Innovation in social work research

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.

The impact of higher education institutions on society has become the focus of significant policy attention in recent years, most prominently as part of research evaluation. This paper presents a theoretical exploration of the notion, identifying the key dimensions as source, form, trajectory, intensity, timescale and destination. While acknowledging the importance of porosity between universities and society, and the need to address critical contemporary challenges, five dangers of the impact agenda are highlighted: the normative dimension; the linear relationship; unpredictability; measurement; and instrumentalization. As a response to dominant conceptualizations, the paper proposes the notion of the generative intrinsic as a more robust basis on which to base the work of universities.ResumoO impacto das instituições de ensino superior na sociedade tem se tornado o foco de atenção política significativa nos últimos anos, mais proeminentemente como parte da avaliação da pesquisa. Este artigo apresenta uma exploração teórica da categoria noção, identificando as dimensões-chave como fonte, forma, trajetória, intensidade, escala de tempo e destino. Embora reconhecendo a importância da porosidade entre as universidades e a sociedade, e a necessidade de abordar desafios contemporâneos críticos, cinco perigos da agenda de impacto são destacados: a dimensão normativa; o relacionamento linear; imprevisibilidade; medição; e instrumentalização. Como resposta às conceituações dominantes, o artigo propõe a noção do intrínseco generativo como uma base mais robusta sobre a qual basear o trabalho das universidades.Keywords: Higher education policy, Impact, Instrumentalization, Public engagement, Research evaluation, Universities.Palavras-chave: Políticas de educação superior, Impacto, Instrumentalização, Engajamento público, Avaliação da pesquisa, Universidades.ReferencesASHWIN, P. (2016) ‘From a teaching perspective, “impact” looks very different’. Times Higher Education, 21 March. Online. www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/teaching-perspectiveimpact-looks-very-different (accessed 3 May 2018).BARNETT, R. (2004) ‘The purposes of higher education and the changing face of academia’. London Review of Education, 2 (1), 61–73.BELFIORE, E. (2014) ‘”Impact”, “value” and “bad economics”: Making sense of the problem of value in the arts and humanities’. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14 (1), 95–110.BRENNAN, J., KING, R. AND LEBEAU, Y. (2004) The Role of Universities in the Transformation of Societies: Synthesis report. London: Association of Commonwealth Universities and the Open UniversityBYNNER, J. AND EGERTON, M. (2001) The Wider Benefits of Higher Education. Report by the Wider Benefits of Learning Research Centre, Institute of Education, University of London.CHUBB, J. AND WATERMEYER, R. (2017) ‘Artifice or integrity in the marketization of research impact? Investigating the moral economy of (pathways to) impact statements within research funding proposals in the UK and Australia’. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (12), 2,360–72.COLEMAN, J.S. (1986) ‘The idea of the developmental university’. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 24 (4), 476–94.COLLINI, S. (2012) What are Universities For? London: Penguin. Dewey, J. (1967) ‘The continuum of ends-means’. In Archambault, R. (ed.) John Dewey on Education: Selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 97–107. ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) (n.d.) ‘What is impact?’. Online. www.esrc.ac.uk/ research/impact-toolkit/what-is-impact/ (accessed 22 April 2018).FIELDING, M. (2003) ‘The impact of impact’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (2), 289–95.FRANCIS, B. (2011) ‘Increasing impact? An analysis of issues raised by the impact agenda in educational research’. Scottish Educational Review, 43 (2), 4–16.GIBBONS, M., LIMOGES, C., NOWOTNY, H., SCHWARTZMAN, S., SCOTT, P. AND TROW, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE Publications.GUNN, A. AND MINTROM, M. (2016) ‘Higher education policy change in Europe: Academic research funding and the impact agenda’. European Education, 48 (4), 241–57.GUNN, A. AND MINTROM, M. (2017) ‘Five things to consider when designing a policy to measure research impact’. The Conversation, 12 January. Online. http://theconversation.com/fivethings-to-consider-when-designing-a-policy-to-measure-research-impact-71078 (accessed 22 April 2017).ILIE, S. AND ROSE, P. (2016) ‘Is equal access to higher education in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa achievable by 2030?’