Renewing an Old Profession: Clinical Sociology.” American Behavioral
Scientist 22(4):513–529.
Glass, John F. 1991. “Foreword.” In Handbook of Clinical Sociology, edited by Howard
M. Rebach and John G. Bruhn. New York: Plenum.
Glass, John F. 1994. “Organizations and the Workplace.” In Using Sociology, 2nd ed., edited by
Roger A. Straus. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall.
P1: MRM/RKP P2: MRM
Sociological Practice [sopr] pp074-296875 February 16, 2001 12:21 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Founding of the Clinical Sociology Association 85

Glass, John F., and Harry H. Frankiel. 1968. “The Influence of Subjects on the Researcher: A
Problem in Observing Social Interaction.” Pacific Sociology Review 11(2):75–80.
Glass, John and Jan Fritz. 1982. “Clinical Sociology: Origins and Development.” Clinical Soci-
ology Review 1:3–6.
Glass, John F., and Judith Glass. 1968. “Improving Graduate Education.” The Educational
Forum 32:439–446.
Glass, John and Judith Glass. 1981. “Humanistic Education: A Tale of Two Professors.” Journal
of Humanistic Psychology 21(2):71–77.
Glass, John F., and John R. Staude (eds.) 1972. Humanistic Society: Today’s Challenge to Soci-
ology. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Glassner, Barry and Jonathan Freedman. 1979. Clinical Sociology. New York: Longman.
Haney, Craig, Curtis Banks, and Philip Zimbardo. 1981. “A Study of Prisoners and Guards in
a Simulated Prison.” Pp. 52–68 in Readings About the Social Animal, 3rd. edn., edited by
Elliot Aronson. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Jaques, Elliott. 1982. “The Method of Social Analysis in Social Change and Social Research.”
Clinical Sociology Review 1:50–58.
Kallen, David J. 1995. “Some History of Clinical Sociology and Sociological Practice.” Clinical
Sociology Review 13:1–23.
Kargman, Marie W. 1957. “The Clinical Use of Social System Theory in Marriage Counseling.”
Marriage & Family Living 19:263–269. Reprinted 1986, in Clinical Sociology Review 4:
19–29.
Lee, Alfred McClung. 1944. “Sociology, Clinical.” p. 303 in Dictionary of Sociology, edited by
H. P. Fairchild. New York: Philosophical Library.
Lee, Alfred McClung. 1973. Toward Humanist Sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Merton, Robert. K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure, 2nd edn. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Porter, Elias. 1962. “The Parable of the Spindle.” Harvard Business Review 40(3):58–66.
Reprinted, 1987, in Clinical Sociology Review 5:33–44.
Sarason, Seymour B. 1971. The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Shostak, Arthur B. (ed.). 1966. Sociology in Action. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Straus, Roger (ed.). 1979. “Clinical Sociology” (Entire issue). American Behavioral Scientist
22(4).
Straus, Roger (ed.). 1994. Using Sociology. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall. (Third Edition in press).
Tannenbaum, Robert, Irving R. Weschler, and Fred Massarik. 1961. Leadership and Organiza-
tion. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wheelis, Allen. 1970. “How People Change” In The Desert. New York: Basic Books. Reprinted
in Glass, John F. and John R. Staude (eds.). 1972. Humanistic Society: Today’s Challenge
to Sociology. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Wirth, Louis. 1931. “Clinical Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 37:49–66. Reprinted,
1982, in Clinical Sociology Review 1:7–22.