A Complex Unit Interviews Analysis Approach in Qualitative Social Work Research

This study explores foundations of qualitative social work research. A template-based review was completed on 100 articles from social work journals. Reviewers examined five things: (1) purpose or aims of research, (2) rationale or justification for work, (3) populations studied, (4) presence of four markers (addressing theory, paradigm, reflexivity, and power dynamics), and (5) implications presented. Results underscore exploratory nature of qualitative social work research; authors were most likely to use word explore and least likely to use term to describe their aims. The most common rationale given for research was a gap in literature (77%), followed by severity or extent of problem (50%). Authors emphasized perspectives of respondents, who were most likely to be social work practitioners (39%) or clients (28%). Among markers examined, authors were most likely to mention use of theory (55%) and a research paradigm (51%) and least likely to apply reflexivity (16%) or acknowledge power dynamics inherent in research (7%). Finally, authors were most likely to identify practice implications in their work (90%), followed by research (60%), theory (38%), and policy (29%). KEY WORDS: epistemology; qualitative methods; research methods; social work research; theory Social inquiry is shaped by epistemology of researcher, his or her underlying assumptions about process of knowing (Denzin, 2002). Epistemology may be seen as theories of knowledge that justify knowledge-building process that is actively or consciously adopted by (Carter & Little, 2007; Pascale, 2010). These assumptions guide our decisions about topics, research questions, theories, methods, analyses, and conclusions and help us evaluate knowledge contributions of published work (Carter & Little, 2007; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Pascale, 2010). Koch and Hamngton (1998) recognized that bring to research product, data generated, a range of literature, a positioning of this literature, a positioning of oneself, and moral socio-political contexts (p. 882). Examining ways our social locations shape our process of knowing can help us understand why certain questions get asked and answered, examine how values shape observation (Pascale, 2010; Takacs, 2003, p. 37). Anastas (2004) noted that researcher's epistemology affects kind of scholarly work done, how one values scholarship and understands its political import, and how one situates oneself in relation to work. Marshall and Rossman (2006) noted importance of epistemological integrity, in which authors account for logical and compelling connections between genre, overall strategy, research questions, design, and (p. 55). Researchers demonstrate their engagement with work through explicit discussion of their research paradigm or inquiry tradition, which is fundamental for rigorous qualitative research (Anastas, 2004; Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Qualitative research should reveal a consistency and integrity of approach that is easily recognized by reader and reviewer (Padgett, 2009, p. 102). Given importance of epistemology to research endeavor, social work researchers must make explicit decisions made in process of inquiry if they are serious about contributing to knowledge base of profession. As Padgett pointed out, the burden of proof is on researcher (p. 102) to be accountable to readers regarding underlying assumptions and logic of our work. We focus our discussion on epistemology as research praxis that contributes to development of knowledge in our field. Our aim in this section of article is to discuss practice of epistemology to support social work researchers using qualitative methods to think and write more explicitly about foundations of our work. …

