7Maneuvering the Macro: A Guide to Macro-Level Field Placements for Social Work Students, Field Instructors, and Field Liaisons

Julie Mann-Johnson, Anne-Marie McLaughlin, Brenda Vos, and Maddie Wandler

What is the spirit of social work? It was founded upon genuine human pity, upon the desire to relieve suffering, to give food to the hungry and shelter to the homeless; unless we can get back to that, underlying as it does, all the subdivisions and subtleties into which we have developed our activities, and take hold of this great world-situation, we will fail in an essential obligation, in a sense we will be traitors to our original purpose. (Jane Addams, 1920, as cited in Thompson et al., 2019, pp. 41–42).

Changes made at the macro level of social work practice are significant and have ripple effects with the potential to touch the lives of many individuals. There is theoretical consensus within the social work profession that macro practice produces these ripple effects by engaging across systems and working with individuals, groups, communities, organizations, and societies (Canadian Association of Social Workers [CASW], 2020). Even so, many social work students, educational programs, professional associations, and social workers maintain a myopic lens of social work practice by focusing on the micro-level with little attention directed towards macro work that may include policy development, research, analysis, advocacy, administration, and mobilization that attempts to influence systems towards social justice.

With a focus on field placement opportunities, this chapter situates macro practice within generalist practice, explores the benefits of macro-level practice, suggests a definition, reviews the literature on existing tensions in the field and classroom, and identifies the competencies required for macro-level social work practice. Opportunities for skill development and transferability will be highlighted along with suggestions and resources for learning activities for students. Considerations for field instructors and faculty liaisons will also be discussed with opportunities to best support students in these types of field education placements.

Generalist Practice

Social work has long struggled with its dual focus of helping people and changing society (McLaughlin, 2002). Generalist practice arose in response to a perceived drift away from the dual focus and towards a narrower interest in individual methods and models of practice focused on the needs, problems, issues, and concerns of individuals (Miller et al., 2008). In contrast, generalist practice encompasses a multimethod-multilevel approach to practice that best prepares social workers to understand and respond to the interrelated complexities of individuals, communities, and social systems. In Canada and elsewhere, undergraduate social work education prepares students for generalist practice (Canadian Association for Social Work Education [CASWE], 2021; Lavitt, 2009). Generalist practitioners not only work with individuals but also with systems and structures. Key features of generalist practice include a person-in-environment lens, which situates an individual’s experience in the context of their environment in both assessments and interventions occurring at multiple levels. It also features multiple roles, including but not limited to educator, advocate, mediator, planner, organizer, and administrator. This chapter focuses on these roles at a macro level. A strong understanding of macro-level practice, and the transferability of its skills across levels of practice will assist students in the development of a strong social work identity that integrates micro, mezzo, and macro practice.

What is Macro Practice, Anyway?

The social work profession and social work education often speak of and describe social work practice as fitting within three levels of practice: micro, mezzo, and macro. These classifications, influenced by social work meta-theories such as systems theory and ecological approaches, underpin generalist social work practice (Greenfield, 2010). Yet pressure to specialize has forced some practitioners and educators to depart from the generalist perspective in favour of either mezzo, macro, or micro practice, with an overwhelming majority favouring the latter (Apgar, 2020). This challenge will be explored in further depth within this chapter. While the authors of this chapter agree that good social work practice engages across all three levels, for the ease of analysis, reflection, and learning, we will parse out macro-level practice with a definition, further discussion from the literature, and case examples.

Typically, the following definitions have been used to differentiate levels of practice: micro is direct practice with individuals, families, and/or small groups; mezzo is practice with organization, teams, and/or other formal groups; macro is community organizing, policy, and/or administration (Mattocks, 2018). Holtz Deal et al. (2007) describe macro-oriented social work as “management and community practice” (p. 43) in their discussion about graduate student field practicum experiences, identifying that macro-oriented field placements take place in communities and organizations. Field placements that have a management concentration are considered macro-level yet are also referred to as “social work administration” roles (Ezell et al., 2004). The term “policy practice” is also used to refer to macro-level social work activity as an area requiring attention within social work curricula (Apgar & Parada, 2018). Other ways to differentiate practice have considered the proximity of practice to individuals, for example whether the type of support provided to individuals would be considered direct or indirect practice (Hunter & Ford, 2010). Direct practice may include regular contact with vulnerable individuals and families, while indirect practice may include administration, program development and implementation, networking, policy development and analysis, political work, and community mobilization (Hunter & Ford, 2010). Direct practice and indirect practice are frequently used to distinguish micro- and macro-level practice. Mezzo-oriented placements involve elements of both direct and indirect practice (Hunter & Ford, 2010). See Table 7.1 for a side-by-side comparison of various areas of practice within direct and indirect practice.

