social work in research methods

Social Work Research Methods That Drive the Practice

A social worker surveys a community member.

Social workers advocate for the well-being of individuals, families and communities. But how do social workers know what interventions are needed to help an individual? How do they assess whether a treatment plan is working? What do social workers use to write evidence-based policy?

Social work involves research-informed practice and practice-informed research. At every level, social workers need to know objective facts about the populations they serve, the efficacy of their interventions and the likelihood that their policies will improve lives. A variety of social work research methods make that possible.

Data-Driven Work

Data is a collection of facts used for reference and analysis. In a field as broad as social work, data comes in many forms.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

As with any research, social work research involves both quantitative and qualitative studies.

Quantitative Research

Answers to questions like these can help social workers know about the populations they serve — or hope to serve in the future.

How many students currently receive reduced-price school lunches in the local school district?
How many hours per week does a specific individual consume digital media?
How frequently did community members access a specific medical service last year?

Quantitative data — facts that can be measured and expressed numerically — are crucial for social work.

Quantitative research has advantages for social scientists. Such research can be more generalizable to large populations, as it uses specific sampling methods and lends itself to large datasets. It can provide important descriptive statistics about a specific population. Furthermore, by operationalizing variables, it can help social workers easily compare similar datasets with one another.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative data — facts that cannot be measured or expressed in terms of mere numbers or counts — offer rich insights into individuals, groups and societies. It can be collected via interviews and observations.

What attitudes do students have toward the reduced-price school lunch program?
What strategies do individuals use to moderate their weekly digital media consumption?
What factors made community members more or less likely to access a specific medical service last year?

Qualitative research can thereby provide a textured view of social contexts and systems that may not have been possible with quantitative methods. Plus, it may even suggest new lines of inquiry for social work research.

Mixed Methods Research

Combining quantitative and qualitative methods into a single study is known as mixed methods research. This form of research has gained popularity in the study of social sciences, according to a 2019 report in the academic journal Theory and Society. Since quantitative and qualitative methods answer different questions, merging them into a single study can balance the limitations of each and potentially produce more in-depth findings.

However, mixed methods research is not without its drawbacks. Combining research methods increases the complexity of a study and generally requires a higher level of expertise to collect, analyze and interpret the data. It also requires a greater level of effort, time and often money.

The Importance of Research Design

Data-driven practice plays an essential role in social work. Unlike philanthropists and altruistic volunteers, social workers are obligated to operate from a scientific knowledge base.

To know whether their programs are effective, social workers must conduct research to determine results, aggregate those results into comprehensible data, analyze and interpret their findings, and use evidence to justify next steps.

Employing the proper design ensures that any evidence obtained during research enables social workers to reliably answer their research questions.

Research Methods in Social Work

The various social work research methods have specific benefits and limitations determined by context. Common research methods include surveys, program evaluations, needs assessments, randomized controlled trials, descriptive studies and single-system designs.

Surveys involve a hypothesis and a series of questions in order to test that hypothesis. Social work researchers will send out a survey, receive responses, aggregate the results, analyze the data, and form conclusions based on trends.

Surveys are one of the most common research methods social workers use — and for good reason. They tend to be relatively simple and are usually affordable. However, surveys generally require large participant groups, and self-reports from survey respondents are not always reliable.

Program Evaluations

Social workers ally with all sorts of programs: after-school programs, government initiatives, nonprofit projects and private programs, for example.

Crucially, social workers must evaluate a program’s effectiveness in order to determine whether the program is meeting its goals and what improvements can be made to better serve the program’s target population.

Evidence-based programming helps everyone save money and time, and comparing programs with one another can help social workers make decisions about how to structure new initiatives. Evaluating programs becomes complicated, however, when programs have multiple goal metrics, some of which may be vague or difficult to assess (e.g., “we aim to promote the well-being of our community”).

Needs Assessments

Social workers use needs assessments to identify services and necessities that a population lacks access to.

Common social work populations that researchers may perform needs assessments on include:

People in a specific income group
Everyone in a specific geographic region
A specific ethnic group
People in a specific age group

In the field, a social worker may use a combination of methods (e.g., surveys and descriptive studies) to learn more about a specific population or program. Social workers look for gaps between the actual context and a population’s or individual’s “wants” or desires.

For example, a social worker could conduct a needs assessment with an individual with cancer trying to navigate the complex medical-industrial system. The social worker may ask the client questions about the number of hours they spend scheduling doctor’s appointments, commuting and managing their many medications. After learning more about the specific client needs, the social worker can identify opportunities for improvements in an updated care plan.

