Back to Program Manual Table of Contents

For Students Entering Prior to Autumn 2005

Guidelines for the Program of Study (POS) Proposal Leading to the General Examination

Each student works closely with his/her advisor and subsequently with his/her Supervisory Committee to identify and define the questions and issues to be pursued in the POS and the most appropriate means for doing so. This is presented in the written POS proposal, which should include a brief definition of each of the areas to be dealt with in the General Examination and a statement regarding the roles that each member of the committee will play in helping the student to prepare for the examination. When the committee has approved the written proposal, the student submits the POS approval form (POS Approval and Presentation Form) and four copies of the POS Proposal to the Program Director at least 3 weeks prior to the presentation date. The Director then appoints two reviewers for the POS proposal. The student presents the finished proposal to the School community during a short presentation.

Introduction

The following guidelines are to be used in formulating areas of the Program of Study (POS) as preparation for the General Examination. It would be difficult if not impossible to generate a meaningful set of standards to cover all possible areas of study because of our program emphasis on specialization and individualization of student interests. The intent here is to set forth some parameters regarding the structure of the POS leading to the Examination and to promote a consistency of expectations for Supervisory Committees and students.

From its inception, the PhD Program has been devoted to promoting individualized courses of study for doctoral students, thus permitting them to develop expertise in selected substantive and interventive issues in social welfare and the ability to conduct significant research in these areas of interest. A central feature of this curriculum format is the individualized POS and General Examination, which serve as a means for specifying, achieving, and demonstrating the acquisition of knowledge and skills that will provide the foundation for subsequent research and scholarly endeavors.

Although specialization is a critical feature of the PhD Program, an excessively narrow education can be dysfunctional for the student, the program, and ultimately, the field of social welfare. Social work researchers must be sensitive to the relation between their work and the overriding issues and developments in social welfare and social work. A highly specialized approach to education is as counterproductive as one that emphasizes breadth at the expense of mastery. With this tension between specialization and generalization in mind, we developed an overall policy governing the POS preparation for the General Examination.

In formulating the POS in preparation for study for the General Examination, the student and Supervisory Committee should make every effort to see that specialized areas of interest are placed squarely in the context of social welfare and that the POS topics are integrally related to the larger policy, theoretical, and methodological issues that permeate the field.

The completed POS proposal is distributed to the PhD Program Director, the Student's Supervisory Committee, and two reviewers. Additional copies can be requested from the PhD Program Coordinator. A one-page detailed abstract is required for distribution via email to all Social Welfare faculty members, students, and staff. Copies of the proposal are placed in the student's file as well as in a notebook in the PhD Program Office. Students are encouraged to review prior proposals as guides to developing their own. (See main text section and School website for POS presentation procedures.)

Expectations for the Three Areas of the POS and General Examination

A. Substantive or Problem Area

1. Specification

In this context, the terms “Substantive Area” and “Problem Area” refer to a field of social welfare or a social problem that is manifest in individual, familial, organizational, or institutional dysfunction. The following list, though by no means exhaustive, provides some examples of topics that might be subsumed in the substantive/problem area definition:

2. General Expectations

The student is expected to acquire a basic understanding of how the substantive area or social problem is defined and of the historical, policy, institutional, and theoretical contexts of the area. These include, but are not limited to, the history of the substantive area or problem, the major governmental policies (e.g., laws, regulations, court decisions) that pertain to the problem or area, salient characteristics of the service delivery system (e.g., major programs, financing, eligibility, administration) that address the problem, and the prevalence and characteristics of the population affected by the social problem.
The student should also have a critical understanding of major theoretical, ideological, and empirical perspectives that seek to explain causes or factors associated with the social problem. Among the criteria or factors to be considered when evaluating the relevance of selected theoretical or conceptual frameworks should be their applicability to diverse populations, including people of color, women, gay men and lesbians, persons with disabilities, and other disadvantaged and oppressed groups. Overall, the student's program of study should enable the student to critically assess the state-of-the-art knowledge regarding a specific substantive or social problem area with adequate attention to such factors as ethnicity, race, gender, class, and culture that affect how the problem is defined, conceptualized, and addressed.
In 1984-85, during extensive discussion of the General Examination format, the PhD Steering Committee (SC) reaffirmed that the substantive/problem area question(s) should elicit an understanding of policy issues attendant to the student's area of study. SC Discussions in 1995-96 reaffirmed the importance of social science theory to the substantive and interventive areas (e.g., in-depth familiarity with applicable theories, and ability to critique and appropriately synthesize theories as a part of interdisciplinary study and research). Such emphasis should be reflected in the written POS proposal and the choices of social science course work undertaken. The form for evaluating POS proposals shows the format used by faculty when evaluating each student's proposed study plan.
Given the breadth of these expectations, the student is not be expected to have an in-depth knowledge of all aspects of the substantive/problem area. The intent is that each student have a sufficient grasp of the problem so that more specialized interests can be placed in their larger context. In most instances the SC expects that, however the specific substantive/problem area is defined, the relevant theoretical foundation and policy implications of the problem will be reflected in the narrative of the proposal as well as in representative readings.

