A definition of social work: A thesis in sociology — Key Ideas to Explore

(0 User reviews)   121
In Category - Society Culture
Cheyney, Alice S. (Alice Squires), 1888-1968 Project Gutenberg 2022 Not confirmed
Thesis (Ph. D.); Social service Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 30,163
Reading time 132 min
Text sections 12

The source record for A definition of social work: A thesis in sociology — Key Ideas to Explore measures this digital text at 30,163 words, 2 hr 12 min estimated reading time, and 12 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 24.7 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Thesis (Ph. D.),” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

A 1923 doctoral thesis that systematically examines the charitable and scientific elements of social work, drawing on conference proceedings and training school curricula to propose a definition centered on the use of science for philanthropic purposes.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.7/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated
  • Description quality20 pts
  • Title & short description10 pts
  • Source metadata20 pts
  • Text length15 pts
  • Chapters / structure15 pts
  • EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

Read the Text

On Page 87 the line: “Settlement work, educational and vocational guidance.” is missing a corresponding number.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

A DEFINITION OF SOCIAL WORK

PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

COPYRIGHT 1923 BY ALICE S. CHEYNEY

I. WHY THIS DEFINITION IS ATTEMPTED 5

II. THE CHARITABLE ELEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK 8

III. THE SCIENTIFIC ELEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK 16

IV. THE TESTIMONY OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF SOCIAL WORK 27

V. THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRAINING SCHOOLS FOR PROFESSIONAL SOCIAL WORKERS 47

VI. THE ANSWER TO ITS CRITICS 55

WHY THIS DEFINITION IS ATTEMPTED

What social worker has not been asked to define social work and found himself at a loss? It is easy to describe his own particular tasks but it is not easy to characterize the profession as a whole or to say why its very diverse phases are identified with one another. Why should we apply the term “social work” to hospital social service and probation, but not to nursing and interpreting, services which seem to stand in a similar relation to medicine and the courts?

Definitions of social work are not yet to be found in dictionaries or encyclopedias. A certain amount of characterization appears in current literature, by implication or by mention of one feature here and another there. Some general descriptions say of it things which, though true, do not distinguish it.[1] Probably no strict definition is possible. The field of social work is constantly extending; its functions are multiplying by geometric progression; its means are undergoing continuous adaptation and in all its phases it shades off into other kinds of work or attracts allied work to its own likeness. The inconvenience of this state of affairs is a constant subject of complaint and for at least three reasons we badly need some sort of definition.

In the first place whenever we talk without first agreeing on the meaning of terms we are wasting time and giving unnecessary opportunity for bad blood. The term “social work” is now used in several entirely different senses. One man, in using it, is referring to a characteristic technique, which to him is its distinguishing feature, such, for instance, as social case work; another is thinking of a certain function in social economy, for instance, the relief of distress; a third is designating a policy in social reform, a temporizing policy, for example. So long as this latitude of use continues we will talk at cross purposes whether in discussion of specific ways and means or in the evaluation of social work as a factor in human affairs. Any definition would make it easier for us to agree or explicitly disagree on what we mean by social work.

In the second place while the nature and purpose of a calling are perceived cloudily or not at all it does not manifest the coherence and momentum which inspire constructive work. Its followers are in danger of floundering among isolated tasks or finding their sense of continuity and purpose in the mere observation of correct procedure. Social work while feeling an implicit affinity in its many forms, often seems to suffer from lack of any essential principles or any demonstrable obligation or responsibility, other than those incumbent on the community as a whole. The process of definition offers a means of bringing to light any principles or responsibilities especially pertaining to it.