Practice that involves the ability to engage with larger systems in the socioeconomic environment (Long et al., 2006 as cited in Miller et al., 2008), such as at the global, societal, community or organizational level, is described as a distinguishing feature of macro-level social work (Miller et al., 2008). Encompassing an understanding of systems is also noted in LaTosch and Jones’ (2012) conception, highlighting that macro-level work addresses systems that govern and impact lives, looks at entire communities, and identifies key areas for change. Apgar (2020) summarizes macro work as “social work [that] focuses on structural solutions to eradicate systemic inequities and prevent social problems” (p. 711).

Here, we propose a functional definition for macro-level social work based on the literature and our practice experience. We suggest macro-level social work practice is social work practice in policy development, research, analysis, advocacy, administration, and organizing and mobilization that aims to influence systems. We consider the aspect of “aiming to influence systems” to be a vital component of macro social work practice. This notion not only incorporates systems theory and its ecological perspectives, which are vital to social work’s professional base, but also echoes social work’s obligations and commitments to social justice, social change, and influence. Consider the case study and the role social workers have to play to influence the system.

Table 7.2: Case Study

Tensions of Macro Practice in the Context of the Social Work Profession, Education, and Field Placements

Despite the theoretical consensus in the social work profession that social work spans individual, organizational, and systemic levels of practice (CASW, 2020), there are tensions surrounding the relative importance of each domain in social work education and in the profession. These tensions were embedded in the beginning of social work in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and persist today. The Charity Organization Society (COS) and the Settlement House Movement (SHM) are frequently cited as two strands from which the social work profession emerged (Brieland, 1990; Dore, 1999; Haynes & White, 1999). Although both aimed at improving social conditions, they offered different explanations for the root cause of social issues and different strategies for addressing them (Germain & Hartman, 1980 as cited in Thompson et al., 2019). While the COS is described as micro-oriented by focusing on problems, causes, and solutions at the individual level, the SHM was more macro-oriented in viewing social systems and institutions as the cause of human suffering, and therefore as the target of change (Shdaimah & McCoyd, 2012). Individual casework theory and practice are thus associated with the COS, while social work with groups, organizations, and social systems is associated with the SHM. These two schools of thought continue to inform the landscape of social work practice today.

Although the COS and SHM are associated with differing perspectives, some argue that these two schools of thought were not as polarized as it may seem (Dore, 1999; McLaughlin, 2002; Thompson, et al., 2019). In their article, Thompson and colleagues (2019) provide multiple examples of how Mary Richmond and Jane Addams, cited as the leaders of the COS and the SHM respectively, acknowledge the importance of both micro and macro social work in fulfilling the purpose of the profession. However, the divide between micro and macro social work in theory and practice only grew with the rise of the political and economic ideology of neoliberalism. Van Heugten (2011) described how under neoliberalism “needs become wants for which individuals are responsible, and health and social welfare are commodities that should be delivered in such a way as to best support economic imperatives” (p. 182). In other words, neoliberalism suggests that individuals are responsible for meeting their own needs, state intervention and funding should be limited, and economic profitability should be prioritized—ideas that are all antithetical to macro social work practice.

Neoliberal policies have greatly impacted social work as a profession—including individual social workers and those they serve—through cuts to social spending that have forced public sectors to do more with less. With fewer resources and increased demands, organizations are pressured to prioritize efficiency and outputs, which has numerous implications on social service delivery and the workforce (Strier, 2019). One notable implication on service delivery has been an increased emphasis on interventions that are evidence-based, standardized, and quickly produce measurable outcomes (Heron, 2019). Consider how such characteristics are more suited to interventions that target individuals as the site for change compared to the dynamic and time-consuming process of systemic change. Implications for the workforce include increased caseloads, poorer working conditions, agency downsizing, and an increase in temporary work contracts (Preston & Aslett, 2013; Strier, 2019). These conditions contribute to a fragmentation of social work practice, where social workers are no longer valued for their capacity to work within and across systems, but rather for their ability to perform a distilled set of tasks (Heron, 2019). For example, with so many pressures and demands and not enough resources, social workers are expected to focus on specific individual needs and sets of tasks, and to otherwise refer clients out to other services, contributing to the fragmentation of the profession into specific subdivisions (Strier, 2019). With how neoliberal ideology is influencing the social sector, it is difficult to imagine how and where macro social work practice fits in. Despite the prevalence of the neoliberal ideology and discourse in Canada, social work regulatory bodies, codes of ethics, and standards of social work practice, education, and training consistently acknowledge micro and macro social work as interrelated and equally important (CASW, 2005; CASWE, 2021; Health Professions Act, 2000). Unfortunately, this is not always reflected in social work education or in the field. Nor does it reflect the desires of many social work students (Apgar, 2020).