. Higher Education 72 (4), 435–55.JUMP, P. (2015) ‘The impact of impact’. Times Higher Education, 19 February. Online. www.timeshighereducation.com/features/the-impact-of-impact/2018540.article (accessed 3 May 2018).LEE, S.T. (2017) ‘The Structure of a University: A Karatanian interrogation into instrumentalism, idealism and community in postwar British higher education, 1945–2015’. Unpublished PhD thesis, Birkbeck University.MACFARLANE, B. (2011) ‘The morphing of academic practice: Unbundling and the rise of the paraacademic’. Higher Education Quarterly, 65 (1), 59–73. Marginson, S. (2011) ‘Higher education and public good’. Higher Education Quarterly, 65 (4), 411–33.MARGINSON, S. (2016) ‘The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems’. Higher Education, 72 (4), 413–34.MARTIN, B. (2011) ‘The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster?’. Research Evaluation, 20 (3), 247–54.MARTIN, C. (2011) ‘Philosophy of education in the public sphere: The case of “relevance”’. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30, 615–29. McCowan, T. (2009) Rethinking Citizenship Education: A curriculum for participatory democracy. London: Continuum.MCCOWAN, T. (2015) ‘Should universities promote employability?’. Theory and Research in Education, 13 (3), 267–85.MCCOWAN, T. (2016a) ‘Three dimensions of equity of access to higher education’. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46 (4), 645–65.MCCOWAN, T. (2016b) ‘Universities and the post-2015 development agenda: An analytical framework’. Higher Education, 72 (4), 505–23.MCCOWAN, T. (2017) ‘Higher education, unbundling and the end of the university as we know it’. Oxford Review of Education, 43 (6), 733–48.McDowell, G. (2003) ‘Engaged universities: Lessons from the land-grant universities and extension’. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585 (1), 31–50.MCMAHON, W. (2009) Higher Learning, Greater Good: The private and social benefits of higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.NIXON, J. (2004) ‘Education for the good society: The integrity of academic practice’. London Review of Education, 2 (3), 245–52.OANCEA, A. (2013a) ‘Buzzwords and values: The prominence of “impact” in UK research policy and governance’. Research Trends, 33, 6–8.OANCEA, A. (2013b) ‘Interpretations of research impact in seven disciplines’. European Educational Research Journal, 12 (2), 242–50.OKETCH, M., MCCOWAN, T. AND SCHENDEL, R. (2014) The Impact of Tertiary Education on Development: A rigorous literature review. London: Department for International Development.OVSEIKO, P., OANCEA, A. AND BUCHAN, A. (2012) ‘Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: A study using Research Excellence Framework pilot impact indicators’. BMC Health Services Research, 12 (478), 1–23.PARKER, J. AND VAN TEIJLINGEN, E. (2012) ‘The Research Excellence Framework (REF): Assessing the impact of social work research on society’. Practice: Social Work in Action, 24 (1), 41–52.PENFIELD, T., BAKER, M.J., SCOBLE, R. AND WYKES, M.C. (2014) ‘Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review’. Research Evaluation, 23 (1), 21–32.PERKIN, H. (2007) ‘History of universities’. In Forest, J.J.F. and Altbach, P.G. (eds) International Handbook of Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer, 159–206.PHIPPS, A. (2014) ‘The dark side of the impact agenda’. Times Higher Education, 4 December. Online. www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/opinion/the-dark-side-of-the-impactagenda/2017299.article (accessed 3 May 3018).READINGS, B. (1996) The University in Ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.REF (Research Excellence Framework) (2011) Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions: Research excellence framework 02.2011. Online. www.ref.ac.uk/2014/pubs/2011-02/ (accessed 22 April 2018).RESEARCH COUNCIL ECONOMIC IMPACT GROUP (2006) Increasing the Economic Impact of Research Councils. London: Department of Trade and Industry.Research Councils UK (2017) Excellence with Impact. Online. www.ukri.org/innovation/excellencewith-impact/ (accessed 15 July 2017).SALL, E., LEBEAU, Y. AND KASSIMIR, R. (2003) ‘The public dimensions of the university in Africa’. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 1 (1), 126–48.SANTOS, B.S. (2004) A universidade do século XXI: Para uma reforma democratica e emancipatória da universidade. São Paulo: Cortez.Siegfried, J., Sanderson, A. and McHenry, P. (2007) ‘The economic impact of colleges and universities’. Economics of Education Review, 26 (5), 546–58.SMITH, S., WARD, V. AND HOUSE, A. (2011) ‘”Impact” in the proposals for the UK’s Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy’. Research Policy, 40 (10), 1,369–79.UNIVERSITIES UK (2014) The Impact of Universities on the UK Economy. London: Universities UK.UPTON, S., VALLANCE, P. AND GODDARD, J. (2014) ‘From outcome to process: Evidence for a new approach to research impact assessment’. Research Evaluation, 23 (4), 352–65.WALTER, I., NUTLEY, S.M. AND DAVIES, H.T.O. (2003) Research Impact: A cross-sector review. Research Unit for Research Utilisation, University of St Andrews. Online. www.ruru.ac.uk/pdf/LSDA%20 literature%20review%20final.pdf (accessed 22 April 2016).WATERMEYER, R. (2016) ‘Impact in the R

