Introduction

In his inaugural lecture, Titmuss had set out his plans for his department. These involved moving beyond social work training to developing Social Administration as an academic field. This chapter engages, first, with Titmuss's views on social work before focusing on the acrimonious dispute, which reached a climax in 1957, resulting from the setting up of the experimental ‘Carnegie Course’ (more formally, ‘Applied Social Studies’). The dispute generated a lot of heat, if not necessarily much light. The language in which it is described is revealing. For Dahrendorf, it was an ‘unholy row’ which resulted in ‘much blood [being] spilt’, while one key participant, David Donnison, suggested that the new course's creation of was a ‘time bomb which was bound to produce major repercussions’. It has continued to be a source of debate, with Oakley arguing, in 2015, that the disruption revealed an ‘ordinary man, ill equipped by his education and background and exposure to norms of masculinity to deal with emotional conflict, especially between women, and to treat women respectfully as professional equals’ – Titmuss. Having said that, Oakley also, quite correctly, notes that there were genuine differences of opinion over the future of social work training. As to his handling of events, Titmuss, while generally polite, does not come out particularly well although, with the exception of Donnison, that could also be said of most of the others involved.

Thinking about social work

Titmuss undoubtedly had academic ambitions for his department, but it would be wrong to infer that social work was neglected. His papers are crammed with material on the subject, and throughout his LSE career he participated in social work conferences, and supported social workers, front-line personnel of the ‘welfare state’, and social work organisations. For instance, in 1953 he spoke on ‘The Family as a Social Institution’ to a national social work conference held at Bedford College, London. Among the other speakers was Conservative Minister of Health, Iain Macleod. Noting that ‘tensions’ were a characteristic of modern life, Titmuss remarked that there must be plenty of these in Macleod's department, and that when the minister had finished speaking he might ‘probe his unconsciousness and tell us about these unhealthy tensions in Savile Row’.