In policy and program development, social workers conduct needs assessments to determine where and how to effect change on a much larger scale. Integral to social work at all levels, needs assessments reveal crucial information about a population’s needs to researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders. Needs assessments may fall short, however, in revealing the root causes of those needs (e.g., structural racism).

Randomized Controlled Trials

Randomized controlled trials are studies in which a randomly selected group is subjected to a variable (e.g., a specific stimulus or treatment) and a control group is not. Social workers then measure and compare the results of the randomized group with the control group in order to glean insights about the effectiveness of a particular intervention or treatment.

Randomized controlled trials are easily reproducible and highly measurable. They’re useful when results are easily quantifiable. However, this method is less helpful when results are not easily quantifiable (i.e., when rich data such as narratives and on-the-ground observations are needed).

Descriptive Studies

Descriptive studies immerse the researcher in another context or culture to study specific participant practices or ways of living. Descriptive studies, including descriptive ethnographic studies, may overlap with and include other research methods:

Informant interviews
Census data
Observation

By using descriptive studies, researchers may glean a richer, deeper understanding of a nuanced culture or group on-site. The main limitations of this research method are that it tends to be time-consuming and expensive.

Single-System Designs

Unlike most medical studies, which involve testing a drug or treatment on two groups — an experimental group that receives the drug/treatment and a control group that does not — single-system designs allow researchers to study just one group (e.g., an individual or family).

Single-system designs typically entail studying a single group over a long period of time and may involve assessing the group’s response to multiple variables.

For example, consider a study on how media consumption affects a person’s mood. One way to test a hypothesis that consuming media correlates with low mood would be to observe two groups: a control group (no media) and an experimental group (two hours of media per day). When employing a single-system design, however, researchers would observe a single participant as they watch two hours of media per day for one week and then four hours per day of media the next week.

These designs allow researchers to test multiple variables over a longer period of time. However, similar to descriptive studies, single-system designs can be fairly time-consuming and costly.

Learn More About Social Work Research Methods

Social workers have the opportunity to improve the social environment by advocating for the vulnerable — including children, older adults and people with disabilities — and facilitating and developing resources and programs.

Learn more about how you can earn your Master of Social Work online at Virginia Commonwealth University . The highest-ranking school of social work in Virginia, VCU has a wide range of courses online. That means students can earn their degrees with the flexibility of learning at home. Learn more about how you can take your career in social work further with VCU.

From M.S.W. to LCSW: Understanding Your Career Path as a Social Worker

How Palliative Care Social Workers Support Patients With Terminal Illnesses

How to Become a Social Worker in Health Care

Gov.uk, Mixed Methods Study

MVS Open Press, Foundations of Social Work Research

Open Social Work Education, Scientific Inquiry in Social Work

Open Social Work, Graduate Research Methods in Social Work: A Project-Based Approach

Routledge, Research for Social Workers: An Introduction to Methods

SAGE Publications, Research Methods for Social Work: A Problem-Based Approach

Theory and Society, Mixed Methods Research: What It Is and What It Could Be

READY TO GET STARTED WITH OUR ONLINE M.S.W. PROGRAM FORMAT?

Bachelor’s degree is required.

VCU Program Helper

This AI chatbot provides automated responses, which may not always be accurate. By continuing with this conversation, you agree that the contents of this chat session may be transcribed and retained. You also consent that this chat session and your interactions, including cookie usage, are subject to our privacy policy .

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication
Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation

Social Work

Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Social Work Research Methods

Introduction.

History of Social Work Research Methods
Feasibility Issues Influencing the Research Process
Measurement Methods
Existing Scales
Group Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Evaluating Outcome
Single-System Designs for Evaluating Outcome
Program Evaluation
Surveys and Sampling
Introductory Statistics Texts
Advanced Aspects of Inferential Statistics
Qualitative Research Methods
Qualitative Data Analysis
Historical Research Methods
Meta-Analysis and Systematic Reviews
Research Ethics
Culturally Competent Research Methods
Teaching Social Work Research Methods

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Abolitionist Perspectives in Social Work
Randomized Controlled Trials in Social Work
Social Work Practice with Transgender and Gender Expansive Youth
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Scientific Inquiry in Social Work

(9 reviews)

Matthew DeCarlo, Radford University

ISBN 13: 9781975033729

Publisher: Open Social Work Education

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Shannon Blajeski, Assistant Professor, Portland State University on 3/10/23