The overt focus on micro over macro social work practice in the workforce has produced tensions that manifest in social work education. According to the findings of Austin and colleagues (2005) and Weiss-Gal (2008), social work students preferred clinical practice, a common application of micro social work, to macro social work. Reasons for this preference included concerns about the job market, employability in higher paying positions, job security, and the ability to become licensed (Apgar, 2020). Research also indicates that students attribute fewer learning opportunities including less client contact and fewer relevant assignments to macro-level field placements (Holtz Deal et al., 2007). It therefore appears that students’ preference for micro-level practice may be related to a belief that they will not gain a set of skills of similar value valuable through macro-level practicums, potentially harming their chances of securing a position in the workforce and obtaining their license. Considering the aforementioned ways in which neoliberalism is shaping the social work field, their concerns are not unfounded. Conversely, however, one study in the United States surveyed recent social work graduates with micro or macro concentrations and found no differences between the two groups of graduates in terms of salary or ability to secure a job after graduating (de Saxe Zerden et al., 2016).

Student preferences shape social work education programs; therefore, if programs seek to attract and maintain student enrollments, they must appeal to student preferences for micro practice. For example, only 21% of surveyed social work programs (n = 240) in the United States offer macro (community development, organization or planning, administration, and policy) specializations while approximately half offer micro (clinical or direct practice) specializations (CSWE, 2019, p. 10). The CASWE (2021) is the regulatory body of baccalaureate and master level social work programs across Canada. With the ability to deny or withdraw accreditation from any social work degree program in Canada, the CASWE has significant control over the components of social work education. The CASWE’s (2021) accreditation standards for social work program curriculums include components of both micro- and macro-level social work; however, social work students are often taught about these areas of practice in isolation from one another (Austin et al., 2005). Social work courses, faculty, curriculum, and entire graduate programs are often separated into three distinct topic areas: direct (or clinical) practice, policy, or research (Shdaimah & McCoyd, 2012, p. 24). This structure of social work education inadvertently reinforces the conceptual divide between micro- and macro-level social work, impeding students’ ability to integrate the two in their minds and in practice. Instead, students may perceive a choice between micro- and macro-level social work, and after choosing to pursue one, may neglect rather than integrate the other.

Table 7.3: Question for Reflection and Discussion

There is No Micro Without the Macro!

Consider how this conceptual divide between macro and micro in social work impacts the pursuit of social justice. Without an understanding of how macro-level factors shape individuals’ daily lives, a social worker’s intervention is more likely to focus on individual change, rather than opportunities for systemic change (Shdaimah & McCoyd, 2012). If systemic factors impacting the individual are socially unjust, the social worker may find themselves supporting the person to adapt to a social injustice. Take child welfare practice as an example. Failure to consider structural or macro issues such as poverty or racism or evaluating a family’s functioning without this context leaves social work without the ability to challenge social injustice, arguably harming individual wellbeing over time (Shdaimah & McCoyd, 2012). Conversely, a social worker engaged in policy creation or research, without any knowledge of the daily lived experiences of individuals impacted by said policy or research is unlikely to produce an outcome that will meaningfully improve people’s daily lives and is more likely to cause harm (Shdaimah & McCoyd, 2012). Heron (2019) similarly warns of how fragmenting the social work profession and practice into specific specialized services will have “deeply troubling implications for the social justice purpose of social work practice” (p. 79). In summary, it is important to consider how teaching and learning about micro and macro social work practice integrated together, rather than isolated from each other, may support future practitioners’ competency in pursuing social justice in all areas of practice. Take a moment to consider how bridging micro and macro practice may support your social work learning and development by considering the discussion outlined in Table 7.4.

Table 7.4: Discussion on Micro and Macro Practice

Macro Practice in Field Education

Market demands—and resulting student demands—for micro-focused social work impact field education in several ways. With clinical practice and research favoured over macro social work, fewer faculty with a keen macro interest are hired, resulting in less integration from classroom to field education for students and a drift in the curriculum to better accommodate clinical interests (Rothman & Mizrahi, 2014). Field education in social work consists of multiple stakeholders, including field education coordinators or liaisons, field or seminar instructors, field supervisors, and most importantly, the student. Each stakeholder holds influence over the success or failure of any particular placement. How each stakeholder perceives or values social work practice at the macro-level may be transmitted to students and other stakeholders. Developing and securing new practicums requires time and focus, and with clinical practice frequently being the priority, students may be rightly concerned that the availability and support for macro-level practica are lacking (Apgar, 2020). The emphasis on micro-level practice in social work field education also complicates the evaluation of student competencies in macro-level settings because most learning agreements and student evaluations emphasize technical skills that are often more easily observed in micro practice (Regehr et al., 2012a; Regehr et al., 2012b). Ideas for how to navigate this emphasis on micro practice in macro field placement evaluations will be provided later in this chapter.