Previous articleNext article FreeThe Life and Career of Matthew O. HowardJeffrey M. JensonJeffrey M. JensonUniversity of Denver Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreMatthew O. HowardView Large ImageDownload PowerPointOn December 15, 2018, social work and the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research (JSSWR) lost one of its most prolific scholars, outstanding teachers, and thoughtful mentors in recent memory. Matthew O. Howard, PhD—the Frank A. Daniels Distinguished Professor of Human Services Policy Information and associate dean for doctoral education in the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill—passed away following a lengthy hospitalization. As an associate editor for JSSWR, Matthew had a significant impact on improving the quality and influence of the journal. He will be sorely missed by our editorial team.Matthew was a consummate scholar who possessed a singular ability to understand and conceptualize social problems of all types. His research contributed greatly to existing knowledge of the etiology, prevention, and treatment of substance abuse, alcohol dependence, and mental health disorders. And, Matthew’s provocative articles assessing the state of social work education, practice, and research set forth ideas that will affect the trajectory of social work for years to come. His passion for knowledge—conveyed quietly and effectively to countless graduate students—was felt deeply by the many lives he touched over the course of an academic career that included appointments in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington, the Department of Psychiatry at the Oregon Health Sciences University, the George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, the School of Social Work and the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Michigan, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Matthew’s training in social work coincided with my own enrollment in the University of Washington School of Social Work doctoral program in 1984. Matthew and I became immediate and close friends during our graduate studies in Seattle, and we spent hours discussing social work, class assignments, and the research projects we worked on as doctoral students. Many of these conversations occurred in an alley coffee shop in Seattle’s University District, just a stone’s throw from the School of Social Work. Known by the employees as “Matt and Jeff,” we were treated as regulars who would sit at our customary window table for what was likely far too long. It was a time of great intellectual pursuit, and I had found the perfect colleague and friend with whom to share ideas and discuss future plans. It was the beginning of a personal friendship and professional relationship that lasted 34 years.Matthew entered doctoral education with a well-developed interest in understanding the etiology of alcohol and other substance use disorders. Over the nearly four decades that followed, he devoted his career to conducting basic and applied research aimed at ameliorating substance abuse dependence and co-occurring problems associated with alcohol and drug abuse. He became particularly well known for his basic research and intervention studies addressing the vexing problem of inhalant abuse (e.g., Howard, Balster, Cottler, Wu, & Vaughn, 2008; Howard, Bowen, Garland, Perron, & Vaughn, 2011; Howard & Jenson, 1999b). Matthew’s innovative and rigorous research in this area led to three grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and to widespread recognition as one of the world’s foremost experts on inhalant abuse. In recent years, Matthew extended his work to testing mindfulness-oriented interventions for people with chronic pain and opioid misuse. His coinvestigator in much of this work was Eric Garland, professor and associate dean for research in the University of Utah College of Social Work. Eric, a former student of Matthew’s at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, describes some of the important lessons he learned under Matthew’s tutelage in an accompanying article in this issue (Garland, 2019).Matthew also made significant contributions to social work education and research. In the Aaron Rosen Lecture at the 2015 Annual Conference of the Society for Social Work and Research, Matthew traced key developments in social work during the past 30 years and reflected on a vision of the field that stretched to 2044—30 years into the future (Howard & Garland, 2015). The ideas he shared in this lecture have provided a useful framework for assessing the relatively recent history of social work and addressing the challenges in educating master’s-level practitioners and doctoral students in the future. Matthew delivered a similarly thought-provoking lecture on the current state and future of social work doctoral education at the 2016 Annual Conference of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education. Ideas presented in his lectures were coupled with action. One such example is illustrated by Matthew’s early development of a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill doctoral-level course on conducting systematic reviews. Students in this class often produced publishable papers as a result of Matthew’s fastidious attention to breadth and quality. In earlier work at the Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, Matthew and colleagues advanced the idea of evidence-based practice as a paradigm for training MSW social work practitioners (Howard, McMillen, & Pollio, 2003). Enola Proctor, the Shanti K. Khinduka Distinguished Professor in the Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, was a colleague of Matthew’s at the time. She remembers Matthew as… a brilliant scholar and dear person. Highly regarded for his excellence in the classroom at the Brown School, he was demanding yet was a frequent winner of student-elected teaching awards. Matthew used his seemingly boundless energy to better the fields of addiction research and social work practice. He had my highest respect and unending affection. His passing is a tremendous loss to our field and community of scholars [and] saddens me deeply. (E. Proctor, personal communication, January 9, 2019)In 1999, Matthew and I had the good fortune to guest edit a special issue of Research on Social Work Practice that explored the utility of clinical practice guidelines for social work practice (Howard & Jenson, 1999a). Collectively, Matthew’s lectures and published papers assessing the state of social work education and practice stimulated debate and produced tangible curricula changes in schools across the country.A prolific writer, Matthew published more than 250 peer-reviewed papers in his career. His written work also included 40 book reviews, editorials, and government reports. Matthew’s h-index of 55 and nearly 9,000 citations of his work to date illustrate just how much his scholarship was valued by colleagues. His written contributions will be recognized and used by practitioners, policymakers, and researchers for decades to come.Matthew was a fellow and a board member of the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare and a fellow of the Society for Social Work and Research. A proponent of interdisciplinary work, he also was a faculty research fellow in the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at the time of his passing. Matthew’s devotion to empirical research and scholarship is widely recognized. However, what may be most impressive about Matthew’s career is the recognition he received as both a scholar and a teacher. He was awarded eight outstanding teaching and