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This book provides an introduction to research and inquiry in social work with an applied focus geared for the MSW student. The text covers 16 chapters, including several dedicated to understanding how to begin the research process, a chapter on ethics, and then eight chapters dedicated to research methods. The subchapters (1-5 per chapter) are concise and focused while also being tied to current knowledge and events so as to hold the reader's attention. It is comprehensive, but some of the later chapters covering research methods as well as the final chapter seem a bit scant and could be expanded. The glossary at the end of each chapter is helpful as is the index that is always accessible from the left-hand drop-down menu.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

The author pulls in relevant current and recent public events to illustrate important points about social research throughout the book. Each sub-chapter reads as accurate. I did not come across any inaccuracies in the text, however I would recommend a change in the title of Chapter 15 as "real world research" certainly encompasses more than program evaluation, single-subject designs, and action research.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

Another major strength of this book is that it adds currency to engage the reader while also maintaining its relevance to research methods. None of the current events/recent events that are described seem dated nor will they fade from relevance in a number of years. In addition, the concise nature of the modules should make them easy to update when needed to maintain relevancy in future editions.

Clarity rating: 5

Clarity is a major strength of this textbook. As described in the interface section, this book is written to be clear and concise, without unnecessary extra text that detracts from the concise content provided in each chapter. Any lengthy excerpts are also very engaging which lends itself to a clear presentation of content for the reader.

Consistency rating: 5

The text and content seems to be presented consistently throughout the book. Terminology and frameworks are balanced with real-world examples and current events.

Modularity rating: 5

The chapters of this textbook are appropriately spaced and easily digestible, particularly for readers with time constraints. Each chapter contains 3-5 sub-chapters that build upon each other in a scaffolding style. This makes it simple for the instructor to assign each chapter (sometimes two) per weekly session as well as add in additional assigned readings to complement the text.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The overall organization of the chapters flow well. The book begins with a typical introduction to research aimed at social work practitioners or new students in social work. It then moves into a set of chapters on beginning a research project, reviewing literature, and asking research questions, followed by a chapter on ethics. Next, the text transitions to three chapters covering constructs, measurement, and sampling, followed by five chapters covering research methods, and a closing chapter on dissemination of research. This is one of the more logically-organized research methods texts that I have used as an instructor.

Interface rating: 5

The modular chapters are easy to navigate and the interface of each chapter follows a standard presentation style with the reading followed by a short vocabulary glossary and references. This presentation lends itself to a familiarity for students that helps them become more efficient with completing reading assignments, even in short bursts of time. This is particularly important for online and returning learners who may juggle their assignment time with family and work obligations.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

No grammatical errors were noted.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

At first glance at the table of contents, the book doesn't seem to be overtly committed to cultural representation, however, upon reading the chapters, it becomes clear that the author does try to represent and reference marginalized groups (e.g., women, individuals with disabilities, racial/ethnic/gender intersectionality) within the examples used. I also am very appreciative that the bottom of each introduction page for each chapter contains content trigger warnings for any possible topics that could be upsetting, e.g., substance abuse, violence.

As the author likely knows, social work students are eager to engage in learning that is current and relevant to their social causes. This book is written in a way that engages a non-researcher social worker into reading about research by weaving research information into topics that they might find compelling. It also does this in a concise way where short bits of pertinent information are presented, making the text accessible without needing to sustain long periods of attention. This is particularly important for online and returning learners who may need to sit with their readings in short bursts due to attending school while juggling work and family obligations.

Reviewed by Lynn Goerdt, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin - Superior on 9/17/21

Text appears to be comprehensive in covering steps for typical SWK research class, taking students from the introduction of the purpose and importance of research to how to design and analyze research. Author covers the multitude of ways that social workers engage in research as way of building knowledge and ways that social work practitioners conduct research to evaluate their practice, including outcome evaluation, single subject design, and action research. I particularly appreciated the last section on reporting research, which should be very practical.

Overall, content appears mostly accurate which few errors. Definitions and citations are mostly thorough and clear. Author does cite Wikipedia in at least one occasion which could be credible, depending on the source of the Wikipedia content. There were a few references within the text to comic or stories but the referenced material was not always apparent.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The content of Scientific Inquiry for Social Work is relevant, as the field of social work research methods does not appear to change quickly, although there are innovations. The author referenced examples which appear to be recent and likely relatable to interests of current students. Primary area of innovation is in using technology for the collection and analysis of data, which could be expanded, particularly using social media for soliciting research participants.

Style is personable and content appears to be accessible, which is a unique attribute for a research textbook. Author uses first person in many instances, particularly in the beginning to present the content as relatable.

