Practice Research Partnerships in Social Work

Making a Difference

Fouché, Christa, Christa Fouché

• Publisher: Policy Press
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781447314004
• eBook ISBN: 9781447314028
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Science Research & Methodology
• Index: Social Sciences

Practice research partnerships in social work can make a significant difference to social work service delivery. This comprehensive, accessibly written resource, is designed to help students and practitioners to actively engage with research through their frontline work.

Through clear practice scenarios, critical questions and examples from research the text guides researchers, students, educators, practice managers, funders and practitioners to creatively explore partnerships in creating, contributing, consuming, commissioning or critiquing evidence in and for social work practice. The text encourages collaborative practice by demonstrating the transformative nature of knowledge networks to 'make a difference' in social work practice.

An essential text for students undertaking professional training at all levels as well as meeting the needs of qualified staff for continued professional development.

Part One

The relationship between practice and research

1
The nature of practice research in social work

Introduction

Have you ever considered why you do what you do? It is widely accepted that social work, by its very nature, has to deal with people’s experiences of abuse, violence, neglect, hardship, and suffering. Social workers find ways to help people manage this by working within and across systems, agencies and policies ‘at the points where people interact with their environments’ (International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), 2005, p 2). Very often this is done with limited resources, under huge public scrutiny and at relatively low rates of remuneration. It is quite sensible, then, to raise a question about why: why would you? Yet, research indicates that social workers generally have high levels of job satisfaction and often have long careers in their chosen field of practice (Collins, 2008; Fouché et al, 2013).

You will have your own reasons for being in social work. But generally, answers to this question lead to the potential for making a difference; people engaged in social work are passionate about social justice, human rights and equality and will go to great lengths to promote ‘social change, problem solving in human relationships and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well-being’ (IASSW, 2005, p 2). It flows naturally, then, that social workers wanting to make a difference will want to do no harm and, in fact, be able to convincingly state that they have effected competent change. Isn’t the very core of professional practice a commitment to competence? So the next question is: how do we know that? How do we know that what we do is, at the very least, doing no harm, but indeed making a difference? And what gives social workers the authority or right to act as if they will enable a positive difference? Is it good intentions, core values, statutory power, professional registration, accredited qualifications, certain competencies or knowledge bases? These are on-going questions and debates which will not be solved here, but it is important to at least acknowledge that the effectiveness of social work practice is a principal concern to the profession and cannot be ignored. This leads us to the need for evidence.

Commonly, social workers are positive that (most) clients express their satisfaction with services received. Or that they leave the agency with a need met. Client satisfaction is indeed a very good measure of the extent to which social workers have made a difference. However, in considering the range, scope and extent of resources utilised to enable such satisfaction, we can’t help contemplating factors such as levels of satisfaction and levels of need. Consider the following example:

Example 1.1: Making a difference

John has recently become unemployed and is experiencing hardship. He is thankful for (satisfied with) the support received from social services agencies, including food parcels, emergency housing and low-cost healthcare. Social workers have made a difference, measured by John’s improved circumstances and expressed satisfaction. But could/should more have been done to increase satisfaction and/or reach others like John? Would another type of intervention have reached John and others like him with fewer resources? Potentially, a measure of outcomes may be more, or at least equally, important in considering the effective use of resources and a measure of the difference made.

All of this places an obligation on practitioners to conduct a ‘search’ of their practice; a search for evidence of the extent to which aims are achieved (or not), needs are met (or not) and resources effectively utilised (or not). As Groundwater-Smith et al (2013) urge, practitioners should be encouraged to express not only their opinions, but how they arrived at those opinions. And if you are of the opinion that change has occurred, the question is: ‘Is this change really an improvement and for whom is it an improvement?’ (Groundwater-Smith et al, 2013, p 22). This search and re-search of practice highlights the interface and relationship between social work practice and research. This chapter will look at how this relationship has developed and its significance, and will contextualise practitioner research with reference to the current climate, including the call for reflective practice and research-mindedness. You will be encouraged to ponder the implications of that in your own context through a series of reflection exercises throughout the book.

