From the Editor—The Future of Social Work Education

One of the most challenging aspects of my role as editor in chief has been writing editorials that I thought would be of interest to the readers of this journal. Over the past four years I have written about a variety of topics including transitions, scholarship, competency-based education, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, peer reviews, and trigger warnings, among others. As my term comes to a close with this issue, my last editorial glances into the future to speculate about what our profession might look like in years to come and offers ideas about some of the possibilities and potential constraints that lie ahead for us as social work educators. However, not having any specific expertise in future forecasting, I invited several leaders whom I consider to be visionaries in social work education to muse along with me about the future of social work education. Here is this result of this collaboration.

The growth of accredited social work education programs continues to increase each year. As of June 2016, there are 758 social work programs (511 baccalaureate and 247 master’s) in the United States and its territories (Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], 2016). In the past five years, the number of social work students has increased 23.4% with about 45,000 students receiving their social work degrees each year. It is expected that this growth in students will continue as the number of social work programs increases. How will social work programs need to educate the students for the future? To address this question, three important trends in technology, student learning outcomes, and faculty and student demographics are discussed in relation to the future of social work education.

The increased use of technology applications, computers, the Internet, and course management software systems has resulted in the rapid development of technology-supported learning environments in higher education institutions (Coe Regan, 2016). The massive open online course movement and data about students’ use of classroom technology has pushed faculty to experiment with technology and new pedagogical approaches such as flipped classrooms (Selingo, 2016). The advancement and convergence of these technologies, particularly through the Internet, are resulting in social work education shifting toward more Web-based delivery. Data from the Annual Survey of Social Work Programs conducted by the CSWE (2015) indicates that almost 80% of accredited baccalaureate and master’s social work programs offer part of their program in an online or hybrid format. Fourteen percent of these programs state their entire program is online particularly at the master’s level (CSWE, 2015a, 2015c).

As new technologies continue to evolve, changing pedagogy and course formats will develop. It is expected that collaborative models of community learning as represented in massive online courses and a focus on competency-based education models will further enhance the development of online education. The continuum of delivery systems for social work education will continue to grow. Improved pedagogical strategies will be research informed and likely be focused on learning outcomes (competencies) and skills performance. Data analytics or predictive analytics will be used in the classroom to measure student learning in real time and allow students and professors to shift their behavior to change outcomes (Selingo, 2016).

In this past decade, an increasing emphasis has been placed on the assessment of educational outcomes in higher education as the public and policy makers call for increased transparency and accountability. The shift to a competency-centered, outcomes-based approach to accreditation and the emphasis on accreditors to focus their standards on assessing the degree to which institutions and programs demonstrate student learning outcomes led social work education to the development of competencies in its accreditation standards (Coe Regan & Dettlaff, 2016). Along with a focus on student learning outcomes, more information is being sought on higher education’s return on investment, which resulted in the new college scorecard developed by the U.S. Department of Education this past year. This scorecard was designed “to compare schools based on where you can get the most bang for your educational buck” (Selingo, 2016, p. 6) Many magazine publications and the social networking service LinkedIn all release their own set of college rankings based on the earnings and job placement rates of graduates, and they rank social work programs. The focus on the return on investment and rankings will have an impact on social work curricula as institutions and programs will need to create a skilled, competent, and globally competitive workforce for social work. The future of social work education may include numerous learning pathways such as competency-based education and badges to ensure that students meet the social work competencies defined in the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (CSWE, 2015b). Along with the degree, employers may want additional information on skills learned in a degree program that could be demonstrated in a student portfolio. At one university, students can qualify for badges, endorsed by outside experts, to prove they have mastered skills such as “active listening” and “drive and energy” (Selingo, 2016).

Shifting demographics in the United States mean that college campuses will continue to include more diverse students in the decade ahead as well as students who are less academically prepared and have lower family incomes than the previous generations. Social work program administrators will need to respond to this trend with changing curricula and new faculty. Trends in academic workforces for social work and higher education indicate a shift to a majority of non-tenure-track faculty, many classified as part-timers or adjunct faculty, creating bifurcated faculty in many social work programs (tenure or nontenure, full-time or part-time, and research or teaching). Data from the CSWE (2016) annual survey of programs indicate that adjunct faculty constitute more than 50% of social work faculty across the United States. New models for future faculty will need to be developed that include more flexibility in roles that respond to shifts in future student learning needs and the multitude of new delivery methods for social work education (Selingo, 2016).

