Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An exploratory study
by
References ................................................................................................................................. 18
Appendices................................................................................................................................ 23
Adviser/ Faculty/ Content Consultants
Adviser:
Revision Date:
Revision Date:
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,
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,
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
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,
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).
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
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
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,
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
manner? How prevalent and intentional is formal preparation of field director’s through
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
16
readers who are leaders and educators from multiple disciplines. This study would fit
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.
The final product is a conference poster presentation on the research study conducted.
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
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.
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
January. An ePoster submission is required. The date for submission is April 30,
2019.
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
Blue, E. T. &Kominkiewica, F. B. (2013, March). All faculty need mentors: Learning beyond the
Bogart, G. A., & Redner, R. L. (1985). How mentoring affects the professional development of
Brown, D., & Warner, M. (2005, September). Mentoring faculty: Role of departments in
18
Anesthesiologists, 69, 9.
Buck, P.W., Bradley, J., Robb, L., & Kizner, R.S. (2012). Complex and Competing Demands in
2(2).
Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards.
Dalton, B., Stevens, L., & Maas-Brady, J. (2011). “How do you do it?” MSW Field Director
De Janasz, S.C. & Sullivan, S.E. (2001). Multiple mentoring in academe: Developing the
Ellison, M.L., Moore, W., & Johnson, A. (2014). Mentoring Experiences of Undergraduate
Social Work Faculty: Navigating the Academic Maze. Journal of Sociology and Social
Ellison, M.L., & Raskin, M.S. (2014) Mentoring Field Directors: A National Exploratory
doi: 10.1080/104377797.2014.856231.
Hunter, C. A., Moen, J. K., & Raskin, M. S. (2016). Social work field directors: Foundations for
Kilpatrick, A. C., & Holland, T. P. (1993). Management of the field instruction program
doi:10.1300/J067v07n01_10.
19
Lyter, J. S. (2012). Potential of field education as signature pedagogy: The Field Director role.
Lyter, J. S. (2012). Potential of field education as signature pedagogy: The Field Director role.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mentor.
https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-
English.aspx.
Wilson, P. P., Valentine, D., & Pereira, A. (2002). Perceptions of new social work faculty
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:
283-293.
Braun, S., Nazlic, T., Weisweiler, S., Pawlowska, B., Peus, C., & Frey, D. (2009).
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
Collins, P.M., Kamya, H. A., & Tourse, R.W. (1997) Questions of Racial Diversity and
Ferrigno, T.B., & Muth, R. (2004). Leadership Mentoring in Clinical Practice: Role
573-593.
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
Mundy, M.A., Kupczynski, L., Ellis, J.D., & Salgado, R. L. (2011). Setting the Standard
21
and Business Ethics. 42(7), 997-1009
Nash, R. J. (2004). Liberating Scholarly Writing: The Power of Personal Narrative. New York,
Rank, M.G., & Hutchinson, W. S. (2000). An Analysis of Leadership within the Social
http://scantron.com/articles/improve-response-rate
Simon, C.E., Bowles, D.D., & King, S.W. (2004). Mentoring in the Careers of African
Werthheimer, M.R. & Sodhi, M. (2014). Beyond Field Education: Leadership of Field
Wilson, P. P., Valentine, D., & Pereira, A. (2002). Perceptions of New Social Work
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