This is an important and timely contribution both to the sociology of professions in general, and more specifically to social work as a field of professional practice. The authors surveyed randomized domized samples of U.S. rank and file social workers at two points in time: in 1968 (Epstein) and in 1984 (Reeser), in order to understand their characteristics on a number of dimensions. The book presents a comparison of these two 'snapshots' in order to discover what evolutionary trends might be discernible within the social work profession over time. In their discussion, the authors integrate their findings with the extant literature on the professions in general, and on social work in particular, making this a valuable review of the current state of the art in the sociology of professions. The authors used the data from their own study to explore three areas of interest: social workers' levels of activism and professionalization in the |sixties and |eighties; the importance of various social factors in the backgrounds of the sampled population (such as gender, race, age, and religion), and the influence of each factor on social, workers' level of political activism; and finally, the evolution of the relationship between professionalization and social activism among social workers during the intervening sixteen years. The book is important because it opens up new ways of understanding the continuing tensions within social work, i.e., between its identification as a social movement, and its identity as a profession. This friction, between social work as political work and as psychological work, has a long history. However, one of the points that the book clearly makes is that the form of this conflict has changed over time, as society has also changed. The study is therefore also timely, for two main reasons: first, in a general sense it has emerged into discourse at a point where social services and the welfare state have been under sustained attack from the political right for some years now, throughout nearly all of the industrialized world. Declining resources for social programs within the infrastructures of states have been accompanied by increasing expressions of need from various social groupings within civil society. Social workers, as important mediators between the state and civil society, have therefore experienced a dramatic increase in job pressures and stresses. The Reeser/Epstein study gives some indications, in a broad U.S. context, of how these external pressures have influenced the attitudes and behaviours of social workers in relation both to their profession, and to aspects of the broad political and economic context of their work. Second, in a more specific sense, it potentially sheds light on particular political conflicts within social work, which have been shaped and propelled by the particular forms of institutional relations existing within each jurisdiction. For example, in Ontario where this reviewer lives, there is at this moment an increasingly virulent political struggle going on between the Professional Association, which is hard at work lobbying the government for a Social Work Act, and a relatively more diffuse but growing opposition (the Social Work Reform Group), which views such legislation as a concession to the conservative right. In Ontario the Association clearly represents the dimension of professionalization in social work, while the opposition represents the dimension of social action. It is worthwhile going further into some of the important aspects of this conflict, since it represents issues which are so crucial to the evolution of social work as a profession, and also because the Reeser/Epstein book suggests new ways of understanding them. The Association cites three main reasons for its lobbying activities: first, the increased autonomy and self-regulatory capacity, which a Social Work Act would assign to it, will increase its ability tot protect the public by disciplining those of its members who act unethically. Second, an Act would legitimize the Association's representation of client groups, thus enabling it to lobby more effectively for social resources from the state. And finally, the erection of barriers to practice, through credentialing and enforcement of standards, will raise he quality of the service available to client populations. Therefore, the position of the Association is clear: there is no essential conflict between the interests of client groups for more resources with better quality, and the interests of social workers for greater autonomy and higher levels of professionalism. On the other hand, social workers having a more social activist orientation hotly dispute these claims. Maton (1988( for example, has suggested that even if it is assumed that professionalization raises the quality of a service, there is evidence from other professions that credentialism and barriers to practice tend to reduce its availability in society. If the quality of any individual unit of professional service may go up, the overall quality of service available to the community will simultaneously most likely go down. The other question he raised was: what is quality in social work, if regulations is intended to raise it? There is little agreement on this point, apart from a consensus that exploiting vulnerable clients for self-gratification is unethical. Furthermore, the existence of social activist and professional perspectives represent two important competing notions of quality. In effect, professionals tend to treat social problems as if they resided within the populations who exhibit the problems, while activists understand them as integral to systemic problems within society itself. This focus and problem definition profoundly influences the theoretical and practical approaches to assisting clients. In the view of activists, the ascendancy of professionalism in social work might mean the permanent defeat of the social activist idea of quality in social work (Carniol and Kitchen, 1990). Organizing clients and raising their political and social