It is clear from these trends that social work education will need to evolve to adapt to a new generation of students, faculty, and technological advances. However, it is important to temper these trends with careful planning, evaluation, and research on the most effective and ethical methods for delivering social work education that incorporates relevant theory, concepts, and methods. Social work educators should be on the forefront of taking advantage of these exciting trends to discover new and better ways of providing education to future social work students. Faculty and administrators will need to take up the challenge to prepare students for future professional social work practice and improve the quality of social work education in the United States.

Jo Ann R. Coe Regan

The landscape for the future of social work is highly diverse and very promising. If recent history is a predictor of future trends, the profession-wide initiatives supporting innovations, workforce development, and interorganizational collaboration in policy, advocacy, education, practice, research, and scholarship suggest a bright future. The current collaborative efforts among the various social work professional and scientific organizations and associations are an asset for the advancement of the profession. The profession continues to be responsive to the social, political, economic, and environmental national and global challenges by building coalitions across the profession and, in some cases, building coalitions across disciplines. The leaders of the various social work organizations, associations, and societies have come together to apply the collective strengths of the profession and are setting the profession on a very positive trajectory.

Over the past 30 plus years several initiatives have had a significant impact on the future of social work research. The first initiative was the convening of the 1991 National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Social Work Research and its subsequent report. Based on a growing concern regarding the lack of evidence-based and empirical knowledge in social work underpinning social work practice (Social Work Policy Institute, 2016a, 2016b; Zlotnik, Biegel, & Solt, 2002), the recommendations from the NIMH Task Force were instrumental in the advancement of social work research. The NIMH’s funding of the Social Work Research Development Centers in schools of social work sought to build research infrastructure and strengthen research careers across the profession. This investment in infrastructure and workforce development has fundamentally set social work research, education, and practice on a course that has changed the profession.

Outcomes from these investments were growth in the number of social work doctoral graduates and growth in social work scholarship. The number of social work doctorates awarded annually increased from 225 in 1999 to 326 in in 2014 (National Science Foundation, 2016a, 2016b). It is important to note that the doctoral degrees awarded in social work over this time period have no comparison to the number of doctoral degrees awarded in biology, engineering, or several other physical or social sciences. However, the trends for social work doctoral education are moving upward. The growth in doctoral graduates is directly related to the growth of doctoral programs. In 1974 there were 29 social work doctoral programs; by 2006 there were 69, and by 2014 there were 75 (CSWE Commission on Research, 2016; Schilling, Morrish, & Liu, 2008). There has also been a reemergence of the practice doctorate (DSW). Similar to other applied professions (e.g., nursing, pharmacy, psychology, and physical therapy), the DSW is considered to be a professional doctorate often offering advanced practice training. Given that many DSW programs are not members of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work, currently there is no accurate number of these DSW degree programs.

In addition to growth in doctoral programs, there has been outstanding growth in the production of social work scholarship over the past 30 plus years. Comparing social work reports published in 1984 and 2013 using free-text searches of three large databases (PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and PubMed) using the phrase social work, Howard and Garland (2015) found increases ranging between 669% and 891% in social work publications. Social work research has expanded into new areas such as evidence-based practice, prevention science, and implementation science. New concepts such as the science of social work have been proposed to define social work as an integrative scientific discipline that complements its definition as a profession (Brekke, 2012, 2014). In concert with the growth for social work research and the investments by the NIMH in social work schools and faculty, the Society for Social Work and Research was founded in 1994 to support the advancement of social work research and the continued growth of the profession. The society collaborates with the CSWE, the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work, and the St. Louis Group for Excellence in Social Work Research and Education to develop and promote social work research and scholarship in social work programs and nationally.

In 2009 the American Academy of Social Work & Social Welfare (AASWSW, 2016) was established as an honor society of scholars, practitioners, and leaders in social work and social welfare to encourage and recognize outstanding research, scholarship, and practice that contribute to a sustainable, equitable, just future and to inform social policy. One major initiative undertaken by the AASWSW to build the social work research and policy agenda is the Grand Challenges of Social Work, a large-scale initiative to bring a focus and synergy between social work research, practice, and education to bear on a range of universal social, economic, political, environmental, and psychological problems. After fine-tuning and incorporating feedback, the AASWSW officially announced 12 Grand Challenges in January 2016 (Williams, 2015, 2016).

