HHHHIHHI .10)..) H I-bN H UDGEGD 4 THE 11‘1‘14ULL1‘VIV‘IL‘ Ji‘ ubQQL‘JQ 1:14.11 PLLuD udufi PHLJLJBHL Dian UuLLmnID LJAAIJLA'JIJLJNL Jr QL’LJUQNIJ JUJJUA£LD rndM uguuouu db udQLMM "Jufi UQLNU fins ULNLRLQ vUflMLquUfl By Jesse Ulermon Vickers THES'S THE INFLUENCE OF SECOND YEAR FIELD WORK PLACEMENT UPON ULTIMATE EMPLOYMENT OF STUDENTS GRADUATED FROM SCHOOLS OF SOCIAL WORK USING THE GENERIC CURRICULUM by Jesse Clermon Vickers A PROJECT REPORT Submitted to the School of Social Work Michigan State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK June 1958 Approved: 6€;%Z:6*7745 ./‘£;ééZLTC/éLA Chairman,IResearch Committee (Eirector of School E . G % 7,? 14% f / /" (V) _, (j? / 02»!- 0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express appreciation to all those who made the completion of this project report possible. Especially he wishes to thank Mr. Morris Gluckin, Chainman of his committee, and Mr. Manfred Lilliefors for their valuable suggestions and their encouraging support. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT. . . n . . . . . LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CURRENT OPINION. III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Major Findings Secondary Findings Recommendations ‘APPENDICES . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . iii Page ii iv 10 23 27 33 Table LIST OF TABLES Sex of Students Receiving Masters of Social Work Degrees from Selected Generic Schools, 1952, 195“, 1956. . . . . . Age of Students at Time of Receipt of Master of Social Work Degrees from Selected Generic Schools, 1952, 1954, 1956. . . . . . Undergraduate Majors of Social Workers Receiving their Master ofSocial Work Degrees from Selected Generic Schools 1952, 1954, 1956. SeconiYear Field Placement, First Employment, and Most Important Factor Influencing Job Selections, All Students . . . . . . . . Employment in Field of Second Year Placement, First Employment, and Ultimate Employment and Most Important Factors Influencing Job Selection of Each . . . . . . . . Students With Previous Social Work Employment, by Field of Interest, Second Year Placement, Ultimate Employment and Most Important Factor in Job Selection. . . . . . . . . Field of Second Year Placement and Those Remaining in This Same Field for First Employ- ment Following Graduation from Selected Generic Schools, 1952, 1954, 1956. . . . . Field of Ultimate Employment, by School, of Graduates Receiving Master of Social Work Degrees from Selected Generic Schools 1952, 1954, 1956. . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 10 ll 12 14 17 20 21 21 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION For the past several years there has been, in the minds of our educators, the question of the relative merits of a specialized versus a generic curriculum in preparing students for the social work profession.1 Much was said and written concerning this controversy but no actual decision was made until 1956. On January 14, 1956 the Committee on Specialization in Social Work Education adopted the changed policy as stated below and recommended it to the Commission on Accreditation of the Council on Social Work Education. This Committee recommends that a school of social work be accredited for its basic generic curriculum and that there be no accrediting for any specialization by any definition.2 7W 1The term generic curriculum as used herein does not mean that portion—5? the curriculum which is basic to all social work, but a curriculum.which is basic to all social work and does not—contain elements of specialization. It is a curriculum containing the basic items that all social workers need to know, to do, and to be. The above is in contrast to the authors use of specialization, which is; A curriculum designed to instill competance in one area, with the general assumption that this competance is not transferable. 2Ruth E. Smalley, Specialization in Social Work Education. A paper presented at the 83rd Annual Forum of tfie NaEIonal Conference of Social Work, St. Louis, Missouri, May 1956. Reproduced by the Council on Social Work Education in a pamphlet #6-64-3. l The Board and Council of Delegates adopted this changed policy, with respect to approval of special- ized programs in social work education. It is anticipated that approval of specialized programs will be discontinued in June, 1959.3 The above, at a first glance, may seem to have but a remote connection with the subject matter of this paper. It was, however, the basic reason for this project being done, in that it posed a serious question. Would the policy of approval of a school's generic curriculum only, solve the problem of specialization, or would the second year field placement assume control over the field of ultimate employment in a method similar to specialization?’ Answering the above might also bring an answer to the question of why certain fields of social work have much greater success in their recruitment of employees than others, even when comparable salaries and working conditions were offered. In order to answer this first question it is necessary to know the extent of influence which the second year field placement exerts upon ultimate employment. The study was planned to enable schools of social work to make better use of available placements and to bring to the school the realization of the importance of this second year field placement. The data, upon which the Study is based, were obtained through a questionnaire mailed to persons who 3Social Work Education, Bi-monthly News Publication, Council on SociaI Work Education, August 1957. received their Master of Social Work degrees from schools having a generic curriculum only. Selection of the sample was determined by not only the criteria of the generic curriculum, but also by the geographic location of the school within the nation. There was limitation in this selection because of the few schools offering these cur- ricula. It is felt, however, that those schools selected are representative of the different areas of the country and constitute a sample sufficient for the purpose needed. CHAPTER II HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CURRENT OPINION So far as a search of current literature could determine there has been no research done on the specific relationship of second year field placement in social work to ultimate employment. Mr. David G. French of the University of Michigan Coordinating Committee on Social Welfare Research conducted a Survey g£_Employment Status, as of October 1, 1957, of Social Work Students Who Were Enrolled in the Spring Semester or Quarter, 1221. It was found, however, through correspondence with Mr. French that there would be no duplication of effort or findings in the two projects since his did not deal in any way with placement (See Appendix A). The importance of field work placement has long been recognized and was aptly emphasized by Lyndell Scott when he stated that, "Field work, in some form, is an almost universal characteristic of education for a profession."1 Specifically, in reference to social work, Scott writes: That a given field work experience will be weighted in a certain direction is, of course, inevitable and desirable. In the second year of training, this lLyndell Scott, "The Function of Field Work in Profes- sional Education," The Social Service Review, XXV (December, 1951), p. A41. 1; weighing can provide the basis for selective place- ment or specialization, with consideration given to interest and special aptitude. Dorothy Sumner, writing five years after Scott and speaking strictly of field work in generic social work said: Field work content, in order to make the fullest contribution to professional education, should have sufficient breadth to enable the student to see his practice in relation to the community and the entire social work profession rather thag an isolated and narrowly focused technical skill. The extent to which this content is brought to reality would seem to depend upon the experience and atti- tude of the field work supervisor and the student. Several studies have been done on job satisfaction. These writers have very successfully explained the factors which tend to make a person satisfied on his job but few if any have explained why he took the job in the first place. In studies on job satisfaction Trier found that, "Workers receiving higher wages were significantly more satisfied,"4 and Eicher states that, "In terms of this study, job satisfaction was found to be positively related 2Ibid., p. uuv. “ 3Dorothy Sumner, "An Experiment with Field Work in Generic Social Work," Social Case Work, XXXVII, Number 6 (June, 1956), p. 291. “Howard E. Trier, "Job Satisfaction and Occupational Status" (unpublished Master's thesis, Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1954), p. 34. to occupational prestige, upward occupational mobility and high social position."5 If the factors which make a person satisfied on a job are related to the reason for choosing a job then these points should be brought out by this study also. 5Joanne Bubolz Eicher, "Job Satisfaction, Its Rela- tionship to Occupation Stratification and Community Variables" (unpublished Master‘s thesis, Sociology and Anthropoloty, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1956), p. 96. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES A list of accredited schools of social work showing their curriculum as to specialization was obtained from the Council on Social Work Education. From this list four schools were selected whose curricula were generic, in that there were no accredited specializations. I Those chosen and the area they represent were: Michigan State University, North Central; University of vTexas, South Central; University of Utah, West; and Univer— sity of West Virginia, East. In order to obtain a sample large enough to be valid it was decided that three graduating classes would be used. At the time this study was started, in October, 1957, it was felt that it might be too early to obtain an accurate list of all the graduates of that year. Since it was believed that alternate classes should be used because this would constitute a greater span, the graduating classes of 1952, 1954, and 1956 were chosen. Letters were written to the schools concerned, requesting a listing of their grad- uated Masters' of Social Work of these years. A copy of the study was promised to each of the schools in return for these lists. Their co-operation was very prompt with a great deal of interest being shown in the study. 