Format appears to be consistent in format and relative length. Each chapter includes learning objectives, content advisory (if applicable), key takeaways and glossary. Author uses color and text boxes to draw attention to these sections.

Modularity rating: 4

Text is divided into modules which could easily be assigned and reviewed in a class. The text modules could also be re-structured if desired to fit curricular uniqueness’s. Author uses images to illuminate the concepts of the module or chapter, but they often take about 1/3 of the page, which extends the size of the textbook quite a bit. Unclear if benefit of images outweighs additional cost if PDF version is printed.

Textbook is organized in a very logical and clear fashion. Each section appears to be approximately 6-10 pages in length which seems to be an optimal length for student attention and comprehension.

Interface rating: 4

There were some distortions of the text (size and visibility) but they were a fairly minor distraction and did not appear to reduce access to the content. Otherwise text was easy to navigate.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

No grammatical errors were noted but hyperlinks to outside content were referenced but not always visible which occasionally resulted in an awkward read. Specific link may be in resources section of each chapter but occasionally they were also included in the text.

I did not recognize any text which was culturally insensitive or offensive. Images used which depicted people, appeared to represent diverse experiences, cultures, settings and persons. Did notice image depicting homelessness appeared to be stereotypical person sleeping on sidewalk, which can perpetuate a common perception of homelessness. Would encourage author to consider images representing a wider range of experiences of a social phenomena. Content advisories are used for each section, which is not necessarily cultural relevance but is respectful and recognizes the diversity of experiences and triggers that the readers may have.

Overall, I was very impressed and encouraged with the well organized content and thoughtful flow of this important textbook for social work students and instructors. The length and readability of each chapter would likely be appreciated by instructors as well as students, increasing the extent that the learning outcomes would be achieved. Teaching research is very challenging because the content and application can feel very intimidating. The author also has provided access to supplemental resources such as presentations and assignments.

Reviewed by elaine gatewood, Adjunct Faculty, Bridgewater State University on 6/15/21

The book provides concrete and clear information on using research as consumers, It provides a comprehensive review of each step to take to develop a research project from beginning to completion, with examples. read more

Content Accuracy rating: 5

From my perspective, content is highly accurate in the field of learning research method and unbiased. It's all there!

The content is highly relevant and up-to-date in the field. The book is written and arranged in a way that its easy to follow along with adding updates.

The book is written in clear and concise. The book provides appropriate context for any jargon/technical terminology used along with examples which readers are able to follow along and understand.

The contents of the book flow quite well. The framework in the book is consistent.

The text appears easily adaptable for readers and the author also provides accompanying PowerPoint presentations; these are a good foundation tools for readers to use and implement.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The contents of the book flow very well. Readers would be able to put into practice the key reading strategies shared in the book ) because its organization is laid out nicely

Interface rating: 3

The interface is generally good, but I was only able to download the .pdf. This may present issues for some student readers.

There are no grammatical errors.

The text was culturally relevant and provided diverse research and practice examples. The text could have benefited from sexamples of intersectional and anti-oppressive lenses for students to consider in their practice.

This text is a comprehensive introduction to research that can be easily adapted for a BSW/MSW research course.

Reviewed by Taylor Hall, Assistant Professor, Bridgewater State University on 6/30/20

This text is more comprehensive than the text I currently use in my Research Methods in Social Work course, which students have to pay for. This text not only covers both qualitative and quantitative research methods, but also all parts of the research process from thinking about research ideas to questions all the way to evaluation after social work programs/policies have been employed.

Not much to say here- with research methods, things are black and white; it is or isn't. This content is accurate. I also like to way the content is explained in light of social work values and ethics. This is something our students can struggle with, and this is helpful in terms of showing why social work needs to pay attention to research.

There are upcoming changes to CSWE's competencies, therefore lots of text materials are going to need to be updated soon. Otherwise, case examples are pertinent and timely.

Clarity rating: 4

I think that research methods for social workers is a difficult field of study. Many go into the field to be clinicians, and few understand (off the bat) the importance of understanding methods of research. I think this textbook makes it clear to me, but hard to rate a 5 as I know from a student's perspective, lots of the terminology is so new.

Appears to be so- I was able to follow, seems consistent.

Yes- and I think this is a strong point of this text. This was easy to follow and read, and I could see myself easily divvying up different sections for students to work on in groups.

Yes- makes sense to me and the way I teach this course. I like the 30,000 ft view then honing in on specific types of research, all along the way explaining the different pieces of the research process and in writing a research paper.