This section of the chapter has provided an overview of tensions surrounding macro practice in the field of social work, and how they have shaped the current landscape of social work field education today. It is important for social work students reading this to be aware of such tensions and how they may influence one’s ability to effectively pursue social justice. One notable impact of these tensions has been an emphasis on micro-level social work practice in the classroom and the field. Consider how increased integration of macro-level social work into the curriculum and beyond could help alleviate some of these tensions, for example, through expanded practicum opportunities and more inclusive evaluation tools. It is important that students, social work education programs, and agencies think critically about if and how they perceive an ideological divide between micro and macro social work practice and how it may unknowingly limit valuable teaching and learning. The following sections offer information and strategies to help integrate micro and macro social work, both internally and in practice.

The next section begins this process by exploring how the ideological divide between micro- and macro-level social work fails to recognize the many skills and competencies gained through macro-level field education that transfer across all levels of social work practice and produce an effective and well-rounded social worker. According to Bridges (1993), transferable skills allow a person “with some knowledge, learning, understanding or skill gained in one cognitive domain and/or social context to adapt, modify or extend it in such a way as to be able to apply it to another” (p. 50). As you read through the following section on macro-level competencies and skills, consider how these competencies and skills may be transferable within and beyond macro social work practice domains.

Macro-Level Competencies and Skills

Preparing social work students to become proficient practitioners requires not only equipping them with the necessary theories, skills, and competencies, but also providing them with practical opportunities to develop and integrate these macro social work skills and behaviours relevant to the field. Macro practice requires an orientation to systems and structures and their impacts on individuals, families, and communities. This section focuses on some key competencies for macro-level practice.

Competencies are the essential practice knowledge, skills, values, abilities, and behaviours that guide professional practice and conduct (Applewhite et al., 2018; Gamble, 2011). Social work competencies are informed by the core values and principles set forth by the CASW’s Code of Ethics (2024) and described by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) in the United States as professional “practice behaviours” (CSWE, 2008) learned in the classroom and applied, cultivated, and sharpened in field education. Although macro-level social work practice focuses primarily on systems-level functions, macro-level social workers may also be involved with direct individual interventions and supports. As such, macro-level competencies encompass knowledge, skills, and abilities across all practice levels. Several attempts have been made to define and categorize these macro competencies (Applewhite et al., 2018; Gamble, 2011; Kim et al., 2021; Regehr et al., 2012a; Thompson et al., 2019). The description of competencies one identifies with may depend on what aspect of macro practice one is pursuing (for example, policy practice, administration, management, or community development; Applegate et al., 2018). A review of several studies aimed at establishing key skill areas or competencies for macro social work practice was conducted. In this section, we present seven key competencies noted by the CSWE’s macro practice guide (2018) and other literature that we believe are relevant to the macro arena and transferable across all levels of social work practice: learning and growth, reflexivity and relationships, leadership, critical thinking, analysis, planning and implementation, professional communications, values and ethics, and research. In describing each of these competences, we will present self-check lists for you to consider as you reflect on your competencies in these areas.

Learning and Growth

Social work is a broad and dynamic profession consisting of increasingly complex and ever-changing settings and demands. Macro-level social workers encounter evolving societal and economic systems, socio-political landscapes, domestic and global policy, and legislative changes, as well as a growing body of evidence-based practice and theoretical approaches (Reisch, 2016). To meet these challenges and respond to the needs of professional practice, Regehr et al. (2005) suggest important traits for macro-level social workers including a keen interest in learning and a commitment to personal and professional growth. As well, the CASW Code of Ethics (2024) requires or encourages social workers to contribute to the ongoing development of the profession and current and future social workers and to advance professional knowledge. Core competencies in this domain include being self-reflexive, enthusiastic, enterprising, and proactive in seeking learning opportunities and facing challenges. According to Mertz et al. (2008), opportunities for social workers to be promoted to senior or management positions tends to occur from within their agencies. However, most social work administrators are not equipped for macro-level practice and thus are not systemically prepared for their administrative jobs. As such, there is a need for ongoing learning and development of macro practice competencies in order to fulfill their administrative duties and responsibilities.

Reflexivity and Relationships

Recognizing power-dynamics and fostering collaboration and inclusivity in creating social change are fundamental to macro-level social work practice. Social workers should be skilled relationship builders, and macro-level social workers proficiently engage with clients; colleagues; stakeholders, including communities; organizations; and systems and exemplify respect and empathy for marginalized populations. This starts by understanding ourselves in reflection and extends to reflecting upon the broader social context in reflexive practice by defining who the client is. A client can be a person, a group of people, a community, an organization or all of these. This distinction and reflection become important in macro-level work. See Table 7.7 for a scenario that highlights the potential tensions and considerations in deciding who is the client.