Perhaps never in the history of the United States have social work research and education been so visibly a part of and party to the conversation about national policy. With myriad issues now so much a component of the national consciousness, social work research and education stands poised to play a leading role in this critical dialogue. The Grand Challenges initiative describes a vibrant social agenda to change the social fabric create a more just society. The tag line for the Grand Challenges is “Social Progress Powered by Science.” The emphasis is strong that we continue to conduct high-quality research that effects change and that we use evidence in practice (Brekke, 2012; Shaw, 2014). In guiding the process, the AASWSW has created a national forum and opportunities for social work researchers and practitioners to collaborate in our discipline and across other disciplines (e.g., health care, criminal justice, education, legal studies, technology, and environmental science). Each of these Grand Challenges is large in scope, important for the social fabric of the country, and compelling, and we have scientific evidence and measureable progress that indicates that these challenges could be met. The Grand Challenges allow us to build bridges in and beyond social work, and those in the profession are called to rally behind this important initiative (AASWSW, 2015).

There has been steady growth of the profession, engagement in profession-wide initiatives, and the development of new organizations. Over the past 30 plus years, social work has gained a stronger national presence. These significant events have spurred growth and a higher national profile. Even with this growth and increased national presence, significant challenges remain. Considerable intellectual energy and fiscal resources are needed to address the lack of diversity in the research enterprise of the profession. Specifically, the low numbers of faculty members of color receiving research grants, holding faculty positions, and achieving tenure in research universities, and the low number of doctoral students of color will prevent us from fully maximizing the true potential and mission of the profession. In addition, the need for stronger unification and collaboration continues to be a concern and an area of weakness for the profession. Greater collaborations among the professional organizations and societies are essential to achieve the stronger presence needed to have a significant influence on the national and local policy agenda. Thus, it is critical for social work research to be compelling and effective.

James Herbert Williams

My colleague at the University of Pennsylvania, John Jackson Jr., wrote a wonderful blog post on the role of the MSW in this century (Jackson, 2016). Specifically, he made a compelling case that the MSW will replace the juris doctorate as the all-purpose degree that equips young people for diverse jobs. I agree completely that our profession has the potential to become the key profession for this century. However, I see one challenge that could keep us from fulfilling this vision: the relationship of our profession with technology. In the past 6 months I have heard more than one colleague proclaim, “I am a high-touch person, not a high-tech person” or, “I am a people person, not a tech person.” These same people seem very comfortable using e-mail and smartphones, so clearly it’s not really about technology, it’s about the newest technologies, in this case Internet and communication technologies (ICT: Perron, Taylor, Glass, & Margerum-Leys, 2010). There is a cultural tendency to demonize new technologies (e.g., Jarvis, n.d.; Powers, 2010). For example, Socrates was opposed to writing because it put thoughts in fixed form, and many people decried the dangers of information overload caused by the advent of the printing press (Powers, 2010). But social work antitechnology narratives add a new twist; we are constructing a mythology of false dichotomies: people people and tech people. At a time when 65% of Americans use social media (Perrin, 2015), and 49% play video games (Duggan, 2015), do we really want to create this false dichotomy? If so, then we’ve identified the one situation in which it is OK for social workers to be culturally incompetent (Smyth, 2010; Zgoda, 2013).

To lead in this century, we must be of this century. We need to be digitally literate, that is, understand ICTs and other digital tools, how to use them, when to use them, and when not to use them. The pervasiveness of technology in society means that digital literacy can’t be a social work specialty any more than using the telephone. Are there social workers who are expert in telephone crisis intervention? Of course. But we all need to use the telephone in all aspects of our jobs.

And yet, most social work education in the United States fails to prepare all our students to practice in a digital society (Perron et al., 2010). Yes, most students enter school knowing how to use select ICTs in their personal lives. But we are not educating them how to use these technologies and others they are not familiar with as social workers. Using technology personally is not the same as being digitally literate professionally. Digital literacy is defined as “the ability to participate in a range of critical and creative practices that involve understanding, sharing and creating meaning with different kinds of technology and media” (Hague, 2010, p. 3). Digitally literate social workers understand how ICTs and other digital tools are appropriately used in all types of social work practice (Hitchcock, 2016), and they use digital tools in practice, including creating professional content through the use of various media (writing, images, audio, video). Digital literacy requires reflection, analysis, and discussion in addition to technical skills. When we fail to provide students with opportunities to become digitally literate, they will use technology relying on personal habits, and will not mindfully apply them so they fit professional contexts.