mentoring awards from students and colleagues at Washington University in St. Louis and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Two of Matthew’s doctoral students at North Carolina (Eric Garland, University of Utah; and Carrie Pettus-Davis, Florida State University) received Doctoral Fellow Awards from the Society for Social Work and Research. Matthew connected with his students by combining high scientific standards with a compassionate approach to helping people succeed. He was soft-spoken, but his ideas and words carried great weight and influence.Matthew’s service to the fields of social work and addiction was also exemplary. He reviewed manuscripts for more than 60 different academic journals in his career. He was on the editorial boards of more than 50 journals—including serving a JSSWR associate editor for the past several years—and he previously served as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Social Service Research, Social Work Research, and the Journal of Addictive Diseases. Matthew also was vice president and served on the Society for Social Work and Research Board of Directors from 2005 to 2008.The task of summarizing the life and career of a prolific and impactful scholar, teacher, and mentor like Matthew is daunting. Mark Fraser, professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the founding editor of JSSWR, was a longtime friend, collaborator, and colleague. Reflecting on Matthew’s career, he recalls,As a scholar and a teacher, Matthew was eloquent and encyclopedic. Students flocked to his classes. A gentle spirit who treasured collaboration with others, his greatest joys came in exploring new ideas and reading recent research. In the profession as a thought leader, Matthew was a tour de force. At once, he was creative, insightful, sensitive, critical, and thorough. Matthew was—quite simply—incomparable. (M. Fraser, personal communication, January 8, 2019)Tangible accomplishments like those summarized here do not tell the complete story of a person. Matthew had an uncanny ability to effectively express his strong personal beliefs and ethical values in everyday interactions with friends and colleagues. He had a deep interest in applying the lessons gained from his own empirical work to promote fairness and equity for all people. Matthew’s invaluable input and feedback to students and colleagues about their ideas, papers, or projects came with great civility and kindness. He was an insatiable reader whose knowledge extended to topics well beyond social work or the addictions. In this sense, one could discuss a wide range of topics with Matthew with the preordained understanding that he had very likely already read much of what had been written on the topic. Matthew’s longstanding practice of underscoring written text with yellow highlighters was applied to thousands of empirical and conceptual articles and manuscripts during his career.On a personal level, Matthew enjoyed taking walks, listening to music, and reading novels and poetry. His wry sense of humor often left many of his closest friends and colleagues writhing in laughter. I was among them.JSSWR is proud to count Matthew as one of its most influential associate editors and contributors. His place as an important teacher and scholar in social work education and research is secure. Matthew’s many contributions will be discovered anew by emerging scholars for decades to come. His presence in social work and the broad field of the addictions will be missed by us all.NotesJeffrey M. Jenson, PhD, is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research and the Phillip D. & Eleanor G. Winn Endowed Professor Children and Youth at the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work.Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Jeffrey M. Jenson, University of Denver, 2148 S. High St., Denver, CO 80208 or via e-mail to [email protected]ReferencesGarland, E. L. (2019). Standing on the shoulders of giants: Matthew O. Howard as a mentor and his influence on the science of mindfulness as a treatment for addiction. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1086/702654First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O. (2016, March 31). Hot topics in doctoral education. Presentation at the 2016 Annual Conference of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education, Chapel Hill, NC.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., Balster, R., Cottler, L. B., Wu, L., & Vaughn, M. G. (2008). Inhalant use among incarcerated adolescents: Prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 93, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.08.023First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., Bowen, S., Garland, E. L., Perron, B. E., & Vaughn, M. G. (2011). Inhalant use and inhalant use disorders in the United States. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 6, 18–31.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., & Garland, E. L. (2015). Social work research: 2044. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 6, 173–200. https://doi.org/10.1086/681099First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., & Jenson, J. M. (1999a). Clinical practice guidelines: Should social work develop them? Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973159900900302First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., & Jenson, J. M. (1999b). Inhalant use among antisocial youth: Prevalence and correlates. Addictive Behaviors, 24, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4603(98)00039-2First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., McMillen, J. C., & Pollio, D. (2003). Teaching evidence-based practice: Toward a new paradigm for social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 234–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731502250404First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research Volume 10, Number 1Spring 2019 Published for the Society for Social Work and Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/702653HistoryPublished online February 04, 2019 © 2019 by the Society for Social Work and Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Contents: Introduction Part I Perspectives on Social Work Research: Cutting edge issues in social work research Is social work distinctive? Ways of knowing in social work Rereading The Jack Roller: hidden histories in sociology and social work William J. Reid: an appreciation. Part II Evaluation: Social work and the human services Evidence from qualitative evaluation Seeing the trees for the wood: the politics of evaluating in practice Evaluation for a learning organization? Part III Qualitative Research: Qualitative social work: a room with a view Qualitative research and outcomes in health, social work and education Ethics and the practice of qualitative research Constructing causal accounts in social work The consequences of qualitative social work research Unbroken voices: children, young people and qualitative methods. Part IV Research, Theory and Practice: The quality of mercy: the management of quality in the personal social services Game plans, buzzes and sheer luck: doing well in social work Practitioner evaluation at work Evaluating in practice Culture and the indigenisation of quality in Third World social research. Part V Service Users and Research: Consumer opinion and social policy: a research review Consumer evaluations of the personal social services Engaging the user: participation, empowerment and the rhetoric of quality Just inquiry? Research and evaluation for service users Users and practitioners' research Indexes.

