Practice-Based Research in Social Work

A Guide for Reluctant Researchers

Sarah-Jane Dodd, Irwin Epstein

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9781136581267
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Health Care Delivery

This unique textbook explores practice-based research (PBR), using numerous practice examples to actively encourage and engage students and practitioners to embrace research as a meaningful support for their practice. Whilst evidence-based practice gives practitioners access to information about "universal" best practices, it does not prioritize practitioner-generated knowledge or promote new research-based interventions relevant to their own practice circumstances as PBR does.

This book discusses the evolution of PBR as a distinct social work research approach, describes its principles and methods and presents a range of exemplars illustrating the application of PBR within different practice methods in different practice settings. The chapters cover:

• Identifying the research question in a PBR model
• Designing a study and identifying a methodology
• Sampling
• Literature reviews
• Gathering data
• Ethics
• Analyzing data and interpreting results
• Putting research into practice

Viewing the practitioner as central to the research process, and research as a necessary component of practice, this invaluable book emphasizes the seamless integration of practice and research. It is about research in social work practice rather than research on social work practice. Each chapter includes an overview, an introduction, and a key concepts summary. Practice-Based Research in Social Work is a very accessible text suitable for social work students, particularly MSW students, and practitioners.

Part 1 Introduction to PBR in Social Work Practice

DOI: 10.4324/9780203155639-1

INTRODUCTION

DOI: 10.4324/9780203155639-2

This Book's Purpose

For most students, and regretfully the majority of social work practitioners, the words “research” and “practice” occupy opposite ends of a continuum. Indeed, in most students’ and practitioners’ minds, the terms are generally separated by “versus” – as though they were at opposing corners of the boxing ring.

Nonetheless, the Code of Ethics adopted by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) in 2008 requires that “Social workers should monitor and evaluate policies, the implementation of programs, and practice interventions” and should promote and facilitate evaluation and research to contribute to the development of knowledge” (p.25). As a result, every NASW member is obliged to incorporate research into her or his practice and ideally to contribute to the development of social work’s knowledge base. Whether they do or not is another story.

In reality, compliance with this ethical obligation is left up to the practitioner. And while some social work research professors have argued that those who do not are guilty of “malpractice” (Myers and Thyer, 1997), those of us who teach research but are mindful of realistic constraints recognize that threats and punishments are no ways to win the hearts and minds of our research students as future practitioners. We do, however, think it is vital for social workers, and in particular for social work practitioners to be engaged in research, so that questions can be generated from a social work perspective and explored in social work settings. If social workers do not engage in research then we have to rely on other professions to generate knowledge for us, something that we have relied on for a long time. So our insistence on the importance of practitioners being involved in research is so that our research questions stay relevant and realistic and add a social work practice perspective to knowledge-building.

Consistent with the position taken by NASW is the recently adopted Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards 2.1.6 of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). CSWE, which accredits all Baccalaureate and Master’s degree programs in social work, requires that all social work students be prepared to “engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research” (CSWE, 2008, p.5). So whether you want to or not, as a social work student you are obliged to take at least one course in research.

Though the foregoing requirements are relatively new, the aversion of social work students to research is an old story. Despite our capacity to use research comfortably in other areas of our lives (such as when choosing a graduate school, or buying a computer) social workers balk at the idea of one or more research classes. Whether fuelled by a fear of statistics (Wilson and Rosenthal, 1993), ethical opposition to research requirements, an objection to reducing individual clients to computer categories, resistance to overly broad cultural stereotypes, the perception of research irrelevance or the simple preference to be studying something else, it is safe to say that most social work students are “reluctant” to enroll in a required research course.

Indeed, over a decade ago, Epstein (1987) characterized social work students as “research reluctants”. Writing about the social work research requirement, he noted:

No other part of the social work curriculum has been so consistently received by students with as much groaning, moaning, eye-rolling, bad-mouthing, hyperventilation and waiver-strategizing as the research courses.

(Epstein, 1987, p.71)

That was true then and, as Harder (2010) suggests, it is true today. Hence, those of us who teach research are united in a commitment to integrate practice and research. We differ however in how we try to do that. Some emphasize the ethical obligation to use the most current results of “gold standard” social work research studies so that clients receive interventions that are shown by these studies to be most effective (Gambrill, 2006). These social work researchers are identified with the evidence-based practice (EBP) movement in social work (Kirk and Reid, 2002).

The influence of this movement has extended well beyond the classroom to many social work agencies wherein “manualized” interventions based on prior research are incorporated into how social workers are expected to practice. Although there is debate among academics about how much freedom this gives or should give practitioners to be creative in their practice, manualization of practice has not been welcomed by many practitioners. While they would not disagree with its intent – to better serve clients – they object to the way it encroaches on their professional autonomy and overrides practice instincts (Epstein, 2011).

Elsewhere, Epstein (2009) has been critical of EBP for treating practitioners solely as research consumers rather than as practitioner-researchers and as potential contributors to research knowledge for the profession. Similar to the approach taken by Harder (2010) in teaching MSW research courses, he has written about the ways practitioners and PhD students in social work can “mine” routinely available agency data to inform their practice decision-making as well as to contribute to the knowledge base of social work.

The purpose of this book is to broaden that perspective and demonstrate the many ways in which research concepts and simple and ethically-acceptable research projects can contribute to the quality of your practice as a social work student and as a future professional. In other words, our purpose is to make research more “practice-friendly”, help you see it as such and, in so doing to reduce your reluctance to use it. There, we’ve said it!

At the same time, it should be clear that our intention is not to make research so appealing that you abandon practice altogether and decide to become a research professor like us – unless of course you want to. We’ve happily spent our careers doing just that and loving it. But in this book, our joint mission is to keep the word “practitioner” first and foremost in every research discussion. For you as well as for us, that rightfully means always keeping your clients’ best interests as well as your primary aspiration to be a social worker rather than a researcher firmly in mind.