Thirdly social work now suffers unnecessarily in reputation and support (even among its own practitioners) for disappointing demands which would never have been made were its nature better understood. Every undertaking has its limitations and when known and understood they constitute no reproach. But the preoccupations and aspirations of social work are such as to tempt its proponents to enlarge on infinite possibilities, forgetting in their enthusiasm to state that these possibilities can only be realized if the ministrations and advices of social work are accepted in many places where it has no enforceable influence. The limits set to any single line of human endeavor working by itself are very narrow, and for social work, as for other things, they are in practice promptly reached. Social work when it stands thus at the end of its powers seems to have betrayed the confidence placed in it. A limiting definition would show that the fault lies not in social work but in unreasonable expectations. Such a definition would be its best defense from antagonistic critics and disappointed followers.

Alice S. Cheyney opens her 1923 doctoral thesis with a frank admission: even practitioners struggle to define social work. They can describe their own tasks, she writes, but not “characterize the profession as a whole.” The book is a systematic attempt to fill that gap, moving from the charitable impulse to the scientific method and testing its emerging definition against the records of the National Conference of Social Work and the curricula of professional training schools. Cheyney does not claim to offer a final answer; she treats the definition as a working hypothesis, one that must accommodate a field “constantly extending” and “shading off into other kinds of work.”

Charity and Science as Twin Pillars

Cheyney devotes separate chapters to the charitable and scientific elements of social work. The charitable element, she argues, is not mere almsgiving but a deliberate response to need, one that distinguishes social work from allied professions like nursing or teaching. The scientific element, meanwhile, supplies the tools—sociology, psychology, statistics—that transform good intentions into effective practice. Together, these two forces produce the distinctive tension at the heart of the field: the desire to help must be disciplined by empirical knowledge. Cheyney is careful not to let either pole dominate; she insists that both are necessary, and that a definition ignoring either will be incomplete.

What the Training Schools Reveal

Cheyney turns to the curricula of professional social work schools as a source of evidence. She finds that required courses in the social sciences—especially sociology, psychology, and statistics—serve a common purpose: they force students to “look outside the setting of custom and creed” and to recognize “varieties of good.” Sociology provides perspective on changing institutions; psychology undermines the assumption that our convictions are axiomatic; statistics establishes norms and “danger lines” that ground reform in hard fact. Cheyney notes that these courses, taken together, confirm her tentative definition: social work is a group of activities that extend benefits in response to need, concern themselves with social relationships, and “avail themselves of scientific knowledge and employ scientific methods.” She adds that the schools do not expand the definition with new terms, but their curricula imply that the use of science for philanthropic purposes is the defining feature.

The Problem of Boundaries

Throughout the thesis, Cheyney wrestles with the question of where social work ends and other professions begin. Why, she asks, is hospital social service considered social work while nursing is not? Why is probation included but interpreting excluded? The answer, she suggests, lies in the combination of charitable intent and scientific method—a combination that allied professions may lack. Yet she acknowledges that the boundaries are blurry: social work “shades off into other kinds of work or attracts allied work to its own likeness.” This fuzziness is not a flaw to be eliminated but a feature of a field in rapid evolution. Cheyney’s approach is to build a definition that is precise enough to be useful but flexible enough to accommodate change.

Cheyney’s thesis is best read as a work-in-progress, a disciplined attempt to impose order on a field that resists neat categorization. Readers interested in the history of professionalization will find a clear-eyed account of how early social workers understood their own enterprise. Those looking for a definitive answer may be disappointed; Cheyney herself doubts that “any strict definition is possible.” But the value of the book lies less in its conclusion than in the careful reasoning that leads there.

That old thesis about social work kept circling back to me—how it framed helping as something both scientific and tender. It reminded me of another quiet find, The Employments of Women: A Cyclopædia of Woman's Work — A Closer Reading, which traces a similar devotion to dignity through labor. Both left me sitting still, thinking about the gentleness inside systems.

There are no reviews for this eBook.

0
0 out of 5 (0 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

Take a moment to reflect on this book

Create a short personal record of your experience with this book.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

Which reading stage best describes you?

2

How much did you enjoy the reading experience?

3

Would you recommend this book to another reader?

4

How easy was the book to follow?

Related eBooks