Editorial Quality Guidelines for Social Work PhD Programs Donna Harrington 1 , Christopher G. Petr 2 , Beverly M. Black 3 , Renee M. Cunningham-Williams 4 , and Kia J. Bentley 5 Abstract The Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Educationin Social Work (GADE) adopted a new version of quality guidelines for PhD social work programs at its annual meeting in April 2013. These guidelines are reprinted in this article, together with a discussion of the context in which they were developed and approved. They are offered with the aim of advancing excellence in research-focused doctoral education and continuing the decades-long conversation about what constitutes excellence in those programs. Keywords education, field of practice In the fall of 2012, there were more than 1,750 students enrolled in social work doctoral programs in the United States (Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], 2012). Since its inception in the late 1970s, the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work (GADE), a member organi- zation comprising directors of over 80 doctoral programs in social work (see www.gadephd.org for more information), has concerned itself with the quality of its member doctoral pro- grams. For example, in one important paper from GADE’s 1983 conference, GADE’s Chair Thomas Holland wrote that there is ‘‘clear evidence that doctoral programs are experien- cing problems of quality control but most of us are too gentle to say it openly’’ (Holland, 1983, p. 13). He offered a list of issues that should be addressed in any doctoral program evalua- tion, including a review of goals and objectives, faculty quali- fications, desired student characteristics, needed curriculum, appropriate facilities, and comparative data, and reputation. In 1992, a task force consisting of Sheila Kamerman, then Chair of GADE, Enola Proctor and Charles Glisson developed the first official GADE Guidelines for Quality Doctoral Educa- tion, supported by a small grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH;GADE, 1992a). The introduction to those first guidelines noted there was indeed a ‘‘growing awareness of the need for guidelines that would aid schools in developing and sustaining quality doctoral education’’ (GADE 1992b, p. 4) but rejected accreditation as a solution to concerns about quality. PhD programs in social work are not accredited by the CSWE because they confer research-oriented rather than practice-oriented (e.g., bachelor of social work [BSW] and master of social work [MSW]) degrees. Ten years later, in 2002, Jeane W. Anastas, then Chair of GADE, gathered several key members to review and revise the 1992 quality guidelines. This task group included Anastas, along with Denise Bronson, Wendy Crook, Howard J. Doueck, Rena D. Harold, Fariyal Ross-Sheriff, David J. Tucker, and Rowena Wil- son. The guidelines, adopted by GADE membership in 2003, highlighted the desired characteristics of doctoral programs across categories reminiscent of Holland’s 1983 paper: the larger sponsoring organization, faculty, students, curriculum, and resources required to support a quality program (GADE, 2003). When Kia J. Bentley assumed the position of Chair-elect of GADE in April 2011, she spearheaded an effort to update the organization’s mission statement to more clearly and explicitly state that GADE was concerned with the promotion of excel- lence in social work doctoral education. She appointed a task force consisting of GADE members Chris Petr, Donna Harring- ton (cochairs), Beverly Black, and Renee Cunningham- Williams and charged the group with completing revisions of the 2003 guidelines by the April 2013 annual GADE meeting. The specific charge was to ‘‘find ways to honor our colleagues’ previous work yet bring a fresh, forward-looking perspective to the meaning of quality in doctoral education’’ (K. J. Bentley, e-mail communication to Drs. Petr and Harrington, December 8, 2011). The hope was that the quality guidelines would serve 1 School of Social Work, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA 2 School of Social Work, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA 3 School of Social Work, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA 4 George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA 5 School of Social Work, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA Corresponding Author: Donna Harrington, School of Social Work, University of Maryland, 525W. Redwood St., Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. Email: dharrington@ssw.umaryland.edu Research on Social Work Practice 2014, Vol. 24(3) 281-286 ª The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1049731513517145 rsw.sagepub.com