Zobrazeno 1 - 10
of 37
pro vyhledávání: '"Charles R. Atherton"'
Publikováno v:
International Social Work. 45:421-433
Publikováno v:
Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services. 83:7-13
In recent years, an argument has developed in social work research between supporters of the “heuristic paradigm” and the defenders of the traditional positivistic model. The authors believe that this is the wrong argument, and that supporters of
Autor:
Charles R. Atherton
Publikováno v:
Journal of Social Policy. 29:329-354
Publikováno v:
Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services. 80:367-373
Complexity theory, better known as chaos theory, has much to offer social work as a frame of reference for dealing with the uncertainty that characterizes many social work practice issues. To encourage social workers to think in terms of chaos theory
Autor:
Charles R. Atherton
Publikováno v:
Journal of Social Policy. 26:397-423
Publikováno v:
Journal of Social Work Education. 33:143-150
In an article in the Winter 1995 issue of the journal of Social Work Education, Dorothy Van Soest challenged social work professionals to debate competing perspectives on multiculturalism. Van Soest asserted that social work educators have failed to
Publikováno v:
Administration in Social Work. 20:17-30
The authors examine the question: Do management tasks differ by field of practice? Many social work Master's programs are organized on the principle of specialization by field of practice for both micro- and macro-practice students. Secondary analysi
Publikováno v:
Journal of Social Work Education. 32:19-30
This article uses data from a national sample of over 2,500 master's degree social workers to examine the relevance of “field of practice” as an organizing principle for the advanced social work cu...
Autor:
Charles R. Atherton
Publikováno v:
International Social Work. 37:127-136
Autor:
Charles R. Atherton
Publikováno v:
Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services. 74:617-624
The controversy between two sets of social work researchers and theorists has the potential to split the profession into warring camps. Both sides have cloaked their arguments in philosophical constructs that may not be familiar to practitioners. Thi