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. …

Announced in January 2008, a new £20 million investment has established five Centres of Excellence across the UK to strengthen research into complex public health issues such as obesity, smoking and health inequalities. (See linked Editorial page xx.) The UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) brought together funders to support this initiative to develop a coordinated approach to strengthen public health research in the UK, which was administered by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The funding Partners are the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Health and Social Care Research & Development Office for Northern Ireland, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Wales Office of Research and Development—Welsh Assembly Government and the Wellcome Trust. The Centres have a clear brief to bring together leading experts from a range of disciplines to work in partnership with practitioners, policy makers and wider stakeholders to tackle public health issues that are likely to have a significant impact on the health of the nation, and to strengthen the research capacity in public health. Five successful Centres were awarded funding through a competitive process, and are based in Newcastle, Cardiff, Belfast, Cambridge and Nottingham. Between them, the Centres will conduct research across a broad range of public health issues, and on topics including diet and nutrition; physical activity; and alcohol, tobacco and drugs. Each Centre will receive up to £5 million over 5 years to create new academic posts and develop strong training and career development programmes. The funding will also provide the technical staff, IT systems, equipment, administrative support, research facilities and other infrastructure needed to support high-quality researches. Further details of each of the five centres are shown in Box 1. Box 1. Centres of Public Health Excellence Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, led by Newcastle University (in collaboration with Durham, Northumbria, Sunderland and Teesside Universities)—directed by Professor Martin White. Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement, Cardiff University (in collaboration with Swansea University and Bristol University)—directed by Professor L. Moore UKCRC Northern Ireland Centre of Excellence for Public Health Research, Queens University Belfast (in partnership with the Institute of Public Health in Ireland)—directed by Professor F. Kee Diet and Physical Activity Public Health Research Centre, Cambridge, University of Cambridge (in partnership with the University of East Anglia)—directed by Professor N. Wareham The UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, University of Nottingham (a strategic partnership between seven of the leading tobacco control and policy research groups in the UK: Nottingham; Bath; Edinburgh; Birmingham; Stirling; Queen Mary, University of London; and University College London)— directed by Professor J. Britton.

Understanding Society, the UK Household Longitudinal Study, is a new household panel survey motivated by the success of longitudinal studies in the UK, and funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) with co-funding from UK government departments. The UK has a diverse and rich portfolio of longitudinal studies including the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), based on 5,500 households, which ran for eighteen years from 1991 and is the predecessor of Understanding Society. The BHPS continues to be a widely used dataset in the UK and internationally, but as the panel matured it was recognised there was a need to look to the future of longitudinal data resources for the coming decades in the UK. The ESRC and the wider academic community saw this as a strategic priority to meet the emerging data needs of the social science and policy-making communities. The ESRC were successful in establishing funding for a new study which would incorporate the existing BHPS sample but with an expanded and ambitious scientific research agenda. What follows is a short description of the study’s development to date to provide the background for the papers included in this special section. In July 2005, the ESRC submitted a pivotal bid to the UK Government's Large Facilities Capital Fund, which typically funds key infrastructural investments across the natural sciences. The success of this bid represented a sea change in funding mechanisms for the social sciences, with the growing recognition that large data sets are the key infrastructural investments for the social sciences, equivalent to laboratories for the natural sciences such as the Large Hadron Collider facility in Geneva. The bid sought funding for a new and much larger household panel study, following a consultation report carried out by Longview, which recommended renewal and major expansion of the BHPS (Martin et al 2004). In May 2006, the then Office for Science and Information agreed funding for the new household panel study. The new UK household longitudinal study (UKHLS), which became known as Understanding Society, was to have the following features: • A longitudinal survey, with at least a 20 year life, of a cross-section of UK households • A sample size of 40,000 households • Innovative methods and types of data collection • A resource facilitating research on a wide variety of issues, involving not just traditional social science but linking to medical and environmental sciences • Data collection starting in 2008

The Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) was founded in 1994 to provide a meeting ground and support organization for individual social workers who engage in research. Over its first 14 years, SSWR has grown from a modest-sized organization that hosted an initial conference to a large and influential force that sponsors a wildly successful yearly conference. SSWR's annual conference now showcases a portfolio of awards, including a travel scholarship for a doctoral student, a named lecture, and a very competitive abstract submission process. Funding for research by social workers has grown over the years, and SSWR, in association with the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR), has become a regular provider of educational opportunities about funding sources. This article presents perspectives from the first seven presidents of the organization, who describe the growing richness and diversity of SSWR's membership and projects and the increasing visibility of research conducted by social workers. KEY WORDS: infrastructure; organization; research; SSWR ********** The Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) was founded as a membership organization in 1994 to support social workers interested in research. To preserve the history of SSWR, this article presents sections contributed by the first seven presidents, each describing, often from a personal point of view, how their efforts helped to build the organization and to contribute to the current research infrastructure in social work. PRESIDENTIAL PERSPECTIVES Janet B. W. Williams, Founding President, 1994-1996 It was 1992. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)Task Force Report on Social Work Research (1991) had just been presented to the National Advisory Mental Health Council of NIMH. The report clearly acknowledged the significance of social work research by recognizing the breadth of critical problems with which social work deals and the increasing need for all human services to demonstrate the effectiveness of the services they provide. This report provided the stimulus and led to the funding that supported the establishment in 1992 of the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR). IASWR was created by five leading social work organizations: Baccalaureate Program Directors (BPD), National Association of Deans and Directors (NADD), Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE), Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), and NASW. SSWR was conceived in direct response to the NIMH Task Force Report conclusion that [t]hroughout the profession there is insufficient organizational support for research development. As a research social worker who was not embedded in a school of social work, I had always felt somewhat professionally isolated and hungry for interaction with nay social work research colleagues. As a faculty member in a medical school department of psychiatry, I frequently attended conferences and meetings of research-oriented groups in psychiatry but knew of no similar groups in social work. Therefore, at a psychiatry research meeting shortly after the Task Force Report was issued, I discussed these thoughts with Dr. Alan Leshner, at the time the director of the National Institute on DrugAbuse (NIDA). He agreed to support the founding of such a group and to contribute to its first conference. In 1992, at an NIMH-sponsored conference in Washington, DC (Building Social Work Knowledge for Effective Mental Health Services and Policies), I presented a plan for a new membership organization that would provide social work researchers with a base: the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWFZ). At that conference, Betsy Vourlekis also presented a report on the development of the new IASWR, as she had been appointed head of the implementation committee. At the conclusion of the conference, Betsy approached me and asked if I would delay the initiation of efforts to establish a membership group until the new organizationally based IASWR was firmly off the ground. …

IDS BulletinVolume 38, Issue 5 p. 61-73 Farmer Participation in Private Sector Agricultural Extension Dominic Glover, Dominic Glover I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the research assistance of Mr Kiran Sakkhari in carrying out the research on which this article is based. I am also grateful for the helpful comments of the three editors, Ian Scoones, Peter Newell and participants in the conference session on which this article is based. The interviews cited in this article were conducted during field visits to India and the USA between October 2004 and December 2005.Search for more papers by this author Dominic Glover, Dominic Glover I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the research assistance of Mr Kiran Sakkhari in carrying out the research on which this article is based. I am also grateful for the helpful comments of the three editors, Ian Scoones, Peter Newell and participants in the conference session on which this article is based. The interviews cited in this article were conducted during field visits to India and the USA between October 2004 and December 2005.Search for more papers by this author First published: 02 February 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2005.tb00409.xCitations: 1 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume38, Issue5November 2007Pages 61-73 RelatedInformation

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.

This article critically reflects on the experience and lessons from a health-focused social policy research project (PRARI) involving a partnership spanning multiple countries across southern Africa and Europe. It asks what factors condition the efficacy of the partnership–policy nexus. The PRARI-SADC partnership case study used participatory action research (PAR) to create a regional indicators-based monitoring ‘toolkit’ of pro‑poor health policy and change for the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The article addresses the partnership drivers, features, methodological context, and process of the project, and the wider implications for constructing partnerships for social change impact. Lessons drawn from this case study underscore the importance of PAR-inspired partnership structures and working methods while querying assumptions that the relationship between PAR and policy change is ‘seamless’. We argue that greater focus is needed on the wider institutional context conditioning the work of partnerships when considering the efficacy of the partnership–policy nexus.