7 The questionnaire was prepared and submitted to the criticism of a research class of second year graduate social work students. This class together with the instructor offered constructive criticism and advice which greatly aided in the construction of the final questionnaire. This final product contained twelve questions, all but four of which were of the multiple choice type (See Appendix B). The response to the questionnaire was excellent with an eighty-four per cent completed return (98 of 114 which reached the persons to whom sent). Of these ninety- eight, forty-two per cent made a comment in the space pro- vided at the end of the questionnaire. The promptness of the replies and the high percentage of comments shows a definite interest in the subject. In establishing the validity of the questionnaire, it, as is often the case where the questions require one to look back over an experience, depends upon the element of memory. Question six, principle field 2: interest upon entering graduate study,and questions ten and twelve, factors influencing acceptance 2: employment, are highly dependent upon memory and an analysis of ones motives which might be colored by experiences which have occurred since that time. There is, however, no other way of obtaining this infor- mation and so one might say that the results are as valid as the human element will permit it to be. Size of the sample and percentage of return also tend to lend validity to the project. The use of graduates of Michigan State University might be thought to influence the findings, especially in connection with that part of question eight, assigned by school with no choice on your part. This, however, did not prove to be the case since those checking this category were in proportion to the other schools according to sample size. The cover letter accompanying the questionnaire (See Appendix C) assured the respondent of his anonymity in the total study. The name of the person answering the questionnaire was not asked for, nor was the questionnaire coded in any manner. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA The original plan of this paper was to treat the subject by geographic area. This idea, however, had to. be abandoned when a tabulation of data showed no great difference in a division of this sort. In view of this, the data will be presented in tota and with respect to individual schools only in specific instances. One of these instances of difference was in the age-sex distribution of the sample, and this only insofar as the University of Texas was concerned (Tables 1 and 2). Here it will be seen that the University of Texas was the only school with a majority of students under thirty years of age and a1So the only school to have graduated more women than men. These facts, howeVer, did not seem to affect a difference in any phase of the study. TABLE 1.-- Sex of Students Receiving Masters of Social Work Degrees from Selected Generic Schools, 1952, 1954, 1956. School Total Male Female Total 98 6O 38 University of Utah 37 29 I— Sw University of Texas 26 10 16 Michigan State University 23 14 9 University of West Virginia 12 7 5 lO 11 TABLE 2.--Age of Students at Time of Receipt of Master of Social Work Degrees from Selected Generic Schools, 1952, 1954, and 1956. School Total Under 30 and 30 Over Total 98 48 50 University of Utah 37 15 22 University of Texas 2o 17 9 Michigan State University 23 12 11 University of West Virginia 12 4 8 An interesting Sidelight to the study is the under— graduate majors of members of the sample (See Table 3). Here we see that eighty—five of the ninety-eight sample members had an undergraduate major in social sciences, with sociology accounting for more than half of these. Only nine sample members had an undergraduate major in social work with six of these being from Michigan State University. Since the school where the undergraduate major was obtained is unknown it cannot be determined if a social work major was offered. One point of significance is that of these nine persons with undergraduate majors in social work, eight were under thirty years of age at the time of receiving their Master of Social Work degrees. Perhaps this indicates a trend or perhaps only that undergraduate degrees in social work were not being offored so profusely at the time those over thirty attended undergraduate school. 