awareness might give way to the dominance of psychologistic principles and technique. If professionalism increases the institutional capacity of social workers to mystify and control their clients with legitimated technology, then professionalization represents a real conflict between the interest of social workers and their client groups. In their study, Reeser and Epstein provide a useful, empirical indication of how professionalization really works out over these issues. Over-all, they suggest that things do not turn out quite as badly as the social activists suggest On the other hand, some of their fears also turn out as they have predicted. In reviewing their discussion in a little more detail, it is helpful to divide the study into three parts: the Foreword by Richard Cloward; the body of the study, which is by far the lengthiest and most important; and the concluding chapter, where the authors discuss the implications of their study for social work in the future. In the body of the study, the author suggest the following conclusions: (1) U.S. social workers in the sixties were more polarized and fragmented in their behaviour and attitudes on the dimensions of professionalism and social activism than they are currently. Although in the sixties they were more likely to view poverty as caused by the poor themselves, they were also more involved in non-institutionally sanctioned forms of protest and activism. In the eighties, social workers tend to view poverty as more associated with social structures and unequal distributions of power. However, they are also less inclined to directly confront these power structures; they are more willing to use institutionally sanctioned forms of advocacy for clients; and they are less likely to want to serve the poor primarily, or to endorse an activist goal orientation for social work. Thus, despite their attribution of poverty to systemic causes, social workers in the 1980s apparently do not regard the elimination of poverty as a priority of their occupation. Instead, they view the role of social work as helping individuals of all classes to adapt to the environment (page 30). (2) In both periods, the influence of demographics on social activism was as expected in most ways. African-American groups, and Jewish religious groups were more activist than other racial-religious groups. Social workers who identified with a left-wing party or ideology were more activist than Republicans, Democrats, or those without party affiliation. Younger social workers were more activist than older social workers in non-institutionalized ways, and less so in more institutionalized ways. Finally, men were found to be more activist than women. (3) On the index of professionalism the authors found an increasing homogeneity among social workers in their values and behaviours. These were seen to have converged over time. However, this was not necessarily a convergence on a norm at the professional end of the spectrum. Their results led the authors to differentiate between professionalism as an ideology, and professionalization as a sociological process of group formation. While social workers are increasingly 'professionalizing', i.e., increasing their commitment to their colleagues as a professional reference group, they are not more 'professionalist' than before. For example, they are less committed to the belief that their problem definitions are superior to those of their clients (page 100). (4) In the relation between professionalization and social activism, the authors tested the assumption among many activists, that professionalism constitutes an ideological core in social work emphasizing neutrality, decorum, professional self-regulation, and social distance from the poor. The consequence of involvement in this professional community, and commitment to this ideological core, is assumed to be greater conservatism and lesser activism among social workers. The authors suggest that this expectations was not fulfilled in the study: Our evidence indicates that this paradigm describes neither the professional structure of social work nor its ideological core and does not adequately predict differences in social workers activism. More specifically, the empirical findings based on the 1968 sample neither support the claim to professional community, nor do they suggest that the attributes of professionalization that do exist are associated with a neutralist professional ideology. Finally, the findings for the sixties negate the popular assertion that greater social worker professionalization is associated with lesser activism (page 126). These results, and the discussions which accompany them in the book, are very important in the progression towards a greater understanding of the political conflicts which are currently going on in social work circles within many jurisdictions. Unfortunately, in the concluding chapter the authors are forced to constrain any further detailed analysis of their data because of an inability to agree on the necessary theory and political strategy to apply to it. Consequently, they end up with a highly truncated version of a structural-functional, institutionalist analysis, which does not go nearly far enough in its effort to criticize the influence of liberalism in social work. However, Richard Cloward provides a Foreword which compensates very well for this inadequacy. This reviewer read the Foreword twice, once before and once again after reading the book. It was highly rewarding on both occasions, for its coherent encapsulation of the study's meaning, and for its essential optimism about the future of a progressive form of social work under conditions of professionalization. Reading Cloward was a most suitable way to bracket a reading of this very important book. References Maton, B.: 1988, |Social Work Regulation in the Canadian Provinces: Prospects and Problems', Canadian Social Work Review 5 (Winter), pp. 78 - 90. Carniol, B. and Kitchen, B.: 1990, |The OAPSW Proposal is a Disaster and Must Be Defeated', Canadian Review of Social Policy, issue no. 25, May.