Programa británico de investigación para el incremento de la calidad de vida en la vejez

This article draws on research findings from an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded PhD psychosocial exploration of child protection social work with emotional abuse. Intrafamilial harm occurs predominantly within the relationship between a parent and their child in the context of this research. Emotional abuse is a complex concept, comprising of many cumulative elements, which may include restricting a child’s psychological autonomy. Emotional abuse is not so clearly observed as other forms of parental harm, but it causes the most significant impairment. The dual overarching goals of this research was to make the less tangible aspects of work with this form of child abuse more visible, and to improve professional understandings of how to work with it more effectively. The focus of this article is to exemplify how the critical realist methodological framework and psychosocial research approach were developed to underpin the data collection and analysis processes. Psychosocial methods incorporate researcher and research participant’s use of self to explore the often deeply subjective, and undocumented process of identifying the presence of emotionally abusive behaviour. The research sought to elicit responses that enabled social workers to share their unconscious thought processes to get under the surface of everyday decision making. Sharing their ‘workings out’. This article draws on one social worker’s narrative of encountering emotional abuse to illuminate some of the professional and personal challenges the work can present. This research provides a methodological template for further research into supporting social workers in effective interventions into intrafamilial emotional abuse.

Advertisement Journals Books Search Menu Menu Navbar Search Filter Social Work Research and AbstractsThis issueNASW Family Social WorkBooksJournalsOxford Academic Mobile Microsite Search Term Search Sign In Issues About About Social Work Research and Abstracts About the National Association of Social Workers About the National Association of Social Workers Press Journals Career Network Journals on Oxford Academic Books on Oxford Academic NASW Family Issues About About Social Work Research and Abstracts About the National Association of Social Workers About the National Association of Social Workers Press Journals Career Network Close Navbar Search Filter Social Work Research and AbstractsThis issueNASW Family Social WorkBooksJournalsOxford Academic Microsite Search Term Search Advanced Search Search Menu Article Navigation Close mobile search navigation Article Navigation Volume 16 Issue 2 Summer 1980 Next > Article Navigation Article Navigation Journal Article Does social work research have a future? A book review Get access William E. Gordon, Ph.D. William E. Gordon, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Social Work Research and Abstracts, Volume 16, Issue 2, Summer 1980, Pages 3–4, https://doi.org/10.1093/swra/16.2.3 Published: 01 July 1980 Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Cite Cite William E. Gordon, Ph.D., Does social work research have a future? A book review, Social Work Research and Abstracts, Volume 16, Issue 2, Summer 1980, Pages 3–4, https://doi.org/10.1093/swra/16.2.3 Select Format Select format .ris (Mendeley, Papers, Zotero) .enw (EndNote) .bibtex (BibTex) .txt (Medlars, RefWorks) Download citation Close Permissions Icon Permissions Share Email Twitter Facebook More Navbar Search Filter Social Work Research and AbstractsThis issueNASW Family Social WorkBooksJournalsOxford Academic Mobile Microsite Search Term Search Sign In Close Navbar Search Filter Social Work Research and AbstractsThis issueNASW Family Social WorkBooksJournalsOxford Academic Microsite Search Term Search Advanced Search Search Menu Article PDF first page preview Close This content is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 1980 by the National Association of Social WorkersCopyright © 1980 by the National Association of Social Workers Issue Section: Research You do not currently have access to this article. Download all slides Sign in Get help with access National Association of Social Workers members Sign in through society site Personal account Get email alerts Save searches Purchase content Activate purchases and trials Sign in Register Institutional access Sign in through your institution Sign in with a library card Sign in with username / password Recommend to your librarian Institutional account management Sign in as administrator Get help with access Institutional access Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways: IP based access Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account. Sign in through your institution Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth / Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic. Click Sign in through your institution. Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in. When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account. Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic. If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator. Sign in with a library card Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian. Society Members Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways: Sign in through society site Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal: Click Sign in through society site. When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account. Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic. If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society. Sign in using a personal account Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below. Personal account A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions. Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. Viewing your signed in accounts Click the account icon in the top right to: View your signed in personal account and access account management features. View the institutional accounts that are providing access. Signed in but can't access content Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian. Institutional account management For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more. Close access help modal Purchase Subscription prices and ordering for this journal Purchasing options for books and journals across Oxford Academic Short-term Access To purchase short term access, please sign in to your Oxford Academic account above. Don't already have an Oxford Academic account? Register Does social work research have a future? A book review - 24 Hours access EUR €30.00 GBP £22.00 USD $39.00 Rental This article is also available for rental through DeepDyve. Advertisement Citations Views 3 Altmetric More metrics information × Email alerts Article activity alert New issue alert Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic Citing articles via Google Scholar Crossref Latest Most Read Most Cited Social worker burnout: A longitudinal study Improving Research Writing Measuring Attitudes toward Poverty: A New Scale Counting the rural homeless population: Methodological dilemmas Coping strategies and the maintenance of change after inpatient alcoholism treatment More from Oxford Academic Social Sciences Social Work Books Journals Advertisement Advertisement About Social Work Research and Abstracts Facebook Twitter Journals Career Network Print ISSN 0148-0847 Copyright © 2022 National Association of Social Workers About Oxford Academic Publish journals with us University press partners What we publish New features Authoring Open access Purchasing Get help with access Institutional account management Accessibility Contact us Advertising Media enquiries Legal and policy Oxford University Press News Oxford Languages Epigeum University of Oxford Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide Copyright © 2022 Oxford University Press Cookie policy Privacy policy Legal notice