To clarify, this isn’t about online degrees. Just because students are taking online classes doesn’t mean they are digitally literate. Online learning is about how content is delivered not what is taught. And using a learning management system (e.g., Blackboard) doesn’t mean students are learning to navigate the digital world beyond those cloistered environments. Conversely, digital literacy doesn’t require online education—an educator can integrate technology-based activities into a traditional classroom in many ways (Hitchcock, 2016).

Fortunately, the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (CSWE, 2015b) does address technology in Competency 1: “understand emerging forms of technology and the ethical use of technology in practice … use technology ethically and appropriately to facilitate practice outcomes” (p. 7). But it bears emphasizing that this isn’t just about using technology ethically. It’s about understanding the use of technology in all aspects of practice. We can only lead in this century if we are educating social workers on the latter, which includes, but isn’t limited to, ethics.

We can meet this challenge by ensuring that students learn how to use digital tools professionally, for example, to communicate with clients, track progress, help families stay connected across distance, create psychoeducational resources, empower clients, engage agency stakeholders, develop virtual communities, support neighborhoods, enhance team collaboration, create new programs with crowd funding, organize social action, advocate for policy change, or engage in ongoing professional development. And yet, if we as educators aren’t digitally literate, we will be unable to educate our students for a digital society. This challenge can’t be addressed simply by relying on the next generation of educators to teach what’s needed. Technology changes rapidly, with significant advancements every 2 years (Kurzweil, 2005; Sneed, 2015). This makes it essential to have a conscious professional development strategy and for those of us in social work to stay informed about cultural technological trends and their impact on client systems and our society.

Are we up for the challenge? I hope so, because our society desperately needs our expertise, but only if our expertise includes how to work in a digital society.

Nancy J. Smyth

The imperative to prepare the next generation of effective, ethical, and competent social workers is the principal focus of baccalaureate- and master’s-level social work programs. The CSWE’s Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards provide a textured vision of holistic competence capturing the complexity of any professional endeavor. The demonstration of competence “is informed by knowledge, values, skills, and cognitive and affective processes that include the social worker’s critical thinking, affective reactions, and exercise of judgment” (CSWE, 2015b, p. 6). This statement recognizes that social workers’ performance is based on the integration of a number of dimensions—conceptual and empirical knowledge, implicit or tacit knowledge derived from lived and practice experience, and the unique way each social worker processes that knowledge base. This perspective is consistent with contemporary neuroscience research, which notes that affective, emotional, subjective reactions are integral to cognitive processes (Damasio, 2005; Kahneman, 2011). Critical thinking, judgments, and decision making are powerfully affected by our emotions. Emotional reactions are in turn related to meanings individuals’ derive from their personal and professional lives that are internalized and influence subsequent cognitive appraisals and guide interactions. These insights support and broaden the long-standing notion of “use of self” in social work (Larrison & Korr, 2013; Munro, 2011).

Pedagogical approaches therefore are needed that assist students to integrate conceptual and empirical material, cognitive and affective processes, and practice behavior that point out the interrelationships between these various dimensions rather than address them separately. Such approaches could more effectively bridge the structural divide between various courses and between the university and the field setting. Generally, courses in the university teach content and critical thinking. Although practice theory is taught, the focus is on practice rather than direct teaching of practice. Field education is viewed as the site where integration occurs and students learn how to practice. Programs that have field seminars aim to link these two worlds; however, practice is generally discussed rather than demonstrated (Dalton, 2012). There are increasing challenges in securing quality field sites with social work instructors who have time to teach in a manner that promotes integration (CSWE, 2015d; Hunter, Moen, & Raskin, 2016). Accordingly, schools have been called on to take greater responsibility for teaching and assessing holistic competence beyond the field.

Research demonstrates that human simulation can be used successfully to teach or to assess competence in an integrated manner in foundation practice for graduate (Bogo et al., 2011) and undergraduate students (Johnson & Rawlings, 2011), and in specialized areas such as clinical competence and cultural sensitivity (Lu et al., 2011), assessment of intimate partner violence (Forgey, Badger, Gilbert, & Hansen, 2013), and practice in child protection (Maxwell et al., 2016). Role-play is frequently used in social work education. These studies, however, demonstrate the effectiveness of using well-designed simulations that include focused debriefing, an approach that holds great promise for future teaching and learning in social work.