3. Specific Expectations

Since most substantive/problem area topics will be too broad to allow the student to develop the level of mastery required for the General Examination, it will be necessary for the student and Supervisory Committee to select some component part of the larger topic to serve as a focal point for the General Examination. This specification will not only serve to aid the student in preparing for the Examination but also may provide a foundation for later dissertation research. Specification can take a number of forms. Students may wish to focus on some subgroup in the population. For example, if the problem is poverty, special attention might be given to the problems of the elderly poor or the rural poor. If the problem is mental illness, a student may wish to concentrate on the problems of groups such as the chronically ill or children. Yet another approach to specification is to focus on a policy or program issue that has special significance for a particular substantive area or social problem. Such policy/program issues as de-institutionalization, fragmentation of services, failure of policy or program implementation, or inadequate financing might be studied in relation to a problem area. A third form of specification would be to focus on one or more programs of service delivery that are intended to address a social problem. Here the purpose could be to review and evaluate the efficacy of certain programs (e.g., foster care) in reducing or ameliorating the problem at hand (e.g., child dependency).
When the substantive/problem area is eventually specified, care should be taken to see that the student's study efforts are not too specialized. This can be accomplished, in part, by ensuring that preparation addresses the larger context within which the specific interests are embedded (see General Expectations above).

B. Intervention Area

1. Specification

The term “intervention area” refers to specific practice methods used by professionals in the social welfare field to effect change in client systems including those serving individuals, families, groups, organizations, communities, and institutions. Practice methods include but are not limited to the following:

Within each of the practice methods are theories or models of practice. A variety of divisions are used to make distinctions between practice methods at each level of intervention (e.g., conceptual bodies such as cognitive behavioral interventions; ideological distinctions such as feminist practice; points of intervention such as prevention, crisis intervention, or case management; population specifications such as service to the gay/lesbian community). Furthermore, each model of practice usually includes certain tactics or techniques that are more or less emphasized. In administration, for example, a rational model of administration would stress such techniques as management by objectives, program budgeting, and management control. The distinction between methods of intervention, theories or models of practice, and tactics or techniques are often somewhat arbitrary. For the POS, students should be clear about what interventions they are focusing upon and why. Special emphasis should be placed on the theoretical and empirical foundations that underlay the intervention(s) in question.

2. General Expectations

Students are expected to acquire a basic understanding of a practice method. This would include, for example, a general comprehension of the array of models of practice, including their essential similarities and differences, and their efficacy for various client systems as shown in empirical research. When practice theory and research in the practice method have been developed largely outside the field of social welfare or the profession of social work, the student should also have an understanding of factors within the field and profession that are likely to affect the transferability and ultimate usefulness of this technology. Among these factors might be the values and norms of the social work profession, the political and economic constraints under which social welfare agencies operate, the nature of the clientele served by social welfare agencies, and the like. A consideration of intervention effects within diverse populations would include knowledge of variable service outcomes with clients that differ across such characteristics as race, gender, culture, and socioeconomic class.

3. Specific Expectations

Within the practice method, the student should be encouraged to take a more specific focus. This specification can take several forms. For example, the student might concentrate on one model of practice within a practice method (e.g., cognitive-behavioral treatment in casework, parent effectiveness training, client training and education method, or supervision in the administrative method). In this instance, the student would be expected to be develop a thorough familiarity with the latest methods and procedures used in this model of practice, including its application to various client groups or systems, its variable effectiveness in different practice contexts, and the most recent technical developments. In addition to this general knowledge, the student should also gain an intimate familiarity with the model of practice as it pertains to the problem area and population with which she/he is concerned. For example, there should be adequate correspondence between the interventive area, the social problem, and client population characteristics. Does the intervention address the social problem, and is it culturally appropriate?

