|    Virginia Robinson 
              was a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania School of 
              Social Work for many years, an advocate of therapeutic 
              approaches to child placement, and an adoptive parent. She raised 
              two children with her partner, Jessie 
              Taft.  
            Like any profession which is founded on scientific method, social 
              casework must move through three stages: (1) observation and assembling 
              of its facts, (2) hypothetical interpretation of these facts, and 
              (3) control of the facts for new ends. . . . 
            To differentiate social case treatment in the technical sense from 
              the more or less haphazard, unscientific, but kindly and often very 
              helpful “influencing,” “guiding,” “helping 
              out” process which goes on wherever human beings associate 
              is a task in which case workers must make some headway if case work 
              is to take rank with the professions which are firmly founded in 
              scientific method. . . . 
            In the field of medicine, with a longer tradition and a wider experience 
              than social work, there are certain commonly taught and accepted 
              treatment processes for certain disease conditions. . . . 
              Case workers have as yet no common basis of knowledge or technique 
              so that they can merely indicate a line of treatment in symbolic 
              terms and expect all case workers will understand what the worker 
              was doing. . . . 
            The worker’s point of view, her philosophy of life, her own 
              adjustment to life, are an essential part of her equipment and constitute 
              part of her method in every piece of case work. But we are still 
              in the stage of regarding these as personal factors in equipment 
              and of wishing to exclude any recognition of them from our case 
              records. A hang over of self-consciousness restrains us from mentioning 
              ourselves in the case record. Is not our refusal to recognize and 
              analyze these personal factors an indication of the subjectivity 
              and not the objectivity of our present level of case work and of 
              record writing? We will never succeed in objectifying these personal 
              factors by ignoring them but rather by trying to record and analyze 
              them as impartially as we do all the other factors that enter into 
              treatment. Only when we have objectified and analyzed them to the 
              same extent that we have the methods by which we manipulate the 
              environment and when by so doing some of these processes have become 
              standardized, can we afford to eliminate them from our records. 
             
             |