12 IMICU I l l H I H NHNr—lHr—ir—i lr—{Nl (“Mr-i r-i ONHr-l H jgg10KhUNWKUrirhfiriflrfiriHrfirifi m 3 Ha . NH m SH mm ma (I) O\ SMQHOON coaumppmasaso< Hwaoom coawfiamm coauspfiaanmnom honeydew aeooeoaasm coaumosom Hmofimhcm nofipmamnumz medumhmpfiu mafisomcawsm nanOQOom moHEOQOom 080m emaawsm SLOanm xsoz Hmfioom sofipmoSUm mwoaocohmm honOHoom H8909 so>o om Q Om thQD po>o cm a 0m hoocb so>o a 0m Om Amos: pm>Q s om om soon: sesawsa> one: mo zpfimpm>fi23 mpHn9o>HcD semen sameness mmxma mo mpfimhm>fic3 swab mo Spamno>fipb nHHHHHHHHHHNHHHHHLHHHHHHHNHHHHflHHHWHHHHHHflHHflHHFHHflHHHHHHHflflflflflflflflflkflflflflflflflflflflhflw IflfiW .wmma .zmma .mmma .maoocom oasmsmw oopomaom 809m moonwom xsoz Hmaoom mo sound: passe wca>fimoom nsmxsoz Hmfioom mo macho: mumsomswpoonbuu.m mqmHpmHmm . H H m m meEmoHQEm m50H>osm n H m m m onHquQOo wstmoz . m H m m mSumum . m n m m psmEmomHm meow UQOomm n H m m m senses szSomm mo mocosHHcH H m H m : mocmma so Hossomhmm H H m m is money» momeoOH H m H m s isoHosm oHnseHsm torso so some m H m m m usmEuHsEoo m m s HH mH sssHsm mH om :H :m be pmosomcmeo UHmHm it- QOHpomHom new .cfi AOuomm unsusomeH who: - mm mH es - eHon soeeo meow sH - m mm Hm - .AoHosm mamHscssrmm eHoHs sH onEHOHQEm mmeHqu mH mm mH N: am oHon smnpo 080m CH HH NH 6H mm es mmosoesH so eHonth . ecosmomHm smmw escomm mm 0: mm men. mm . Hmuoe psoEHOHQEm.l ucmEmQHQEm m50H>msm mo nsoH>opm poms UHmHm no mo onHm :zo gem meow uoz mm seam Hmuoe msow>osm pmosousH umommucH Hmuoe EouH oz pGoEHOHmsm xsoz HmHoom m50H>msm cqu mpsmoSpm pouomm pampsooEH umos 6cm .psmEHOHQEm mpmerHb .usos .ummmmucH mo onHm an .ucmsonQEm x903 HmHoom w50H> .soHpumHmm now :H momHm smmw cocoon ohm 29H: mummBSumuu.m mqmee 21 TABLE 7.--Field of Second Year Placement and Those Remaining in This Same Field for First Employment Following Graduation From Selected Generic Schools 1952, 1954, 1956. rim Field Place- | Employ- » ment ‘ ment Total 98 , 41 Psychiatric Social Work 44 21 Family Social Work 16 5 Child Welfare , lO 5 Medical Social Work 10 1 Public Welfare 4 2 Corrections 3 1 School Social Work 3 2 Community Organization 2 1 Group Work 2 1 Rehabilitation 2 2 Juvenile Delinquency l - Research 1 - TABLE 8.--Field of Ultimate Employment, by School, of Graduates Receiving Masters of Social Work Degrees from Selected Generic Schools 1952, 1954, 1956. 1 U. of U. of State“ U. of Field Total Utah .Texas; Univ._. West Va. Total 98~ 37 ‘ 2 7 23 .12 Psychiatric Social 1 Work 29. 10 - 8 5 6 Child Welfare l6 2. 5 6 3 Public Welfare 11‘ 9 2 - - Family Social Welfare 9 l 5 l 2 Corrections 5‘ 2 f 1 2 - Medical Social Work 5 2 2 1 - Rehabilitation 5 5 - - - - School Social Work 5 4 - l - Community Organization 3‘ — 1 2 - Juvenile Delinquency 3 l l 1 Group Work 2 - - 2 - Teaching 2 - - 2 - Other 2 - - 1 and rehabilitation. The University of Utah, with the exception of one placement by the University of Texas in public welfare, is the only school to utilize these settings as second year field placements. The University of Utah School of Social Work is strongly oriented to development of students as rehabilitation counselors.l The number employed in public welfare can,at least in part, be explained by the fact that fifteen of Utah's thirty—seven graduates had had prior experience in public welfare, with seven of these returning to this field for employment. Considering that there were thirty-eight women in the sample and that normally a husband's employment will deter- mine the city or area where the family will live, it was surprising that no one checked "spouse" as a determining factor in job selection. However, four persons checked lack of other suitable job gpeningg and four the locale gf agenc , these categories might well have the same connotation. 1This is based on an interview with Mr. Morris Gluckin, Assistant Professor of Social Work at Michigan State University, on April 19, 1958, who stated that his information came from a statement made by Miss Cecile Hillyer, Chief, Division of Training, Office of Vocational Rehabilitation at "The Workshop in Rehabilitation Content and Social Work Education" held at Simmons College, Novem- ber 9, 1957. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Although the data presented does not definitely prove or disprove that second year field placement controls ultimate employment of graduates of generic schools of social work, it does present several definite conclusions. Major Findings Second year field work placement as an influencing factor in job selection is being moved into the background by figld‘gf interest. This would seem to be logical since most second year field work placements were made in accor— dance with the student's own first choice, and it would appear to be a fair assumption that this choice would be, in most instances, in the field of interest. The study shows that forty-three per cent of the members of the sample have changed to a different field since accepting first employment. Concerning this, in the absence of any research of this nature centered upon schools offering a specialized curriculum, we can but speculate as to its significance. It does conclusively show, however, that a significant number of members of the sample have found no detrimental influence in changing fields as a result of the generic curriculum. 