From the Editor—Celebrating Our 50th!

This issue marks the 50th volume of the Journal of Social Work Education (JSWE). Reflecting on the evolution of the journal over the past 50 years, I was struck by the dramatic changes that have occurred, as well as that which has remained constant.

The first issue of the Journal of Education for Social Work (as it was named at the time) was published in spring 1965, and its arrival was heralded in Social Work Education, a bimonthly news publication disseminated by Council on Social Work Education (CSWE; 1964–1965, December–January). The journal's stated focus was “specifically and exclusively on education for social work … dealing with trends, new developments, and the issues and problems in education for the field of social welfare” (p. 1) at all levels of social work education. In addition to articles submitted to the journal and book reviews, it also included “significant” papers from the Annual Program Meeting and other notable conferences that may previously have been published in conference proceedings.

Subsequent to this announcement, the journal received a large number of unsolicited manuscripts that apparently did not meet publication guidelines. To clarify the submission specifications, the guidelines that were published in the first issue of the journal were reiterated in the March 1965 issue of the Social Work Education Reporter. In reviewing these submission instructions, it occurred to me that many social work scholars today would be baffled, and perhaps even slightly amused, by some of these rules, which reflect academic writing prior to the advent of personal computers and widespread use of the Internet. For example, authors were instructed to submit typed papers “on standard size opaque paper, on one side only … not more than 27 lines per page.” The desired length for a manuscript was approximately 3,500 words (or 14–16 pages), but not to exceed 5,000 words (CSWE, 1965, p. 15). In the current age of online submissions as well as online reviews, it is all too easy to forget standard practices of the past. I cannot think of many people today who long for the days when manuscripts were initially handwritten and then prepared on a manual or electric typewriter, using copious amounts of Wite-Out correction fluid to remedy the inevitable typing errors or minor revisions.

From the onset the journal stressed “strict standards of substance in content, scholarly presentation, and promise of lasting interest” (CSWE, 1965, p. 15), and most of these early standards have been retained throughout the journal's history, although described in different terms. Submission guidelines now emphasize originality (i.e., making a “significant contribution to the advancement of existing knowledge”), conceptual or empirical soundness, and papers that are well-argued (CSWE, n.d.). Currently, manuscript length has expanded to a maximum of 25 pages (exclusive of references, tables, and figures) and must include an abstract. Over time, the journal also replaced the initial use of the Chicago Manual of Style with that of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, now in its 6th edition (American Psychological Association, 2010).

Looking back at articles that were published in the first two volumes of the journal reveals other important similarities as well as differences in social work scholarship then and now. I was immediately drawn in by the names of well-known authors of a bygone era that were instrumental in my own professional development: Richard Titmuss, Alfred Kadushin, Beulah Rothman, Walter Kindelsperger, William Gordon, and Charles Guzzetta, to name a few.

In contrast to most publications today, all of these early articles were highly conceptual. Although none were based on empirical research, the role of research in social work was a thread that ran through many of the published papers. Some noted that there was insufficient research, particularly on outcomes, and concern was voiced over the resistance to experimental designs (Geis, 1965; Stein, 1965). Others called for specific types of research such as administrative, descriptive, analytical, historical, and action research. However, Schubert (1965) warned about research being valued for its own sake and opined that “one of the intellectual hazards of our time might be called ‘seduction by computer,’” (p. 41) fearing that this would lead to an alienation from social work practice. Similarly, Titmuss (1965) expressed concern that research and publication had become a means of self-advancement to the detriment of teaching, concluding that more theoretical and applied research was needed, but only if it was used “as a servant, and not as a master” (p. 71). Nonetheless, it is clear that research in social work was increasing, largely through the influence of doctoral programs and the CSWE (Finestone, 1965).

However, the tension between the ascendency of quantitative research over other methods of knowledge-building led Burns (1965) to note that “endowing hypothesis-testing with either super status or with a magic quality inevitably deprives our knowledge-building of many potential contributions badly needed in its present state” (p. 15). In a similar vein, Guzzetta (1966) pointed out the importance of balancing scientific and philosophical principles, which he saw as being essential to preparation for professional practice.