Regehr and her colleagues (2012b) describe macro-level practitioner traits as warm, considerate, culturally sensitive professionals who are compassionate and passionate about community development and advocacy. Competencies in this domain include interpersonal skills, respect, flexibility, adaptability, self-reflexivity, and motivation.

Table 7.7: Scenario for Reflection and Discussion

Leadership

A fundamental value of the social work profession is the pursuit of social justice and positive social change (CASW, 2024). The ability to motivate and inspire people to social action are distinguishing leadership attributes. According to Reisch (2016), social action and leadership are the embodiment of macro-level practice throughout the profession’s history. As leaders of groups, communities, organizations, and societies, macro social workers should be able to draw on their relationship-building acumen to inspire and educate others to strive for positive and transformative change (CSWE, 2018). Competencies in this domain include possessing institutional knowledge and understanding about systems and communities and relevant policies, being attentive to research innovations and prevailing and evolving theories, and the ability to educate and have supervision and management skills to develop and mentor others, including colleagues and future social workers (CASW, 2020).

Critical Thinking, Analysis, Planning, and Implementation

Possessing an aptitude for connecting policy to practice and practice theory to policy development is essential across all social work practice domains, including macro-level practice (McKenzie & Wharf, 2016, pp. 10–11). Macro social workers should be discerning practitioners who are curious about the complexities and barriers of social injustices. In line with a person in environment perspective, they should appreciate the importance of clients’ environments and social systems, and explore deeper understandings of the challenges and issues relevant to their field of work and those they support (Kim et al., 2021). They should seek to confront and dismantle oppressive structures and neutralize power dynamics in thoughtful, creative, and constructive ways that incorporate the voices of those from the margins (CSWE, 2018). Macro social workers possess traits that are mindful, perceptive, and holistic in their thinking and approach. Competencies in this domain include strong conceptual and analytic ability and familiarity with diverse socioeconomic, political, and theoretical perspectives, such as critical theory, feminist theory, and anti-oppressive theory.

Professional Communications

Strong communication skills are key to establishing and galvanizing trust and creditability when engaging in dialogue with service users, decision makers, and power holders to articulate needs, interventions, and strategies, as well as to disseminate research findings that impact a group, organization, or population (Hardina & Obel-Jorgensen, 2009). Macro-level practitioners are often called to present and exchange information in written, oral, and media formats. They should be attentive listeners who are attuned to the voices of stakeholders, but especially to those who have been ignored or silenced. Competencies in this domain include proficiency in sophisticated writing, ability to confidently deliver accurate information, and to compel, influence and activate positive change (Regehr et al., 2012b).

Values and Ethics

Social workers across all levels adhere to the fundamental values set forth in the CASW (2024) code of ethics and must be committed to engaging in ethical practice. Macro-level practitioners must endeavour to influence and accomplish large-scale positive and transformative change in an ethical manner from a critical and anti-oppressive lens that gives primacy to marginalized voices and epistemologies such as Indigenous wisdom and knowledge (CASW, 2024; CSWE, 2018) Competencies in this domain include integrating the core principles of the Code of Ethics (CASW, 2024), applying an anti-oppressive framework, and recognizing diversity and intersectionality as part of their work with marginalized people and communities.

Research

Inherent to the social work profession is the obligation to “contribute to the ongoing development of the profession” (CASW, 2024, p. 24). Potts and Brown’s (2015) assertion that “committing to anti-oppressive research means committing to social justice and taking an active role in that change” (p. 17), speaks to the mission and vision of macro social work practice. Research contributes to the knowledge base of the profession by fostering professional curiosity and cultivating innovation. Competencies in research cross all sectors of social work but are prominent in macro-level practice as relational work that nurtures solidarity and requires political listening and critical reflexivity (Potts & Brown, 2015, p. 29). They include the ability to identify an issue, asking critical and relevant questions, designing, planning, and implementing strategies to address the issue, analyzing data and findings that centre participants’ values, and following research protocols (Data, 2018).

As stated earlier, macro-level practitioners must recognize the structural and systemic factors that disproportionately impact and exclude certain individuals and groups and aims to redress these inequities across all levels and settings. Macro-level practitioners should utilize the multifaceted skills, knowledges, and approaches they learned in class and strengthened in field practicums to shape policy and program development, research, analysis, advocacy, administration, and mobilization that attempts to influence social and political systems towards social justice.

In this section, we have described skills and competencies relevant to macro-level social work: social work practice in policy development, research, analysis, advocacy, administration, and organizing and mobilization that aims to influence organizational, political and social systems.. Although the skills and competencies described relate to macro-level practice, they are transferable and acquirable across all domains of social work practice. Acknowledging this transferability of skills and competencies supports a generalist practice framework and may empower social work practitioners to shift flexibly within and between levels of their social work practice in pursuit of social justice. The next section of the chapter includes concrete examples of the transferability of skills and competencies across social work practice settings, activities for recognizing and cultivating transferable skills and competencies in macro-level contexts, and practical strategies for implementing a generalist practice framework into elements of macro social work field education.

