Practice and 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. …

Greetings to readers as we start a new year for Qualitative Social Work. Last year saw an increase in papers to the Journal and as our readership continues to grow, the value of qualitative research for social work is confirmed. However, there is no room for complacency and if we are to ensure that the Journal continues to thrive, it is important to remain abreast of changes in the world of qualitative research and social research more generally. So, this brings me to consider the issue of innovation in this new year editorial. For readers familiar with writing or reviewing grant applications, claims by academics that their work is novel or innovative are all very familiar. As Taylor and Coffey described in 2009, pressures stemming from funding councils and publishers encourage academics to state and indeed over-state the cutting edge nature of their work. Writing in 2015, it seems that claims to innovation are now endemic and if we examine the mission of the UK’s major social science research funding council – the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) – the word innovation is never far from the Council’s funding calls, strategy statements or impact case studies. In the Council’s research funding guide, applicants must pay attention to impact, innovation and interdisciplinarity. The Council’s conceptualisation of innovation is broad, to include: ‘innovative or even untested methods’, through to research which challenges ‘existing paradigms in respect of research ethics’ (ESRC, 2015). So what exactly is meant by innovation and to what extent is new invention better than old? In response to the latter question, critics differ in their opinion. For example, there are those who consider that innovative methods simply represent the latest fads, leaving unresolved the long-standing challenges in qualitative research (Travers, 2009). The problem of fad is that where we fetishise the novel we may inadvertently recast tried and tested methodologies as dated, or at worse obsolete. Traditional ethnography and conventional methods of qualitative interviewing have been so vital to our understanding of the social world, we must resist casting such methods as old hat (Wiles et al., 2011). Critics have also argued that claims to innovation are frequently overstated and can amount to little more than Qualitative Social Work 2016, Vol. 15(1) 3–10 ! The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1473325015619822 qsw.sagepub.com

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. …

Qualitative research methods are advancing from individual analysis levels to dyadic and above to present multiple facets of reality, coinciding well with micro (individual), mezzo (family and groups) and macro (communities and society) levels in social work (SW) practices. Complex units (CU) comprise two groups with several members in each group, with each CU member having a perspective on the studied phenomenon; some perspectives are in congruence, others not. However, methodological approaches to the analysis of CUs are lacking. Based on the naturalistic–constructivist paradigm, this methodological article aims to present a Complex Unit Interviews Analysis (CUIA) approach that can be used in qualitative SW research. It includes a four-phase circular procedure: Phase 1—full analysis (i) familiarisation, (ii) coding, (iii) identifying themes; Phase 2—selective analysis of how a theme plays out in a CU (i) vertical analysis (across interviews within each CU group) and (ii) horizontal analysis (between groups of a CU); Phase 3—refining themes by analysis across CUs; Phase 4—conducting Phase 2 and Phase 3 for each theme identified in Phase 1. CUIA is illustrated using a family study case that presents multiple facets of a phenomenon’s reality by combining individual perspectives to form a CU perspective within SW and familial contexts.

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

Research centers in schools of social work are growing in number and scope. In this article the authors argue that this increase is in line with the growing recognition that research and science are critical components of the mission of the social work profession. The authors examine the purposes and various models for establishing research centers in schools of social work. They highlight the phases of development in the Hamovitch Center for Science in the Human Services at the University of Southern California School of Social Work and articulate the operational principles on which the center is based and that have driven its operation and significant growth during the past decade. KEY WORDS: center; infrastructure; organization; research; social work ********** The Hamovitch Center for Science in the Human Services was conceived, developed, and continues to advance in a specific historical context. Two main, and partly contradictory, perspectives of the nature of social work have been predominant: social work as an art and social work as a professional activity based on science. The assumption that social work is an art has a lengthy tradition, and goes back to values such as human beings' readiness to help others (Soydan, 1999), and later to the institutional reflection of such values in charity movements and organizations. Historically, the assumption that social work is a profession that must base its actions on science began with the genesis of modern social science during the second half of the 1700s and early 1800s. This belief was reflected in later positivist paradigms, such as the work of Mary Richmond and Jane Addams (Soydan, 1999). More recently during the 1980s and 1990s, this discourse was reactivated and became rather controversial. Hugh England's (1986) boo5k, Social Work as Art: Making Sense for Good Practice, is considered a modern milestone for this sentiment. Siporin (1988) emphasized this position further, Reamer (1993) substantiated its philosophical foundations, and Goldstein (1990) took a controversial position by suggesting that social work had become a victim of scientific promises and had turned away from its commitment to practice wisdom. The assumption that social work has to be organized around a solid base to advance its professionalism has suffered setbacks over the years. Fischer (1976) argued that the effectiveness of social casework was not supported by existing experimental evidence. The Task Force on Social Work Research (1991) found that too little research in social work was done and that what was done was mostly irrelevant and inadequate in enabling social work professionals to respond better to clients and stakeholders. Fraser and colleagues (1991) increased awareness about the lack of pertinent and good quality research in social work. Other studies during the first half of the 1990s also emphasized the poor state of the science in social work (Gambrill, 1994; Hepworth & Larsen, 1992; Wakefield, 1996a, 1996b). However, there were also proposals about how to remedy some of these problems to make social work research more pertinent, rigorous, and extensive. It is not surprising that one solution was suggested in the combination of art and science (Papel & Skolnik, 1992; Schon, 1983). A proposal from Lindsey and Kirk (1992) argued that research resources in social work should be concentrated on a few social work research schools in which a critical mass of researchers from a range of disciplines and perspectives could be gathered to address some of the central problems of our profession. At this point in time, whether or not research centers are seen by the field of social work as useful, they continue to emerge and develop around the country. This is consistent with the growing recognition that research and science are critical components of the mission of the social work profession. What is left to he considered is how these centers can be organized, can grow, and can be sustained. …