Many of the articles addressed challenges in social work education that covered a broad array of topics, including concerns about insufficient numbers of persons holding doctoral degrees to meet faculty needs (Blackey, 1965; Stein, 1965), preparation of students for field and work in welfare agencies (Schubert, 1965; Witte, 1965), who to recruit and how to educate students (Geis, 1965; Kindelsperger, 1966), the continuum of education for BSW and MSW programs, the nature and level of advanced content (Kadushin, 1965), and the need for a clear articulation of knowledge for social work (Gordon, 1965).

The 1960s ushered in tremendous social and political change, and the policies of President Johnson's Great Society, coupled with the protest movements of that era, kindled a reawakening of interest in social reform that had been largely absent in social work curricula (Aptekar, 1966). Accordingly, a number of articles focused on knowledge for social work practice, including content on social responsibility, social forces that affect the individual, working with low-income populations, knowledge about the policy-making process, large-scale organizational change, and broader social change (Aptekar, 1966; Kramer, 1966; Stein, 1965; Younghusband, 1966).

My brief journey into JSWE's early scholarship was illuminating, and I would urge our readers to examine some of these and other articles to get a sense of how our historical context shaped our prior concerns. It is clear that many of the issues that were relevant at that time continue to be discussed and debated today. Perhaps one of the biggest changes is the shift to empirical studies, largely but not exclusively quantitative, and the relative paucity of conceptual articles that are presently submitted and published in the journal. This, of course, reflects changes in the academy and the current expectations for scholarship.

The journal has undergone a number of other changes and transitions over time, and in 1985 the name was changed to the Journal of Social Work Education. With advances in technology, the journal moved from paper to online submissions in 2006. Other key developments include the initiation of awards presented to the top reviewers in 2007 and the reappointment of a formal Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) in 2008. The EAB worked collectively to develop criteria to select the best articles published annually, and awards for these were initiated in 2009 and presented at the Annual Program Meeting reception. More recently, a major transition occurred in January 2013 when the physical production and promotion of the journal moved from CSWE to Routledge/Taylor & Francis. This has been a well-planned and extremely positive development, as manuscripts are now handled through their ScholarOne online submission system, and we also benefit from their well-established resources and expertise in promoting the journal.

As we celebrate our 50th year of publication, we have a number of exciting plans to commemorate this milestone. Over the next year, we will feature articles in each issue authored by well-known scholars who have been invited to address the theme of “Social Work Education: Past, Present and Future.” I anticipate that these articles will address a broad range of issues and present some very stimulating ideas. In addition, we are planning to host a larger Reviewer Reception at the next Annual Program Meeting (October 23–26, 2014, in Tampa, FL) with special recognition given to those who have been instrumental in the journal's many accomplishments.

At this juncture, it is especially important to recognize those who have worked hard to make JSWE a success over these many years. This includes the numerous authors and reviewers, without whom the journal would not exist; the EAB members; and the CSWE staff members who have worked tirelessly to track the manuscripts in the pipeline and ensure timely review. A special thanks goes to current publication staff members, Elizabeth Simon and Mia Moreno-Hines, for their outstanding work as well as their commitment to professionalism. And last, but certainly not least, it is vital to acknowledge the leadership and significant contributions of all of our editors, whose names are listed at the end of this editorial.

We are excited about this year of celebration, and I am confident that JSWE will remain committed to attracting and publishing high-quality and relevant articles that will inform, challenge, and generate new and useful knowledge for social work education.

Susan P. Robbins

University of Houston

Editor-in-Chief

JSWE Editors-in-Chief, 1965–2013

	Margaret Williamson (1965–1967)
	David Fanshel (1968–1972)
	None listed (1973–1978)
	Hans S. Falk (1979–1984)
	Josefina Figueira-McDonough (1985–1988)
	Anne E. Fortune (1989–1990)
	Frederic G. Reamer (1991–1994)
	John F. Longres (1994–1997)
	Paula Allen-Meares (1997–2000)
	Eileen D. Gambrill (2000–2003)
	Deborah P. Valentine (2003–2006)
	Gary Holden (Summer 2006)
	Deborah P. Valentine (2006–2007)
	Colleen M. Galambos (2007–2010)
	Lorraine M. Gutiérrez (2010–2012)
	Susan P. Robbins (2013–present)