Teaching qualitative research and participatory practices in neoliberal times

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.

New Feminist Approaches to Social Science Methodologies: An Introduction

The need for social justice in social work practice is particularly apparent in work with indigenous populations. In spite of the social work profession's commitment to social justice, social workers have often done significant harm in their work with indigenous peoples. Social work educators are ideally positioned to close this gap between social work values and practice by teaching how principles of social justice can be applied with indigenous peoples. This article provides social work educators with background knowledge and specific tools for teaching about indigenous populations from a social justice perspective.

The article focuses on theories, definitions, interests, possibilities and barriers in practice research in social work. It points out that both practice and research will be influenced by participating in and developing practice research. – and that both parts must and will learn from the process. To elaborate and define practice research in social work, it is necessary to consider connected approaches and theories. The article will show that practice research is both connected to and can use the theoretical frames of Actual science and Mode 2 knowledge production. To understand and develop research closely connected to practice it is necessary to define it in three different ways: practice research, practitioner research and user-controlled research. Examples from different Nordic approaches connected to these definitions will be presented. Although practice and research both need to develop practice research they do at the same time have different interests which will challenge both parts. Practice research must be looked upon as both an area of collaboration and a meeting point for different stakeholders: users, social workers, administrative management/organizers, politicians and researchers. It is stated that practice research at the same time need to break down barriers between the stakeholders, and to be aware not to combine them totally as differencies and dilemmas are a part of practice research and should remain so.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the recognition of social work as an academic discipline in Israel. The country’s first academic school of social work was established at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1958 in cooperation with the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the Ministry of Welfare. As part of Israel’s first university, that prides itself on its research accomplishments, faculty members were among the first social work researchers in the country. Today, social work research is carried out in a variety of settings—in universities, research institutes, and government offices. This special issue is dedicated to state-of-the-art social work practice research in Israel. It provides examples of innovative studies carried out by both scholars and practitioners dedicated to producing timely and culturally and contextually relevant research. We wish to thank Dr. Bruce Thyer for initiating this effort and for his support and guidance through the various stages of producing this special issue.

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

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 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. …

Social work practitioners are often ambivalent about the necessity of conducting research. Witkin (1995) suggests that the reason may have little to do with adequate training in research methods and more to do with a lack of an approach to research consistent with the mission of the profession. The purpose of this article is to begin a dialogue that focuses on delineating an approach to social work research that is consistent with the mission and values of the profession. A description of research approaches that share aspects of social work values is provided, followed by a discussion of core elements of each approach that may have implications for social work researchers. The core elements discussed include: (a) research that is shaped, guided, conducted, and even controlled by consumers; (b) research that focuses on communities or local contexts; (c) research that strives for mutual understanding; and (d) research that facilitates social change leading to empowerment, equality, and social justice. Finally, challenges to incorporating these core elements into research practice are discussed.

What should be the African social worker in the modern world. The African social worker has discovered that most clinical and other modern social work practices are Euro-centric. And only reflect only European values. He knows that African communal social work practices existed in an ethnocentric environment that encourages an African-centred world view. How this African centred world view wouyld help him to define a new social work values with a paradigmatic shift to his roles as a profession is a challenge to both social philosophy and its social work concentrates. Therefore this article raises serious concerns about the ethnocentric nature of existing paradigms within the social sciences that form the basis for social work theory and practice with implications for modern social work in Africa. In addition, it highlights the theoretical deficits within existing social work models that do not reflect the worldviews of diverse cultural communities in modern world. Can existing social work models continue to express ethnocentric value systems as the universal way to explain human behaviour in the light of growing demands for pluralism not only between groups but also between epistemologies and worldviews? The authors of the article, writing from the perspective of the new African social science, argues for an alternative paradigm that is grounded in the cultural and historical reality of the African communal experience.

Digital storytelling (DST), broadly defined, is a storytelling method that is interwoven with digitised images, texts, sounds, and other interactive elements, and it has been increasingly used for social work and healthcare interventions. While the term DST has become more popular, its role in actual social work interventions is not clear. The ambiguity of DST presents a hurdle to further theorisation for social work practice and research. This article aims to provide a narrative review and derive a conceptualisation that is in line with social work’s psychotherapeutic and systems orientation. The review has derived a two-layer conceptualisation. In a broad sense, DST can be seen as an umbrella term covering different sorts of storytelling activities that use digital communication media. Practitioners and researchers can adopt a set of parameters for describing and comparing different practice designs. More specifically, DST can be seen as a kind of narrative practice utilising digital communication media. This definition offers a conceptual base for DST, which helps further theorisation and research in social work practice.

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

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.

Interpersonal Social Work Skills for Community Practice

The list of social, psychological, economic, and environmental challenges requiring social work research and practice responsiveness is substantial. Conducting high-quality cultural responsive research to positively affect the social, psychological, economic, and environmental entries on the social work research to-do list is essential. On this wide-ranging list are two areas where social work research should place a stronger focus for future research. Racial inequality and poverty are serious issues in this country and require a stronger emphasis from social work research. Race and income are often included as demographic measure in research as we study other social problems. Research on racial disparities and racial differences are quite prominent in social work (Williams, 2013). Researchers have documented that when compared with white Americans, racial minorities have worse outcomes in education, income, health, behavioral health, delinquency, substance abuse, disabilities, criminal justice, safety, and chronic diseases (Auslander, Thompson, Dreitzer, White, & Santiago, 1997; Cummings, Ponce, & Mays, 2010; Hardaway, & McLoyd, 2009; Hirschl & Rank, 2010; Kington & Smith, 1997; Nguyen, Ho, & Williams, 2011; Olshansky et al., 2012; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1997; Williams et al., 2007). What we have not documented is why race is a primary predictor of these differences and disparities. Studies published in social work journals on the meaning and construction of race, racism, and race relations are rare. Developing a research literature in social work on race, racism, and race relations will reinforce our knowledge about the well-being of a significant population served by social work practitioners. Race and historical and structural racism are key factors underpinning many of the differences and disparities for African American children, families, and individuals. Research needs to examine the true causes behind these differences and disparities and move beyond just using race as a predictor. We need to understand the complexities of racial identities and the impact of structural and historical racism on the life trajectory of African Americans.