23 24 Students given second year field work placement of their own first choice are more apt to choose this same field for ultimate employment than those whose placements were not of their own first choice. Both first and ultimate employment were effected equally by second year field placement. While the number of persons employed in the field of second year placement remains static in both first and ultimate employment, factors influencing selection of these employments differ. Field 9f interest and salary gain in importance while lack of other suitable employment, commit- ment and previous employment diminish as influencing factors. Secondary Findings There is an increasing number of men entering the social work profession. Helen Wright, conducting a study of employment of graduates of the School of Social Service Administration of the University of Chicago, found that seventy-three per cent of the graduates returning schedules were women.1 In this current project, with the sample being graduates of the years 1952, 1954, and 1956, only thirty—nine per cent returning questionnaires were women. This, while not being statistically conclusive, does show lHelen R. Wright, "Employment of Graduates of the ’School of Social Service Administration," Social Service Review, XXI (September, 1957), p. 327. 25 a trend toward more men entering the social work profession, with respect to the schools under study. Influence of second year field work placement on ultimate employment is negative as well as positive. Less than half of students entering social work graduate schools with prior employment in social work listed their field of interest to be the same as the field in which they had been employed. An overwhelming majority of graduate social work students of this sample,eighty-five of ninety-eight, received their undergraduate major in one of the social sciences. Recommendations It would seem that the absence of any significant variation which leads to area differences would indicate there is a strong identification among the professional social work graduates of these schools, in the area of professional training. The degree to which this identifi- cation is carried by all professional social work graduates could be determined only by a study conducted along the same lines using a sample from schools in the same areas but with a specialized curriculum. A study of this sort might well confirm or disprove whether the direct relationship between the generic social' work curriculum and the horizontal mobility of its graduates is unique to this type of curriculum. If this is found to 26 be true it may be assumed that the decision to limit the accreditation of the curriculum of schools of social work to its generic base, is fulfilling the expectations of the Council on Social Work Education in preparing social workers with a common professional base. APPENDICES 27 28 APPENDIX A December 4, 1957 Mr. Jesse C. Vickers 638 Sunset Lane East Lansing, Michigan Dear Mr. Vickers: Thank you for your letter of November 22. .I do not see any reason why you should not proceed with distribution of your questionnaire to graduates of the schools which you list. There will be no duplication since the only students getting the questionnaire in the study I am conducting will be those graduating last spring. I enclose a copy for your information. I shall be looking forward with interest to the results of your study. Very truly yours, David G. French DGF:lac Enclosure Ul-IZ‘UUFD 29 APPENDIX B What was your age at last birthday? What is your sex? Male Female What was your undergraduate major(s)? When did you receive your MSW? Year Did you have any work experience (other than field placement) either before or during your graduate studies? Indicate only those fields in which you worked at least one month full time or the equivalent. Public Welfare Juvenile Delinquency Family Social Work Correctional Child Welfare Services School Social Work Group Work Psuchiatric Social Work Community Medical Social Work Organization Rehabilitation Research Other (specify) What was your principle field of interest when you entered into graduate study? ‘ Public Welfare Correctional ‘Family Social Work Services Child Welfare ' Group Work 'School Social Work Community Psychiatric Social Work Organization Medical Social Work Teaching Juvenile Delinquency Rehabilitation Research Other (specify) In what field was your second year placement? Public Welfare Juvenile Delinquency Family Social Work Correctional Child Welfare Services School Social Work Group Work Psychiatric Social Work Community Medical Social Work Organization Other (specify) Rehabilitation esearch- late registration, etc., please indicate 9. IO. 30 What was the principle factor in determining your second year field placement? Your own first