Context for Success

Entering your field practicum is an exciting time in the learning journey and it is important to structure it in a manner that can ensure success. We discuss how the learning contract, learning activities, and integrative seminar can be made most relevant to macro-level practicums. The learning contract and intentional learning activities creates accountability and clarity for all who are involved in supporting the practicum. The integrative seminar is the opportunity to connect classroom knowledge with field experiences and create the “aha moments” that are so critical to the development of one’s social work identity.

The Learning Contract

Field education experiences are typically guided by a learning contract document or agreement. The learning contract is generally developed by the student with the input of their field instructor with the field instructor’s practice and setting expertise. The contract brings together the expectations of the school, the expressed learning needs of the student and program, and the unique aspects of the practice setting, while being flexible and outlining a baseline level of competencies and expectations (Regehr et al., 2002). Learning contracts clearly establish learning goals and the criteria for assessing progress and performance (Fox & Zischak, 1989).

Students have identified that completing these contracts can be a challenge when entering macro-level field placements; they sometimes describe feeling excluded in the process of creating learning contracts in comparison to their peers in a micro-level setting (Mann-Johnson et al., 2022). This is even though overarching learning objectives are described broadly to include varied levels of social work practice at the micro-level, and macro practice. For example, learning objectives related to professional identity require students to “adopt a value perspective of the social work profession” (CASWE, 2021, p. 13). This value perspective is relevant at both the micro and macro-level. Similarly, learning objectives related to colonialism and recognizing “multiple expressive and experiences of colonialism” (CASWE, 2021, p. 14) are relevant and available in micro and macro settings. Yet, students placed in macro settings describe feeling of being excluded from these learning contracts.

Learning Activities

There are great learning activities available in macro-level settings. Of the seven macro-level competencies identified in the previous section, what competencies do you think these activities could help develop?

• Facilitate a working group, steering committee, focus group.
• Build relationships with stakeholders.
• Write a grant application.
• Create a resource, info sheet, or practice guide.
• Draft a briefing note.
• Complete a jurisdictional scan.
• Complete a needs assessment.
• Draft a social work job description.
• Engage in research on a social issue relevant to the scope of practice.
• Identify who the client is.
• Ask what the role of social work is at the organization.

Integrative Seminar

The CASWE’s accreditation standards require students to participate in an integrative seminar class during their practicum. These courses can be graded, for-credit courses; in some cases, or the courses are ungraded and the hours count toward total practicum hours. Regardless of the format, students can use these opportunities to share their practicum learning experiences with other students, hear from peers about their practicum experiences, and integrate their practicum activities with classroom learning, including theories and knowledge.

We have heard from students in macro placements that when they find they are the only student with a macro placement in a class filled with clinical or direct practice practicum students, they feel significantly disadvantaged because of the need to explain their work or approaches to other students and the focus of classroom discussions generally being of a micro-focus. Students who felt like their macro practicum was an exception in a classroom of students doing micro practicums, felt their learning was lessened and found it challenging to integrate their learning alongside their classmates in micro settings through classroom discussions. Conversely, students who were placed in seminars with other students in macro practicum settings reported feeling greater clarity in their roles as social workers and an ability to integrate social work theory into their practice. The ability to integrate experience in practicum with theory learned in class is bolstered when they can engage in dialogue with other students placed in macro settings and experiencing the same opportunities In situations where seminar classes include students placed in micro and macro settings, discussions should equally highlight practice considerations in both areas.

The role of your faculty liaison and seminar instructor is an important support to your learning and integration. In mixed seminars—those that include micro and macro placed students—social work students can learn from each other, observe overlaps, and have the opportunity to recognize how skills transfer across levels. Your faculty liaisons can challenge the micro/macro divide by highlighting the commonalities between micro and macro practice within classroom discussions. Table 7.14 suggests possible questions to provoke seminar discussions that minimize the divide between micro and macro practice.

Case examples

Anna

Anna is a fourth year, Bachelor of Social Work student completing her senior practicum in a provincial government ministry. Her field instructor is a social worker who oversees a job development program that includes a large grant program. In the first half of her practicum, she shadowed meetings and reviewed grant descriptions and application processes. At the mid-point of her practicum, Anna sat on a committee that reviewed grant applications and made funding decisions. She participated in conversations, including uncomfortable ones that presented ethical dilemmas in resource allocation. She and her field instructor often discussed what social work brings to these conversations and how they can both lead these conversations in a manner that advocates for equity. As a final learning activity in her practicum, Anna was asked to submit a mock grant application; she sat in with a “committee” that included her field instructor and colleagues, and they provided her feedback on her grant application.