Given students’ research reluctance mentioned earlier, achieving this purpose is a tall order. There are lots of required research texts on the shelves of libraries and school bookstores. Almost as many are in bookstores’ remainder bins, on student bulletin-boards and on eBay for resale until a new edition gets assigned. We’re hoping that this one is a “keeper”.

More significantly, we’re hoping that the concepts and techniques discussed and described in this book will become integrated into your practice as a student, as a future social work practitioner and throughout your career. Many of the concepts and techniques have been around as long as we have. What’s new, however, is how they are put into practice. That is the essence of practice-based research (PBR).

What is PBR?

Simply stated, PBR is research conducted by practitioners for practice purposes. The goal is to inform practice and practitioners throughout the research process. Thus, PBR emphasizes immediate practical applications by practitioner-researchers who conduct PBR studies. These studies may be conducted by individual social workers, teams of social workers or multi-disciplinary teams, with or without research consultation. When that consultation is available however, it is fully collaborative rather than dominated by research considerations (see Chapter 13, Figure 13.7). As a result, it maintains its focus on the decision-making requirements, the agency context and existing policies within which the social worker must practice – in other words, the practice reality. In addition, PBR takes into account the ethical priorities of the practitioner who initiates the study.

This sounds complex and it is. In that regard it requires that you, the practitioner-researcher, possess a flexible repertoire of research techniques and a wide-ranging research vocabulary. On the other hand, it is quite simple because PBR is so pragmatic. Just like the time-honoured social work practice principle of starting where the client is, PBR starts where the worker is and asks how research can help take the individual client, the group, the program or the community to the next step. Sometimes this may require some additional research consultation, often not.

We’re not talking “rocket science” here. Nor are we talking running lab rats through mazes. We’re talking about relatively simple modes of systematic inquiry that will inform and improve your work and your understanding of your work. But while the research itself is relatively simple, the reality in which it is conducted and to which it is applied is complex. Just like the social work reality in which you have your field placement and like any practice setting in which you will work post-graduation, the context for PBR is complex and dynamic.

A more detailed definition of PBR and a more complex model of practitioner-researcher collaboration will be presented later in the book. At this point what is most important for you to understand is that the findings of practitioner-initiated PBR are intended primarily for use in a specific practice and agency context. They may be studies to plan a new program, to better understand and/or evaluate an existing program, or all three. Or they may focus on a single client, a family or a group. The problems or phenomena that these studies address emerge directly from practice and provide “evidence-informed” answers to practitioners’ questions. Consequently, PBR is never about research for its own sake. Hence if you think of practice and research on a continuum rather than as a dichotomy (and that would be good), PBR comes closer to the practice end of that continuum.

Still, once PBR studies are completed, their methods and findings might have application and be of interest to practitioners and researchers elsewhere. That’s why some PBR studies begin with a purely local intention and are subsequently published or presented at conferences. All the better when that happens. But they never begin with the question “Wouldn’t it be interesting to know?” Instead, they require a practice-based reason why it would be interesting to know from a practice perspective, and how that information will be used in practice. So, PBR is all about applied rather than basic research. And as a practitioner-researcher (which is how we hope you will view yourself at the end of this book) the application of your PBR studies will be directly to your social work practice.

The Practitioner-Researcher or the Researcher-Practitioner?

In our unending pursuit of just the right way to integrate science and social work practice, academics have championed several practice–research integration “movements” (Kirk and Reid, 2002; Tripodi and Lalayants, 2008). Their remains litter the roadside of social work research.

Most prominent today is the evidence-based practice (EBP) movement. Simply stated, EBP is about giving priority to those interventions that have been shown to be effective through the “best possible evidence”, understood by proponents of EBP as, randomized controlled experiments. While some EBP opponents argue that many significant social work interventions for practical and ethical reasons do not lend themselves to experimental studies (e.g., provision of necessary material services, complex psycho-dynamic interventions, etc.), EBP is currently in its ascendancy in many schools of social work as well as many social agencies. In fact, in many practice contexts, governmental funding is currently also linked to an EBP philosophy.

Still, the roots of EBP in social work run deep and can be traced back to the mid-1970s when Briar (1979) championed the concept of the “scientist-practitioner”. Very much like EBP today, the scientist-practitioner as Briar saw it was one who:

• Identified client problems in measurable ways;
• Chose interventions after systematically reviewing the research literature;
• Gave preference to single interventions that were shown to be most effective through research; and then
• Evaluated their effectiveness using a “single-system” design approach.

The latter did not involve classical experimentation but stuck very close to the logic of experimentation. In other words, while all clients received interventions and none were randomly assigned to control groups and denied services, practitioners were encouraged, first to conduct “baseline measures” of client needs over several sessions before intervening to establish that these were real and not diminishing on their own; and second, to periodically “withdraw” interventions and then re-introduce them in order to establish their measurable effectiveness. Clearly, this approach gave priority to the role of “scientist” rather than to other more service-oriented conceptions of social work.

At the time, many students, practitioners and social agencies rejected this model of practice–research integration. Not surprisingly, it conjured up objectionable images of passionless social workers in lab coats treating clients as experimental objects rather than as human beings with complex problems that required complex interventions.

Today, some EBP proponents still advocate practitioner use of single-system designs to evaluate the effectiveness of individual and program interventions (McCracken and Marsh, 2008). They also emphasize the importance of the systematic review of the research literature by the practitioner or by someone who does it for the practitioner...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• Part 1 Introduction to PBR in social work practice
• Part 2 Engaging in the PBR process
• Part 3 Analyzing and interpreting results in PBR
• Additional resources
• References
• Index