Another approach to specification would be to take a social problem and examine a cluster of practice models that seek to address this problem. In this instance, attention is placed upon the variable or interactive effects of several models of practice in reducing the problem in question. For example, a student interested in community adjustment of the chronically mentally ill might study the effects of several types of interventions in dealing with this problem, such as task-oriented casework, case management, and day treatment.

C. Research Methodology Area

1. Specification

Research methodology, in the most general sense, involves the definition of a problem, the formulation of hypotheses or research questions, and the specification of a study design for the collection and analysis of data bearing upon these hypotheses or questions. The design involves a choice of an approach to be used in the inquiry (e.g., exploratory, descriptive, experimental, quasi-experimental) including the procedures to be used for selecting the population to be studied, for collecting data, for determining the reliability and validity of measurements made, and for analyzing the data so as to accept or reject the hypotheses or provide some direction for further investigation. Research methodology, as defined above, can be applied in a broad range of studies, including those of historical, policy, community, or organizational nature.

2. General Expectations

In 1978, the Social Welfare PhD Program established minimum research competencies that should be acquired by all doctoral students during their residency and the level of mastery to be achieved in each of these competencies (see Appendix A: Research and Teaching Competencies). This skill set is regularly reviewed and updated by the PhD Steering Committee, emphasizing the importance of striving for excellence and rigor in training, regardless of the specific research methods or analytic tools pursued. For example, students who seek to undertake qualitative dissertations or to undertake independent qualitative research subsequent to graduation must undertake the level of methodological training that will prepare them for this work. These goals of rigor and excellence apply to the full spectrum of research competencies (e.g., hypothetico-deductive or quantitative methods); advances in methodological sophistication and in interdisciplinary study and research require in-depth methodological preparation.

The General Examination in Research Methodology is not primarily intended to test whether students have acquired these basic competencies; however, students are expected to answer questions concerning fundamental research concepts and procedures, and to draw appropriately on this knowledge base in addressing applications of research methodology to specific problems and interventions. For example, a student might be asked to discuss essential differences in exploratory, descriptive, and experimental designs; the strengths and weaknesses of several design options in conducting evaluative research; the common threats to internal and external validity encountered in social welfare research; or the appropriate use of data coding techniques or common statistical procedures for several kinds of data. Any of these or similar topics might be considered of general importance in the conduct of social welfare research regardless of setting or problem. In addition, a student's knowledge of basic concepts and procedures might be tested by posing research problems in her/his substantive or interventive area that require the application of this knowledge. Such questions might deal with special problems of sampling, measurement, data collection, and data analysis in the conduct of research in specific problem or interventive areas. Included in this expectation would be knowledge of specific biases related to race, gender, and other client characteristics that can compromise all aspects of the research process, including sampling, measurement, and interpretation and generalization of findings.

3. Specific Expectations

In addition to assessing the student's general knowledge of research concepts and procedures, the research methods part of the POS and Examination should be concerned with developing and evaluating the student's knowledge and skills in relation to issues, methods, and techniques that are especially pertinent to the conduct of research in her/his substantive/interventive areas. This aspect of the POS preparation is critical since it will be relevant to the Examination as a test of whether the student has acquired the skills necessary to do sound research in her/his specialized area of interest, a major objective of the doctoral program. Here, of course, the Supervisory Committee's expectations for the student, as outlined in the POS, should be quite specific. Among other things, these expectations may involve a critical understanding of appropriate research methods (e.g., cross-sectional survey, quasi-experimental, or grounded theory) in specific areas of inquiry; an in-depth familiarity with selected techniques for sampling, measurement, interview and data coding, and statistical analysis; an awareness of organizational and ethical constraints that are commonly encountered in research inquiries in a particular field; and a knowledge of obstacles to and approaches for promoting the effective use of research findings by practitioners and policy makers. Finally, the student should develop a good grasp of the significant existing research studies in her/his special area as well as the major issues and questions being posed by the community of scholars in this field.