The Nature Initiative Research, Development & Demonstration Project, based at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), carried out a series of rapid response research activities to inform the UK government’s efforts to refine research priorities for existing and future international nature-focused research programmes, with a particular focus on ODA contexts in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Southwest Asia and North Africa, and small island developing states (SIDS). This research was commissioned by the UK cross-government (x-HMG) Environment and Nature Research Working Group representing interests of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and UKRI (UK Research and Innovation). Research councils that were closely involved include the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). The research was funded by the ESRC.

Eating habits, food choices, health and lifestyles have been stock-in-trade for research in health and medicine for many years. However, it would be fair to say that these areas have not been of major interest in mainstream sociology until recently. Indeed, Murcott et al (1992) register sociology's failure to engage with foodrelated issues as social practices serious enough to warrant academic pursuit. It is true that in the writings of Marx (1977), Engels (1971) and Rowntree (1980), problems of food and diet in relation to income and social class were discussed. But these early contributions were not sustained. How things have changed. Food, eating, body weight, food geography, etc. all belong to a long list of issues which are now central to sociology generally (see for example Beardsworth and Keil 1997), and health sociology in particular (see for example Germov and Williams 2008). Judging by the number of papers, books and conferences devoted to food-related research, there has never been a time when sociological scholarship has taken food and eating so seriously. Long gone are the days when conferences struggled to find enough papers to fill a concurrent session on food sociology; indeed, there are now whole conferences devoted to the topic, for example the British Sociological Association Food Study Group Conference in July, 2010.There are a number of reasons why food, eating and associated interests may have captured the sociological imagination, but space will only allow an examination of a few here. The first reason is state funding for research that has sought answers to food-related issues. Food research has, of course, benefited from government sponsored funding for a long time, but this has usually been in the areas of biomedicine and nutrition, which are more interested in what food are eaten than who is eating it. The difference in the new interest in state funded food research is that it has sought social, rather than biological, answers. For example, the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funding of the 'Nation's Diet' research programme (1992- 1998) was an example of State investment in food research which supported some of the UK's best social scientists' examination of food and eating from a social angle. This included perspectives that captured food and class, food and gender, food and race or ethnicity. The underlying link in the project was its attention to food in social spaces such as homes, schools, shops, as well as families and other places where food is eaten or selected (see Murcott 1998).Another interest that has provided impetus for sociological examination of food and eating has been the health and social consequences of diet-related diseases. A major factor here has been the development of the so called 'obesity epidemic'. This has given rise to contributions from the social sciences and humanities that have hitherto been somewhat silent on food-related matters. It is now commonplace to see papers, articles and books from researchers in these disciplines contributing to debates about the recent focus on body weight and its consequences (Dixon and Broom 2007; Gard and Wright 2005).A third influence has been the impact of neoliberalism on the ways in which the food supply has been regulated and governed. Food policy, once the domain of discussions mostly about food packaging and food standards, has now opened up because of many issues concerning the safety and integrity of the food supply (Lang et al 2009). Food policy is also discussed in terms of the politics of food, and in so doing provides a platform for discussions on the ways in which food is used as a political weapon at the macro (that is, jurisdiction, country, territory) level (for example, Lang and Heasman 2004), but also at the micro (that is, family, personal, private) level (for example, Charles and Kerr 1988).The last reason we give for recent sociological interest in food concerns the various crises that implicate the food supply. …