Digital features like virtual reality have hardly been used in the framework of data collection in qualitative social work research. Virtual reality holds specific promise because it allows the immersion of participants in a situation and has the potential to strengthen the ecological validity of data. In this light, we examined the use of a virtual reality serious game in qualitative in-person interviews in the framework of a prevention-oriented HIV social research project. We designed and developed an immersive virtual reality serious game, and integrated it into 24 problem-centred in-person interviews. The integration was feasible, and the virtual reality serious game was well accepted. It prompted participants to elaborate their lived experiences more extensively and in depth. Participants subsequently recalled episodes they had not mentioned before, complemented their narratives and brought up new topics. The atmosphere became less formal, and participants were even more communicative. The use of virtual reality seems to have the potential to open up new perspectives, broaden epistemic possibilities and complement the qualitative methods used to investigate, in particular, verbal and non-verbal communication and interaction processes. From an ethical perspective, the use of virtual reality should be well reflected upon regarding possible after-effects for the participants.

Over past decade, there has been an increasing recognition that social work should be evidence based. The potential contribution of evidence-based practice (EBP) to effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of social work education and practice has been emphasized (Gambrill, 1999, 2007; Gellis & Reid, 2004; Gilgun 2005; Thyer, 2004). This article reflects on reasons, preconditions, and effects of adopting EBP in social work. These issues are important but are rarely examined. We find that proponents of EBP in social work are conservative toward problem that research evidence is not used by practitioners. They neglect preconditions for implementing EBP and are not sensitive to negative effects of adopting EBP in social work. MEANING AND PERFORMANCE OF EBP IN SOCIAL WORK In terms of meaning of EBP, many scholars in social work (for example, Gambrill, 1999; Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002; Gilgun, 2005; Thyer, 2004) follow definition of evidence-based medicine, such as the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values (Sackett, Straus, Richardson, Rosenberg, & Haynes, 2000, p. 1). Regarding performance of EBR five steps of evidence-based medicine formulated by Sackett et al. (2000) are also followed by social work scholars (for example, Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002; Thyer, 2004). The five steps are as follows: first, to covert one's need for information into an answerable question; second, to search best evidence to answer that question; third, to critically evaluate that evidence; fourth, to integrate critical evaluation of research evidence with one's clinical expertise and with patient's unique biology, values, and circumstances; and fifth, to evaluate one's own effectiveness and efficiency in undertaking previous steps and to strive for self-improvement. REASONS TO ADVOCATE EBP IN SOCIAL WORK A review of literature on EBP in social work reveals two fundamental reasons for academics to advocate EBP in social work. According to Gibbs and Gambrill (2002), Rosen (2003), and Crisp (2004), one obvious reasons to advocate EBP in social work is that social workers in service agencies have seldom applied research evidence to their practice. These academics all based their arguments on studies by Kirk and Rosenblatt (1981), Rosen (1994), and Rosen, Proctor, Morrow-Howell, and Staudt (1995), in which findings revealed that social workers rarely use and value research evidence in their decision making for interventions and other practices. Another reason is that EBP is believed to be able to promote utilization of research findings in social work education and practice. For example, to advocate EBP in social work education, Howard, McMillen, and Pollio (2003) highlighted importance of empirical research to effective social work practice; they argued that scientific findings should guide selection and application of social work practice and that social workers should remain current with a growing scientific database. DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTIONS EBP has potential benefits to social work. First, social work has been obsessed with professional status (O'Neill, 1999). The emphasis of research evidence in EBP social work can enhance credibility of social work profession. Second, it has been found that social workers seldom use research evidence in practice (Rosen, 1994; Rosen et al., 1995; Sheldon & Chilvers, 2000). The emphasis of research evidence in EBP social work can promote integration of research evidence into social work practice. However, realization of benefits of adopting EBP in social work is subject to many factors, such as relevance of evidence to social work practice. A reflection on reasons, preconditions, and effects of adopting EBP in social work indicates that present implementation of EBP may result in much harm. Reflection on Reasons to Advocate EBP A reflection on two fundamental reasons to advocate EBP in social work will reveal beguiling rationale when we make a simple comparison of it with consumers' neglect of industrial products or business services. …