Reflection exercise 1.1: The place of evidence

1 How do you know that what you do is at the very least doing no harm, but at best making a difference?

2 What gives you the authority or right to make decisions about the best intervention?

3 Is the effectiveness of social work practice a principal concern to you?

The development of practitioner research

A number of factors have driven the recent interest in research: economic and managerial realities (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and efficiency); wider accountability agendas; public confidence; user demand; context of registration and professionalism; global push around evidence-based, evidence-informed activity; influences of other professions; and a growing need for understanding increasingly diverse client groups. In response to these pressures, research can add to existing knowledge; address particular issues of concern; find out what our clients think of services; explore particular needs in an area; influence policy makers; convince funders; provide voice for users; change the ways in which things are done; or develop and test new interventions. There is a robust tradition in social work on research informing practice. Yet, the domain of responsibility for producing and utilising such research seems unclear. As Orme and Shemmings (2010) remind us, social work has been identified as having a deficit in research capacity both in research produced and in its utilisation by practitioners. Few professionals actively engage in or draw on practice-related research findings, with a few studies over a period of time successively reporting on this: a survey of social work journals by Rosen et al (1999) revealed relatively little research on interventions, and that much of that research had basic methodological flaws; Sheldon and Chilvers (2000) reported that of the social workers surveyed (2,285), 18 per cent have read absolutely no practice-related material in the previous six months. It is most important to note, though, that these reports also make reference to the respondents reportedly being dissatisfied with the situation. Even though research probably occupies the minds of educators and students more, Mills et al (2006), in a demographic review of the social sciences, identify that only a small number of social work academics in the UK were effectively undertaking research.

The expectations for evidence, accountability and demonstrable outcomes are nothing new. Way back in 1915, at an early international conference on social work, Abraham Flexner described social work as ‘hardly eligible for the status of a profession’ and faulted social work for ‘not having a specific, separate, scientific body of knowledge’ (Kirk and Reid, 2002, pp 1–6). In 1964, the US professional body the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) conducted its own investigation into developments with regard to the professional standing of social work and concluded that: ‘Social Work has not produced a systematic body of knowledge, although it exhibits many of the characteristics of a profession’ (NASW, 1964, p iii). By 1973, a seminal development in these debates was published, namely the article by Joel Fischer (1973) entitled: ‘Is social work effective?’ Subsequently to this publication, a number of studies were reported and debates published during the 1970s and 1980s on ‘what works’, convincing the profession that indeed social work is effective. These included articles on developments of ‘scientifically based’ practice. One of these was an article by Wood claiming that the principles of quality practice include clients’ experience of the intervention (Wood, 1978). This introduced an important direction in the development of the debates on effectiveness of social work by valuing the client experience. The focus then turned to articles offering alternative research designs or ‘improvements’ in existing designs, aimed at increasing social workers’ capacity to demonstrate effectiveness (Reid and Hanrahan, 1982). This eventually led to the introduction of the ‘scientist-practitioner vs. practitioner-scientist’ paradigm in the 1990s. This paradigm has resurfaced in many guises over the years, but basically remains the same at its core, namely that practitioners have a responsibility and obligation to generate and use research in practice.

It is interesting to note that the nature of these discussions varied across the globe, influenced by the local standing of social work in different contexts. Consistently and increasingly, the nature of that responsibility has also been debated, as will be highlighted in the section below. Most recently, the practice–research paradigms included those on evidence-based practice (EBP), evidence-informed or evidence-influenced practice and its many critiques. The EBP movement originated to some degree in the US and the field of evidence-based medicine (EBM), which is defined as treatment based on the best available science. In the 1990s EBM became ‘the fashionable coinage to describe a process of self-consciously incorporating research evidence into medical practice’ (Pope, 2003, p 269). As Corby (2006) summarises, the main tenets of the evidence-based movement were that professional interventions should be based on research findings about what was effective and that therefore research should reflect these concerns and form the basis of professional training and practice. This clearly builds on the considerable activity over many decades to develop a research-informed knowledge base for social work.

This paradigm has rapidly expanded to other social and human service professions and was eventually defined in the Social Work Dictionary (Barker, 2003, p 189) as ‘the use of the best available scientific knowledge derived from randomised controlled outcome studies and meta-analysis of existing outcome studies as one basis for guiding professional interventions and effective therapies, combined with professional ethical standards, clinical judgement and practice wisdom’. Gilgun (2005) later aligned this to the four cornerstones of social work: research and theory; practice wisdom; the person of the practitioner; and what clients bring to practice situations. Not surprisingly, there has been a good deal of spirited debate both for and against EBP. Some authors are highly critical of this movement, emphasising the methodological weaknesses and poor fit with social work activities because of the complexities inherent in practice (Webb, 2001; Hammersley, 2005), while its proponents see it as a rational, science-based activity and a moral obligation (Gambrill, 2003; Thyer, 2004). Gray et al (2009) provide a comprehensive and analytical discussion of the nature of evidence on social work and the many debates and interpretations of EBP, concluding that it is a subject fraught with controversy. Of note is their observation that EBP is very different from empirical clinical practice and is not simply about how social workers use evidence to inform everyday decisions. By positioning EBP as a much more complex process of formalisation, they question it as a paradigm in the ‘scientist-practitioner’ debates. This is very different from the stance of another strong proponent of EBP, Thyer (2004), who regards this movement as expanding on prior initiatives, including the model of scientist-practitioner training. These on-going discussions are important and relevant to our consideration of the tenuous relationship between social work practice and research over many decades. However, there is no need in the context of this book for further exploration of these debates and opposing points of view, other than to encourage you to consider these EBP debates as one of many over the years to contextualise the nature of practice research. As such, the discussion can now turn to a discussion on practice research.