Rahim

Rahim is completing a practicum with a unit that supports child welfare practice and outcomes through policy changes and practice supports like training and manuals provided to direct service caseworkers. Rahim, his field instructor, and their team have drafted and developed several resources and practice guidelines related to promoting ongoing family contact for children and youth placed in alternative care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to develop these, Rahim interviewed key contacts in other provincial child welfare programs to ask how they were facilitating family contact. Rahim was also responsible for completing a literature review focused on the emotional impacts of reduced family contact on various developmental stages considering trauma, loss, and grief. This information, along with information gathered at meetings with the health system and a town hall meeting with caregivers, was used to inform practice resources that were distributed via email as well as several online learning sessions. Rahim was asked to draft a few sections on these resources and led a section of the online learning session.

The principle of transferable skills between micro and macro practice is apparent as we look at the comparison of the job advertisements in Table 7.17. While the social work position listed on the left is considered micro in focus and the position on the right is considered macro, think about the similarities of the required skills for each job.

Concluding Thoughts

Macro practice and field education in macro settings strengthen social work identities and connect us to the spirit of social work described by Jane Addams (1920) quoted at the beginning of this chapter. Considering the ability of macro practice to influence social change, it is essential for social workers and social work students to engage in this type of practice in the pursuit of social justice. Changes at macro levels influence large systems and ensures justice for individuals. By maneuvering within the macro, students gain valuable competencies across levels of practice to then truly engage in the spirit of social work across all levels.

References

Alberta Kings Printer. (2024). Health Profession Act, SA 2000. C. H-7, s. 27. https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/h07.pdf

Apgar, D. (2020). Increasing social work students’ participation in macro specializations: The impossible dream? Advances in Social Work, 20(3), 709–724. https://doi.org/10.18060/24045

Apgar, D., & Parada, M. (2018). Strengthening competency in policy practice: An experiential model for student learning. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 23(1), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.18084/1084-7219.23.1.145

Applewhite, S. R., Kao, D., & Pritzker, S. (2018). Educator and practitioner views of professional competencies for macro social work practice. International Social Work, 61(6), 1169–1186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872817702705

Austin, M. J., Coombs, M., & Barr, B. (2005). Community-centered clinical practice: Is the integration of micro and macro social work practice possible? Journal of Community Practice, 13(4), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v13n04_02

Bridges, D. (1993). Transferable skills: A philosophical perspective. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 18(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079312331382448

Brieland, D. (1990). The Hull-House tradition and the contemporary social worker: Was Jane Addams really a social worker? Social Work, 35(2), 134–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/35.2.134

Canadian Association for Social Work Education. (2021). Educational policies and accreditation standards for social work education. https://caswe-acfts.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EPAS-2021.pdf

Canadian Association of Social Workers. (2024). CASW code of ethics, values and guiding principles 2024. https://www.casw-acts.ca/en/casw-code-ethics-2024

Canadian Association of Social Workers. (2020). CASW scope of practice statement. https://www.cswe.org/getattachment/d778d922-bf29-49c4-bef0-28873937f41f/2018-statistics-on-social-work-education-in-the-united-states-ver-2.pdf/

Council on Social Work Education. (2018). Specialized practice curricular guide for macro social work practice: 2015 EPAS curricular guide resource series. https://www.cswe.org/CSWE/media/Curricular-Guides/Macro-Social-Work-Curricular-Guide.pdf

Canadian Association of Social Workers. (2019). 2018 Statistics on social work education in the United States. https://www.onlinemswprograms.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/55/2021/06/2018-Statistics-on-Social-Work-Education-in-the-United-States.pdf

Data, R. (2018). Decolonizing both researcher and research and its effectiveness in indigenous research. Research Ethics, 14(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117733296

de Saxe Zerden, L., Sheely, A., & Depard, M. R. (2016). Debunking macro myths: findings from recent graduates about jobs, salaries, and skills. Social Work Education, 35(7), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2016.1188915

Dore, M. M. (1999). The retail method of social work: The role of the New York school in the development of clinical practice. Social Service Review, 73(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1086/514413

Ezell, M., Chernesky, R., & Healy, L. (2004). The learning climate for administration students. Administration in Social Work, 28(1), 57–76. http://doi.org/10.1300/J147v28n01_05

Fox, R., & Zschka, P.C. (1989). The field instruction contract: A paradigm for effective learning. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 3(1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1300/J067v03n01_09

Gamble, D. N. (2011) Advanced concentration macro competencies for social work practitioners: Identifying knowledge, values, judgment and skills to promote human well-being. Journal of Community Practice, 19(4), 369–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2011.625914

Greenfield, E. (2010). Developmental systems theory as a conceptual anchor for generalist curriculum on human behaviour and the social environment. Social Work Education, 30(5), 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2010.503237