PART ONE: THE SOCIAL WORK AGENDA FOR QUALITATIVE RESEARCH The Social Work Context for Qualitative Research A Review of Qualitative Research in Social Work PART TWO: EXEMPLIFYING QUALITATIVE SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH Caught Not Taught - Tom Hall Ethnographic Research at a Young People's Accomodation Project Interviewing Interviewers and Knowing about Knowledge - Jonathan Scourfield Personla Troubles as Social Issues - Catherine Kohler Riessman A Narrative of Infertility in Context 'People Listened to What We Had to Say' - Elizabeth Whitmore Reflections on an Emancipatory Qualitative Evaluation Auto-Ethnography as Reflexive Inquiry - Sue White Teh Research Act as Self-Surveillance Indentifying Expert Social Work - Jan Fook Qualitative Practitioner Research PART THREE: QUALITATIVE WORK IN SOCIAL WORK Fieldwork Choices in Context - Ian F Shaw and Nick G Gould Qualitative Research and Professional Practice Inquiry and Action Qualitative Research and Professional Practice The Consequences of Qualitative Social Work Research

As a methodological proposal, this article proposes an approach to interview analysis that connects the content of interview data with (1) the immediate context of the interview, (2) the way context emerges and changes during an interview, (3) the relationship between the interviewee, the interviewer, and other less immediate parties who elicit and evaluate what said, and (4) the cultural conventions that shape what counts as a meaningful speech in the first place. The article continues on to delineate the importance of accounting for (5) the relationship of the interview to previous occasions of speaking, and (6) the relevant stakes of speaking and interests of speakers. The potential import of each principle is illustrated in reference to methodological challenges encountered during an ethnographic study of an intensive outpatient drug treatment program, a multi-method evaluation of the same program, and relevant practice experiences. In conclusion, the paper discusses how to make the most of data collected in ‘interview intensive’ (Padgett, 2008) qualitative social work research.

Qualitative research grounded in a social constructionist epistemology troubles the assumption, integral in positivist research, that a researcher can be neutral and apolitical. In fact, many scholars are drawn to constructionist epistemologies because they situate the research process as a site of ontological resistance and social change. This essay explores the politics of voice and representation in anti-oppressive qualitative research. Using an example from one author's research on stigma management among formerly incarcerated women, and the particularly pernicious stigma women faced if they had engaged in sex work, we detail the benefits and pitfalls of either re-presenting research participants in their exact words or changing participants' words, a process we refer to as re-languaging. Drawing upon philosophical and social scientific scholarship on the "crisis of representation" in qualitative research and recent scholarship and news articles about human sex trafficking, we underscore the powerful political effects of language. We argue that researchers' choices about language are neither inherently liberatory nor oppressive, but they are always political. We call for a more reflexive scholarly dialog on voice in qualitative social work research and press scholars to explicitly engage the question of whom and what we represent when we claim to represent marginalized others.

Focus groups, originally used in fields such as marketing and consumer research, are rapidly gaining popularity as a research methodology in the social sciences. It is interesting to note that most of the scholarly work on focus groups continues to come from business rather than the social sciences. Few researchers have discussed the differing purposes and goals in social science and consumer research (Ospina, 1994; Moore, 1996). Furthermore, the literature on focus group research rarely utilizes social work knowledge of group dynamics or group facilitation skills. Rather, the literature on focus groups tends to give guidelines for leading groups, telling focus group facilitators what to do and what not to do in leading such groups. We believe that these guidelines, while generally helpful, can lead to rigidity on the part of focus group leaders. We suggest that, in social work research, focus group facilitators should use their knowledge of group dynamics and the values of individualization and empathy to modify focus group rules where appropriate. This paper describes part of a qualitative study of client/worker relationships in residential mental health settings. During the course of this research, group work principles came into conflict, at times, with recommended guidelines for focus group leaders. The paper illustrates how insights gleaned from group work theory and practice can enable a researcher to break focus group rules responsibly, thus bringing greater depth to the data gathered and allowing the researcher to be more sensitive to the needs of focus group participants.

