Current trends threaten a shift in focus from family-centered to individually oriented practice. The author makes a case for resisting these forces and for the continued development of graduate curricula supportive of family-oriented practice. The sequence of advanced direct-practice courses described in this article is based on the integration of feminist and family-of-origin theories. Students learn to use social theories as a context for clinical theories and study their own families both to learn concepts and to explore how their own experiences and beliefs affect their practice. Comprehensive education in family-centered practice will require significant changes in the curriculum of most schools of social work.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BernardL. D. (1992). The dark side of family preservation. Affilia, 7, 156–159.
2.
BowenM. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice.Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
3.
BravermanS. (1984). Family of origin as a training resource for family therapists. In MunsonC. E. (Ed.), Family of origin applications in clinical super’ vision (pp. 37–47). New York: Haworth.
4.
CecchinG. (1987). Hypothesizing, circularity, and neutrality revisited: An invitation to curiosity. Family Process, 26, 405–413.
5.
DavisL. V. (1993). Feminism and constructivism: Teaching social work practice with women. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 8, 147–163.
6.
DeanR. G. (1989). Ways of knowing in clinical practice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 17, 116–127.
7.
DeanR. G. (1993). Teaching a constructivist approach to clinical practice. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 8, 55–75.
8.
DeanR. G., & FenbyB. L. (1989). Exploring epistemologies: Social work action as a reflection of philosophical assumptions. Journal of Social Work Education, 25, 46–54.
9.
DeanR. G., & Fleck-HendersonA. (1992). Teaching clinical theory and practice through a constructivist lens. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 3–20.
10.
DoreM. M. (1993). The practice-teaching parallel in educating the micropractitioner. Journal of Social Work Education, 29, 181–190.
11.
DoreM. M. (1994). Feminist pedagogy and the teaching of social work practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 97–106.
12.
Fleck-HendersonA. (1993). A constructivist approach to “Human Behavior and the Social Environment I.”Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 8, 219–238.
13.
FreemanD. S. (1981). Techniques of family therapy.New York: Jason Aronson.
14.
FreemanD. S. (1992a). Family therapy with couples.Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
15.
FreemanD. S. (1992b). Multigenerational family therapy.New York: Haworth.
16.
FriedmanE. H. (1985). Generation to generation: Family process in church and synagogue.New York: Guilford.
17.
GermainC. B. (1994). Emerging conceptions of family development over the life course. Families in Society, 75, 259–267.
18.
GrossE. R. (1992). Are families deteriorating or changing?Affilia, 7, 7–22.
19.
HartmanA., & LairdJ. (1983). Family-centered social work practice.New York: Free Press.
20.
HartmanA., & LairdJ. (1987). Family practice. In MinahanA. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (Vol. 1, pp. 575–589). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.
21.
HazelriggM. D., CooperH. M., & BorduinC. M. (1987). Evaluating the effectiveness of family therapies: An integrative review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 428–442.
22.
JacobsonN. S., & AddisM. E. (1993). Research on couples and couple therapy: What do we know? Where are we going?Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 85–93.
23.
LairdJ. (1993). Family-centered practice: Cultural and constructivist reflections. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 8, 77–109.
24.
McGoldrickM., PearceJ. K., & GiordanoJ. (Eds.). (1982). Ethnicity and family therapy.New York: Guilford.
25.
MorellC. (1987). Cause is function: Toward a feminist model of integration for social work. Social Service Review, 61, 144–155.
26.
MunsonC. E. (1984). Uses and abuses of family of origin material in family therapy supervision. In MunsonC. E. (Ed.), Family of origin applications in clinical supervision (pp. 61–74). New York: Haworth.
27.
PaperoD. V. (1988). Training in Bowen theory. In LiddleH. A., BreunlinD. C., & SchwartzR. C. (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy training and supervision (pp. 62–77). New York: Guilford.
28.
PiercyF. P., & SprenkleD. H. (1986). Family therapy theory building: An integrative training approach. In PiercyF. P. (Ed.), Family therapy education and supervision (pp. 5–14). New York: Haworth.
29.
ProtinskyH., & KellerJ. F. (1984). Supervision of marriage and family therapy: A family of origin approach. In MunsonC. E. (Ed.), Family of origin applications in clinical supervision (pp. 75–80). New York: Haworth.
30.
SaleebeyD. (1993). Notes on interpreting the human condition: A “constructed” HBSE curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 8, 197–217.
31.
TommK. (1987). Interventive interviewing: Part II. Reflexive questioning as a means to enable self-healing. Family Process, 26, 167–183.
32.
TommK. (1988). Interventive interviewing: Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular, strategic, or reflexive questions?Family Process, 27, 1–15.
33.
WylieM. S. (1994, March-April). Endangered species. Family Therapy Networker, 20–33.