A systematic approach to designing simulations begins with articulating clear outcomes related to the various dimensions of holistic competence. Educators move through various levels of conceptualizations of competence from identifying central contributions from abstract theory and empirical findings, to key issues likely to stimulate students’ thinking and emotional reactions to practice situations, to concrete descriptions of expected complex practice behaviors that could be observed. Based on this map, authentic scenarios are developed to provide data so that students are able to learn, use, and demonstrate the expected competencies. Actors are trained to portray the scenario in a consistent, standardized manner and are provided with verbatim statements that illustrate the complexity of the issues confronted in social work practice. Crucial to students’ learning is constant debriefing through various phases of the simulation. Debriefing is focused and involves discussion of the various dimensions of holistic competence. It immediately engages students in using the conceptual frameworks to analyze the practice situation and their thinking about how to proceed. Debriefing can reveal students’ emotional reactions to the simulated client, heightening awareness of the impact of emotional self states. Periodic discussions with the entire class during the simulation cover essential aspects of deliberate practice (Ericsson, 2004). That is, from reflection and analysis, students receive focused feedback, coaching, and opportunities to repeat their practice. Repetitive practice that attends to such information has been shown to improve intentional practice (McGaghie, Issenberg, Cohen, Barsuk, & Wayne, 2011).

This method has also been studied to assess educational outcomes in social work (Bogo, Rawlings, Katz, & Logie, 2014; Maxwell et al., 2016). The Objective Structured Clinical Examination, used extensively in competence assessment of health professionals, is a robust approach using observation of performance accompanied by a structured reflection. Authentic, reliable, and valid scenarios and rating scales can differentiate levels of competence. Reflective questions are aligned to assess dimensions of competence that cannot be observed, such as use of knowledge and cognitive and affective processes. Assessors observe students’ practice and review their reflections, arriving at an understanding of numerous dimensions in a number of competencies.

If in the future social work educators more fully embrace the use of systematic human simulation, it is imperative that such initiatives are accompanied by strong programs of research. Related health professions accept and value pedagogic research as a specialized area of scholarship, and there is increasing recognition of this trend in social work in the United Kingdom (Robbins, Pomeroy, Thyer, Mason, & Taylor, 2013). There is no available information to suggest this to be the case in U.S. schools of social work. Leaders are needed who encourage and recognize faculty members who conduct pedagogical research in social work.

In conclusion, systematically designed simulation provides a compelling method to teach and assess educational outcomes in an integrated manner, helps students achieve the various dimensions that constitute holistic competence, and provides data to assess students’ performance and the programs’ effectiveness. Supported by an expanding empirical base, simulation holds great promise for the future of social work education.

Marion Bogo

As my colleagues have discussed, social work education faces a number of exciting opportunities as well as daunting challenges in the coming years. It goes without saying that the viability of our educational enterprise is largely dependent on the continued availability of jobs, and in this regard, the prospects for the profession look good, particularly for those who hold graduate degrees and licensure (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015). In contrast to all other occupations, which are projected to grow at a rate of 6% from 2014 to 2024, employment in social work is projected to grow by 12% overall, with the highest gains being in health care, mental health, and substance abuse (19%), and the lowest in child, family, and school social work (6%; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015). The amazing diversity of fields and settings in which social workers practice sets us apart from other professions and serves us well for future expansion in the marketplace as well as the future expansion of social work programs.

However, there are also challenges we must face in the educational arena. As noted earlier in this editorial, the current shift to nontenured, part-time, and adjunct faculty (also called contingent faculty) creates a number of dilemmas. Although numerous factors have been cited for a growing reliance on contingent faculty, some of the influences that have contributed to this are neoliberal policies that have led to declining public funding and the subsequent “massification” of higher education (Kezar, 2013). As a profession that is rooted in social justice, it is critical that we not contribute to the exploitation of contingent faculty who are typically paid less, have no benefits, and rarely have adequate support (Kezar & Maxey, 2015).