choice Your own second choice Assigned by the school with no choice on your part Only placement available Influence of stipend Location (with respect to transportation and housing) Other (specify) HI If there were any extenuating circumstances, such as In which of the following fields did you first accept employment after receiving your MSW degree? Public Welfare Correctional Services Family Social Work Group Work Child Welfare ‘Community Organization School Social Work Rehabilitation ' Psychiatric Social Work Teaching Medical Social Work Research Juvenile Delinquency Other (specify) What were the factors influencing the acceptance of this employment? If more than one factor, place the number 1 before that which you consider the most important, the number 2 before secondary factors. Salary Status of position Field of Interest Locale of agency ~Personne1 of Agency Influence of spouse Previous employment Influence of other ' Second year placement relatives ’ Lack of other suitable job openings ecommendations of faculty member Working conditions or personnel policy Security First year placement ' Other (specify) If you have changed field of employment (not just positions) since first employment, please answer questions 11 and 12. - 11. What is your field of present employment? 12. 31 Public Welfare Correctional Services Family Social Work Group Work Child Welfare Community Organization School Social Work Rehabilitation Psychiatric Social Work Teaching Medical Social Work Research Juvenile Delinquency Other (specify) —v What was the factor influencing the change of field of employment? If more than one factor, place the number 1 before that which you consider the most important, the number 2 before the secondary factor. Salary Status of position Field of interest Locale of agency Personnel of agency Influence of spouse - Previous employment Influence of some Second year placement other relatives 'Recommendation of faculty member Termination of the existance of previous employment 'Working conditions or personnel policy Security ' First year placement Other (specify) If you have comments on the influence of your second year field placement on your choice of employment please use the space below. Thank you for your co-operation. Please use the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope in mailing the finished questionnaire to: Jesse C. Vickers 638 Sunset Lane East Lansing, Mich. 32 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK ERNEST B. HARPER, Director Dear Social Worker: For my MSW thesis I am doing a research project on: "A study of the Influence of Second Year Field Placement on the Choice of Employment of Graduates of Generic Schools of Social Work." In order for me to obtain the necessary information would you take a few moments, right now if possible, to check the enclosed questionnaire and to return it to me in the enclosed stamped self-addressed envelope. The sample being used covers graduates receiving their degrees in 1952, 1954, and 1956.’ Your name was furnished by the School of Social Work from which you were graduated. Those schools included in the study are: University of Texas University of Utah University of West Virginia Michigan State University All information will be held in strict confidence, with your school receiving a copy of the findings only. The director of your school has shown an interest in receiving a copy of this project for possible information and guidance in future planning. Your co-operation will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Mr. Jesse C. Vickers 638 Junset Lane East Lansing, Michigan 1 encl. questionnaire BIBLIOGRAPHY Articles and Periodicals Scott, Lyndell. '"The Function of Field Work in Professional Education," The Social Service Review, XXV (December, 1951), 441-454. Smalley, Ruth E. "Can We Reconcile Generic Education and Specialized Practice?" The Social Welfare Forum (1953), 313-327. Paper presented at the Eightieth Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Social Work at Cleveland, Ohio, May 31-June 5, 1953. Sumner, Dorothy. "An Experiment with Field Work in Generic Sggiaquork, " Social Casework, XXXVII (June, 1956), 2 ~29 Wright, Helen R. "Employment of Graduates of the School of Social Service Administration," Social Servioe Review, XXI (September, 1947), 316-330. Unpublishedeaterial Cheek, Gloria Lee. '"A Psychometric Study of Two Indices of Job Satisfaction." Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1955. Eicher, Joanne Bubolz. '"Job Satisfaction, Its Relationship to Occupational, Stratification, and Community Variables." Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State Univer- sity, East Lansing, Michigan, 1956. Gannon, Pierre. '"The Relationship of Independence in the Work Situation to Job Acceptance." Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1956. Trier, Howard E. '"Job Satisfaction and Occupational Status." Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1954. 33 MMMMM Wilma 1111171711911[ll/111,1