Social work education and practice has primarily been dominated by a medical model worldview. Traditional social work frameworks and medical models have focused on deficits or psychopathology and limited wellness to bio-psycho-social dimensions. In 2005, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa (TWOA) introduced a social work degree that incorporates Māori holistic models of well-being and practice. The degree was further developed into a four-year degree in 2016. This chapter looks at the contribution made by this bicultural social work degree to social work education and practice. This innovative and bold initiative by TWOA accords privilege to Māori and other indigenous bodies of knowledge and practice frameworks equal to those of western theories and frameworks. The bicultural degree argues that an indigenous approach to social work education and practice frameworks are not in competition or antithesis to western frameworks but are complementary and complete the helping process.

11. The Harmony of Resistance: Qualitative Research and Ethical Practice in Social Work

A Note From the Editor-in-Chief

This bibliography examines the influence of the formal pan-European political and economic structures on the practice and development of social work, social services, and social care in Europe, with particular reference to human rights, social welfare policy, and the practice of social work. Europe as a continent stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains, from the Arctic Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea, from Portugal to Russia (beyond the Urals), and from Finland to Greece, while also including island states such as Cyprus, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, and the United Kingdom. The continent includes not only some of the most economically and socially developed countries in the world, but also some of the poorest. It comprises the forty-seven democratic countries that are members of the Council of Europe (CE), with a total population of around 740 million. All the member states have ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (also known as the European Convention on Human Rights, or ECHR), including respect for its legal institutions. Belarus, Kosovo, and the Holy See (in Rome) are also within the region but are not members of the Council. Twenty-eight of these countries are also members of the European Union (EU), a political union with common institutions and legal frameworks that have supremacy over national parliaments. Social work as a profession has been well established in Europe for over a hundred years within a variety of social welfare models; the countries in central and eastern Europe have reestablished social work since the 1990s, following the ending of the Communist political systems. The practice of social work has evolved differently in each country, but it shares common characteristics. The main political and social structures of Europe—the Council of Europe (CE) and the European Union (EU)—have a significant influence on the development of national social policies through EU Directives (laws), the human rights principles, and the conventions of the Council of Europe and convergent visions. The key instruments that impact on social work policy and practice are identified alongside analysis of their significance.

A commitment to co-production in which social workers co-create research, knowledge, and practice with people from multi-disciplinary backgrounds and people with direct lived experience of accessing services, who are termed experts by experience (EbEs), underpins social work ethics and values. EbEs are understood to be people who use their experiences of accessing health and social care services to influence and change all forms of social work. Despite this, EbEs have, to date, had limited involvement in teamwork in social work practice, although their contributions to social work education, research and practice innovations, as peers in the team, are of growing significance. A narrative review was undertaken to explore the gap in the routine involvement of EbEs in different forms of social work practice-based teamwork. This narrative review identified three over-arching themes to understand how EbEs contribute to social work teamwork: involvement in team relationships and in decision-making, involvement in knowledge production, and involvement in health and social care practice innovations. However, it must be acknowledged that the everyday involvement of EbEs in social work, including in multi-disciplinary teamwork, apart from small pockets of mental health practice, such as peer support workers, is lacking. It appears that EbEs are involved in practice innovations, rather than everyday practice; therefore, despite social work’s political and ideological commitment to co-production, it is less advanced than is often claimed.

ABSTRACTSocial work practice is often criticised for lack of support of theories and research evidence. This article attempts to learn from business practice and proposes the creation of a plan as an essential part of social work practice and education to encourage the use of theories and research evidence in social work practice and to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of social work practice. Based on logic modelling, a modified logic social work practice plan is presented and illustrated using a case example. The plan incorporates basic social work elements and the elements of alternative interventions, monitoring and control as well as cost. The potential benefits of inclusion of practice plan in social work practice and the ways to promote the adoption of a practice plan in social work education and practice are discussed.