Hardina, D., & Obel-Jorgensen, R. (2009). Increasing social action competency: A framework for supervision. Journal of Policy Practice, 8(2), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/15588740902740074

Haynes, D. T., & White, B. W. (1999). Will the ‘real’ social work please stand up? A call to stand for professional unity. Social Work, 44(4), 385–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/44.4.385

Heron, B. A. (2019) Neoliberalism and social work regulation: Implications for epistemic resistance. Canadian Social Work Review, 36(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.7202/1064661ar

Holtz Deal, K., Hopkins, K. Fisher, L., & Hartin, J. (2007). Field practicum experience of macro-oriented graduate students: Are we doing them justice? Administration in Social Work, 31(4), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v31n04_05

Hunter, C. A., & Ford, K. A. (2010). Discomfort with a false dichotomy: The field director’s dilemma with micro–macro placements. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 15(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.18084/basw.15.1.4077u45512526222

Kim, H., Sussman, T., Khan, M. N., & Kahn, S. (2021). ‘All social work takes place in a macro context’: The gap between international social work training and practice. International Social Work, 42(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872821993524

LaTosch, K., & Jones, K. (2012) Conducting macro-level work in a micro-focused profession. Practice Digest, 2(1), 1–3. https://www2.simmons.edu/ssw/fe/i/LaTosch.pdf

Lavitt, M. (2009). What is advanced in generalist practice? A conceptual discussion. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29, 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841230903253267

Mann-Johnson, J., MacLaughlin, A.,Vos, B., & Wandler, M. (2022). Meeting the needs of students placed in macro-level practicum settings [Unpublished manuscript].

Mattocks, N. O. (2018). Social action among social work practitioners: Examining the micro-macro divide. Social Work, 63(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swx057

McKenzie, B., & Wharf, B. (2016). Connecting policy to practice in the human services. (4th ed.). Oxford University Press Canada.

McLaughlin, A. M. (2002). Social work’s legacy. Irreconcilable differences? Clinical Social Work Journal, 30, 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015297529215

Mertz, L. K. P., Fortune, A. E., & Zendell, A. L. (2007). Promoting leadership skills in field education: A university-community partnership to bring macro and micro together in gerontological field placements. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 50(1-2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1300/J083v50n01_12

Miller, S. E., Tice, C. J., & Harneck Hall, D. M. (2008). The generalist model: Where do the micro and macro converge? Advances in Social Work, 9(2), 79–90. https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/advancesinsocialwork/article/view/203/198

Potts, K., & Brown, L. (2015). Becoming an anti-oppressive researcher. In S. Strega and L. Brown (Eds.), Research as resistance: Revisiting critical, Indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches, (2nd ed., pp. 17–41). Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Preston, S., & Aslett, J. (2014). Resisting neoliberalism from within the academy: Subversion through an activist pedagogy. Social Work Education, 33(3), 502–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2013.848270

Regehr, C., Regehr, G., Leeson, J., & Fusco, L. (2002). Setting priorities for learning in the field practicum: A comparative study of students and field instructors. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2002.10779082

Regehr, C., Bogo, M., Donovan, K., Lim, A., & Regehr, G. (2012a). Evaluating a scale to measure student competencies in macro social work practice. Journal of Social Services Research, 38(1), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.616756

Regehr, C., Bogo, M., Donovan, K., Lim, A., & Anstice, S. (2012b). Identifying student competencies in macro practice: Articulating the practice wisdom of field instructors. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(2), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2012.201000114

Reisch, M. (2016). Why macro practice matters. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(3), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1174652

Rothman, J., & Mizrahi, T. (2014). Balancing micro and macro practice: A challenge for social work. Social Work, 59(1), 91–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719548

Shdaimah, C. S., & McCoyd, J. L. M. (2012). Social work sense and sensibility: A framework for teaching an integrated perspective. Social Work Education, 31(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2010.541237

Strier, R. (2019). Resisting neoliberal social work fragmentation: The wall-to-wall alliance. Social Work, 64(4), 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swz036

Thompson, J. B., Spano, R., & Koenig, T. L. (2019). Back to Addams and Richmond: Was social work really a divided house in the beginning? Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 46(2), 3–22. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol46/iss2/1/

University nuhelot’įnethaiyots’į nistameyimâkanak Blue Quills. (2019). Honouring sacred relationships: Wise practices in Indigenous social work. Alberta College of Social Workers. https://acsw.in1touch.org/uploaded/web/RPT_IndigenousSocialWorkPracticeFramework_Final_20190219.pdf

van Heugten, K. (2011). Registration and social work education: A golden opportunity or a Trojan horse? Journal of Social Work, 11(2), 174–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017310386695

Weiss-Gal, I. (2008). The person-in-environment approach: Professional ideology and practice of social workers in Israel. Social Work, 53(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/53.1.65