Relation between Areas of the POS and General Examination

In general, all areas of the POS leading to the General Examination should be organically integrated. The intent of the PhD Program is to facilitate the development of substantive expertise and research competence in specialized areas of student interest in social welfare. Given this emphasis on specialization, it is important that the POS assist the student in drawing knowledge from several areas of inquiry and bringing it to bear on her/his special interest. This goal suggests the following guidelines:

A. The POS and subsequent General Examination should be formulated around some theme that reflects student interests and faculty teaching objectives.

B. Areas of the POS and General Examination (substantive, interventive, and research methodology) should be complementary though distinct. That is, although each area focuses on a central theme, the student should be required to examine this theme from several distinctly different perspectives.

| Back to top |

Step-by-Step Procedures for the POS Presentation

Student and Supervisory Committee Responsibilities:

• At least 4 weeks prior to the desired date of the POS presentation, the student consults with her/his committee to find at least two possible dates and times.

When deciding on these potential times, the student should review the School of Social Work's master calendar (available on the School's LAN), to determine if there are any conflicting activities. It is especially important to avoid overlap with doctoral courses (course times are in the current quarter's registration packet) and major committee meetings.

• The POS presentations may not be scheduled during the finals week of any quarter and must take place during the regular school year (not during breaks or the summer).

• To request a room reservation, the student sends an email message to Student Services (sswstsrv@u.washington.edu) with two possible dates and times. (A copy of this message should be sent to PhD Program Coordinator.)

• The student submits the POS Approval and Presentation form and 4 copies of the POS Proposal to the PhD Program Coordinator at least 3 weeks in advance of the date of the presentation. The 3 weeks allows the student and committee chair to receive reviewer input prior to the presentation (two non-committee faculty are appointed by the Program Director to review the proposal). The time needed for the review of the proposal has often been too tight when there is less than 3 weeks between submitting the proposal and the presentation.

• The student also ensures that each Supervisory Committee member has a final copy of the POS proposal. This includes a one page abstract of the POS. (Examples of past POS proposals are available in the PhD Program Office.)

• Once the room reservation has been made, the student informs the School of Social Work community (faculty, staff, and students) via email (sswall@u.washington.edu) regarding the scheduled date, time, and room of the POS presentation. The email message includes the one-page abstract of the presentation and indicates that a full copy of the proposal can be requested from the PhD Program Coordinator.

• The student re-sends the email message a day or two prior to the presentation.

• If the Supervisory Committee Chair and student personally invite students and faculty members with special interests in the subject matter, such guests contribute to a useful group discussion. A brief presentation by the student allows time for reviewer comments and discussion by attendees: 30-60 minutes total (e.g., 25-30 minutes of presentation followed by questions and discussion). The purpose of the POS presentation is threefold. First, the presentation should generate further ideas that students and their committee members can consider for strengthening the proposed study. The presentation also serves as an opportunity to allow students to practice presenting information on their work in a professional collegial atmosphere. Finally, POS presentations function as one of the many mechanisms in the program through which faculty and students exchange ideas and engage in intellectual discourse.

• Following presentation of the student's proposal, the student confers with her/his Supervisory Committee to consider recommendations/suggestions offered by the reviewers and other faculty.

In most cases, relatively minor modifications to proposals are needed. The student forwards a memo summarizing modifications to the Program Director. This is placed in the student’s permanent file with the POS proposal; input from the Steering Committee as the SWL faculty representatives is sought on an as-needed basis. Rapid resolution of questions/revisions is strongly encouraged so that student’s plan for completing the General Examination is not disrupted.

Program Office Responsibilities:

• The Director assigns two reviewers who must be members of the Social Welfare Faculty and who evaluate the student's proposal following guidelines contained in the POS proposal evaluation questionnaire (POS Evaluation Form). Each reviewer submits a copy of their review to the PhD Program Coordinator who will distribute copies to the student, the Supervisory Committee Chair, the PhD Director, and the student's file. Whenever possible, reviewers attend the presentation and participate in the discussion.

The decision regarding the acceptance of the POS rests with the Supervisory Committee and PhD Program Director serving as representatives of the Social Welfare Faculty.

| Back to top |     Back to Table of Contents