Although there is variation in the way that part-time and adjuncts are handled in different programs, for the most part it has been rare for contingent faculty to be involved in faculty meetings or curriculum development. Historically and currently, most adjunct and part-time faculty are only expected to show up to teach their classes and submit grades at the end of the semester or quarter (Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2014; Kezar & Maxey, 2014, 2015). It is important to note that a growing body of research has found that as the number of contingent faculty grows, “there are proportionally fewer faculty members who understand the learning goals of their academic programs and institutions, as well as how those are related to the curriculum” (Kezar & Maxey, 2015, p. 24). This does not bode well for the uniform implementation of accreditation standards in social work.

Two other areas I believe merit attention for the future are the types of research that are valued in our programs and the way we evaluate the importance and impact of our scholarly work. Concomitant with the shift to contingent faculty who have assumed an increasing responsibility for teaching as full-time faculty buy out of courses to focus on grants and research, the expectations for tenured and tenure-earning faculty have changed as well. In addition to the historical mandate of publish or perish, there is now additional pressure to apply for and win external grants from federal or private sources (Gallup & Svare, 2016). And, as Huber (2002) has noted, this is not a new development as research demands and the expectation for obtaining grants have been rising for more than a decade.

The mandate for external funding skews the types of research that is valued in the academy, with quantitative studies being the norm. Unfortunately, this devalues qualitative research, which is less likely to be funded. As Cheek (2013) has noted, qualitative research typically takes longer to conduct than quantitative studies and is therefore less attractive to many granting agencies. According to Cheek, one trend has been to tack a qualitative component onto an otherwise quantitative study, which can result in research that is not theoretically grounded and is reduced to a technique or method rather than a way of thinking.

When I think about social work researchers whose work has had a far-reaching impact, the scholar who comes to mind is Brené Brown (2010, 2012, 2015), whose grounded theory studies have resulted in three New York Times best-selling books as well as highly acclaimed workshops and curricula that are used nationally and internationally. Another example is the recent work of sociologist Matthew Desmond (2016), whose ethnography on poverty and eviction is being touted as a masterpiece that is changing the national conversation.

This, of course, is not how we measure impact in the academy, which demonstrates the insularity of the methods we use to judge our and our colleague’s scholarship. Ostensibly, our scholarship is evaluated in terms of quantity (how much, how frequently, with whom, and listing of authorship) as well as quality. However, in practice, it is unknown whether those who evaluate us actually read or consider the quality of our work. Most often, particularly in doctoral-granting universities, and increasingly in 4-year colleges, the institutional criteria that increasingly carry the most weight are the number of publications and citations amassed and whether the journals in which we publish have high-impact factors (JIF).

The executive editor of the Public Library of Science and colleagues have called the use of JIFs a “misguided habit” and bemoaned the fact the we “continue to rely on this erroneous proxy of research—and researcher—quality to inform funding, hiring and promotion decisions” (Kiermer, Larivière, & MacCallum, 2016, para 1). Citing research by Larivière et al. (2016), which found that “the citation performance of individual papers cannot be inferred from the JIF” (p. 1), they call for changes in the way we assess researchers and their papers. Although a variety of other platforms can be used to assess impact, they conclude that “there is no escaping the fact that a paper can only be properly evaluated by reading it” (para. 8).

Clearly, we have a number of challenges ahead of us, as can be seen in each of the topics and issues that my colleagues and I have addressed here. Change is and will continue to be a constant, whether in relation to faculty and student demographics, student learning outcomes, new and emerging technology, the ever increasing need for digital literacy, established and new pedagogical approaches, and research and scholarship. This will, of course, require flexibility, creativity, and collaborative efforts if we are to be well positioned to address these changes.

I believe that the Grand Challenges initiative discussed by James Herbert Williams in this editorial provides us with an important focus that returns us to our roots and not only aligns our profession with our social justice mission but also recognizes the important role of research and interdisciplinary efforts in informing and affecting policy. To recognize this important endeavor, beginning in 2017, we plan to highlight articles in each issue that relate to the Grand Challenges. Even though the future may appear to be distant, in reality it is already here.

Susan P. Robbins

Susan P. Robbins

University of Houston

Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Social Work Education

Jo Ann R. Coe Regan

Vice President, Education Council on Social Work Education

James Herbert Williams

Professor and Distinguished Emil M. Sunley Endowed Chair

University of Denver

Nancy J. Smyth

Professor

University at Buffalo

Marion Bogo

Professor

University of Toronto