According to Epstein (2001), there are two main approaches to social work research: research-based practice (RBP) and practice-based research (PBR). The distinction between these two approaches lies in the underlying view of how to conduct research. RBP starts from social science or social work theory and its aim is research on practice. In RBP there is high regard and priority for randomised control groups, requiring some service users to not receive treatment. It seeks to collect data in the future and depends on using standardised quantitative research instruments. This approach is collaborative but may put the needs of research over what is best in practice. This form of research can be costly and disruptive to both social work practitioners and service users (Epstein, 2001) and is associated with the empirical EBP movement in the US and, as will become clear below, is also associated with the ‘narrow stream’ approach outlined by Shaw (2005). PBR, conversely, is inspired by social work practice and is derived from practice wisdom. PBR sets out to answer questions that have been raised in practice. This approach does not require experimental control groups. It can either use available clinical information or seek to go about collecting data in the future. This approach can be quantitative or qualitative but requires employing instruments that are tailored to practice needs. It is also collaborative, but the needs of practice overrule research requirements. Epstein (2001) argues that PBR therefore is more manageable for practitioners and service users, as research is derived within the natural processes of the organisation and does not impose ideas or techniques from outside of practice. In more recent publications, this notion of PBR has been narrowed to ‘research conducted by practitioners for practice purposes’ (Dodd and Epstein, 2012, p 5). A range of publications by the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy (NRDC) focus on practitioner-led research initiatives (see Hamilton and Wilson, 2006; Hamilton et al, 2007; and Hamilton and James, 2007). However, for all sorts of reasons social work practitioners rarely conduct research on their own – other than for advanced qualifications – and the challenge remains for how to generate and use research in practice. Shaw and Holland (2014, p 16) warn, though, that ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ research and practice are not two wholly distinct areas that need mechanisms to connect them, but are to a significant degree part and parcel of one another.

Shaw (2005) introduces the notion of ‘narrow stream’ and ‘broad stream’ approaches to practice research in the UK, which is very similar to the debates regarding RBP and PBR introduced by Irwin Epstein in the US. According to Shaw (2005), narrow-stream EBP is primarily driven by academia; is powerfully associated with the empirical practice movement in the US; engages in a more confined use of the term ‘evidence-based practice’; and its supporters are in favour of particular interventions, normally demonstrated to be effective via experimental designs. Broad-stream EBP, on the other hand, is practice driven with a focus on accountability; emphasises partnerships between practitioners and researchers; supports easier access to data; promotes the dissemination of research findings in easy-to-understand formats; focuses on outcome issues in practice; and has introduced debates on terminology in this regard, including notions of evidence-informed or evidence-led practice rather than EBP (Shaw, 2005). Practice research in this book will be presented as a collaborative effort by a range of stakeholders to advance understanding of practice issues and to make a difference to practice.

Reflection exercise 1.2: Your relationship with research

1 What is usually your initial reaction when you hear someone reporting on the findings of research?

2 Do you personally think research has a place in practice? Why?

Parallel to these debates in the UK and US, dialogues about reflective practice, reflexive practice and research-mindedness were continuing. From the beginning, the inherent goal of the scientist-practitioner paradigm was to stimulate research-mindedness and critical thinking among professional practitioners. In the current climate, practitioner research is very prominently linked to the call for reflective, critical reflective and reflexive practice as well as research-mindedness (Orme and Shemmings, 2010; Thompson and Pascal, 2012). Reflective practice is regarded as practice accompanied by ‘thinking in action’ or ‘thinking on action’ (Schön, 1983), with knowledge developed from the personal experience and the expertise of practitioners and service users (Gilgun, 2005). Reflexive practice is a form of practice that looks back on itself, that is premised on self-analysis. Reflexivity is a key part of making sure that reflective practice is critically reflective practice, according to Thompson and Pascal (2012). This construct has its origins in the Latin word reflexus, meaning ‘to bend back’ or to ‘stand apart from’. Reflection can, as such, be described as the ability to step back and pose questions about why things are done in a certain way. Reflexivity will help us ponder questions on how we could have done it differently.

It is not difficult, then, to see its relationship with practitioner research – where we aim to answer questions that have been raised in practice. By engaging in reflective practice, we ‘take a step back’ to reconsider what we have done and to examine ways to do it better. This exploration assumes a ‘mindedness’, an individual’s capacity for reflection. Research-mindedness therefore requires practitioners to display an understanding of the use of research to inform practice. A considerable number of authors have in recent years made mention of research-mindedness in their writing with a ‘research mindedness in social work and social care’ test funded by the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) to enable practitioners to ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Social Work in Practice series
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures and tables
• List of examples
• List of reflection exercises
• Glossary
• Introduction
• Part One: The relationship between practice and research
• Part Two: Designing practice research
• Part Three: Nurturing networks
• References