This article reports a study assessing the contribution of current social work journal publications to a cumulative body of research that is capable of informing interventions. Thirteen journals published from 1993 to mid-1997 were reviewed. Analysis was guided by the view that the focus and design of studies should correspond to and supply the knowledge needed to perform different practice tasks. Accordingly, journal research articles were classified by their potential contribution to practice decisions requiring descriptive, explanatory, or control knowledge. Research aiming at control knowledge, informing the selection and implementation of interventions, was further evaluated by whether the interventions and outcomes studied were sufficiently specified to permit reliable research replication and application in practice. Very few of the published articles were found to report research on interventions, and even fewer used designs that enable replication. Factors affecting the rate and quality of research and interventions are also discussed. Key words: functions of knowledge; intervention research; knowledge for practice; research design; research purpose Social work has long been concerned with strengthening the extent to which its research is capable of informing and guiding practice (see Greenwood, 1957; Kadushin, 1959; Kane, 1982). Over the years increasing attention has been directed toward this purpose. This attention resulted in the founding in the 1970s of the first two journals dedicated to publishing research (Social Work Research & Abstracts and the Journal of Social Service Research) and the founding about 20 years later of a journal dedicated to research on practice (Research on Social Work Practice). These advances notwithstanding, concern persists that social work researchers are not meeting the needs of practitioners. Such concern was reflected in the convening of a symposium in 1996 on psychosocial intervention research, cosponsored by the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research and the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research at the National Institutes of Health, as well as in the publication of a special issue on intervention research in the journal Social Work Research (September 1997). Emanating from similar concerns, this article reviews current publications in social work and assesses their potential in contributing to a body of knowledge of effective interventions. This review is based on the premise that social work practice must adhere to and be guided by effectiveness criteria. That is, interventions should be selected and used on the basis of their empirically demonstrated effectiveness. Because journal publications are a major vehicle for accumulating and disseminating professional knowledge, they constitute a primary source of guidance for practice. Accordingly, we examined the current research published in social work journals in relation to its potential for contributing to effective practice. PURPOSE OF PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE The premise that intervention should be based on relevant and valid knowledge is at the core of professional practice. Rosen (1978, 1996) has conceptualized the knowledge needs of practice as related to the purposes for which knowledge is used and its function in practice. Three types of knowledge were distinguished: descriptive, explanatory, and control. Descriptive knowledge guides practitioners in classifying phenomena they encounter into meaningful conceptual categories. Often it is used by practitioners in deciding whether and to what extent a particular manifestation or event should be of concern-that is, considered a problem. Descriptive knowledge includes information on the characteristics, indicators, or incidences of phenomena of professional concern (for example, poverty, child abuse, maladaptive behavior, mental disorders, and community violence). Descriptive knowledge, in articulation with its values, also helps to formulate social work's objectives (Rosen, 1978), informs policy decisions about which services are needed by which client groups, and aids practitioners in assessing and classifying clients and problems into professionally meaningful categories. …

This paper explores issues of reflexivity and knowledge production when cisgender researchers conduct social work research, using feminist narrative methods, to advance understanding about trans and non-binary people’s identities and experiences. Cisgender (or ‘cis’) refers to people who identify with the gender identity assigned to them at birth. The paper examines cis identity, privilege and positionality arguing for a reflexive engagement of the ways in which these influence ethical decision-making and research praxis. In this way, we speak to existing critiques that suggest that only trans and non-binary people should research their own experiences and identities. To address the neglect of gender diversity in education for social work practice and research, we propose that doing social work research with trans and non-binary communities requires cis researchers to adopt critical ethical reflexivity (CER) to scrutinise the impact of gender normativity and its effects in knowledge production for social work.

Use of Data Synthesis in Social Work