I sometimes struggle with online platforms versus in person texts to read, and this OER is visually appealing- there is not too much text on the pages, it is spaced in a way that makes it easier to read. Colors are used well to highlight pertinent information.

Not something I found in this text.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

This is a place where I feel the text could use some work. A nod to past wrongdoings in research methods on oppressed groups, and more of a discussion on social work's role in social justice with an eye towards righting the wrongs of the past. Updated language re: person first language, more diverse examples, etc.

This is a very useful text, and I am going to recommend my department check it out for future use, especially as many of our students are first gen and working class and would love to save money on textbooks where possible.

Reviewed by Olubunmi Oyewuwo-Gassikia, Assistant Professor, Northeastern Illinois University on 5/5/20

This text is an appropriate and comprehensive introduction to research methods for BSW students. It guides the reader through each stage of the research project, including identifying a research question, conducting and writing a literature review, research ethics, theory, research design, methodology, sampling, and dissemination. The author explains complex concepts - such as paradigms, epistemology, and ontology - in clear, simple terms and through the use of practical, social work examples for the reader. I especially appreciated the balanced attention to quantitative and qualitative methods, including the explanation of data collection and basic analysis techniques for both. The text could benefit from the inclusion of an explanation of research design notations.

The text is accurate and unbiased. Additionally, the author effectively incorporates referenced sources, including sources one can use for further learning.

The content is relevant and timely. The author incorporates real, recent research examples that reflects the applicability of research at each level of social practice (micro, meso, and macro) throughout the text. The text will benefit from regular updates in research examples.

The text is written in a clear, approachable manner. The chapters are a reasonable length without sacrificing appropriate depth into the subject manner.

The text is consistent throughout. The author is effective in reintroducing previously explained terms from previous chapters.

The text appears easily adaptable. The instructions provided by the author on how to adapt the text for one's course are helpful to one who would like to use the text but not in its entirety. The author also provides accompanying PowerPoint presentations; these are a good foundation but will likely require tailoring based on the teaching style of the instructor.

Generally, the text flows well. However, chapter 5 (Ethics) should come earlier, preferably before chapter 3 (Reviewing & Evaluating the Literature). It is important that students understand research ethics as ethical concerns are an important aspect of evaluating the quality of research studies. Chapter 15 (Real-World Research) should also come earlier in the text, most suitably before or after chapter 7 (Design and Causality).

The interface is generally good, but I was only able to download the .pdf. The setup of the .pdf is difficult to navigate, especially if one wants to jump from chapter to chapter. This may present issues for the student reader.

The text was culturally relevant and provided diverse research and practice examples. The text could have benefited from more critical research examples, such as examples of research studies that incorporate intersectional and anti-oppressive lenses.

This text is a comprehensive introduction to research that can be easily adapted for a BSW level research course.

Reviewed by Smita Dewan, Assistant Professor, New York City College of Technology, Department of Human Services on 12/6/19

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

This is a very good introductory research methodology textbook for undergraduate students of social work or human services. For students who might be intimidated by social research, the text provides assurance that by learning basic concepts of research methodology, students will be better scholars and social work or human service practitioners. The content and flow of the text book supports a basic assignment of most research methodology courses which is to develop a research proposal or a research project. Each stage of research is explained well with many examples from social work practice that has the potential to keep the student engaged.

The glossary at the end of each chapter is very comprehensive but does not include the page number/s where the content is located. The glossary at the end of the book also lacks page numbers which might make it cumbersome for students seeking a quick reference.

The content is accurate and unbiased. Suggested exercises and prompts for students to engage in critical thinking and to identify biases in research that informs practice may help students understand the complexities of social research.

Content is up-to-date and concepts of research methodology presented is unlikely to be obsolete in the coming years. However, recent trends in research such as data mining, using algorithms for social policy and practice implications, privacy concerns, role of social media are topics that could be considered for inclusion in the forthcoming editions.

Content is presented very clearly for undergraduate students. Key takeaways and glossary for each section of the chapter is very useful for students.

Presentation of content, format and organization is consistent throughout the book.

Subsections within each chapter is very helpful for the students who might be assigned readings just in parts for the class.

Students would benefit from reading about research ethics right after the introductory chapter. I would also move Chapter 8 to right after the literature review which might inform creating and refining the research question. Content on evaluation research could also be moved up to follow the chapter on experimental designs. Regardless of the organization, the course instructors can assign chapters according to the course requirements.

PDF version of the book is very easy to use especially as students can save a copy on their computers and do not have to be online. Charts and tables are well presented but some of the images/photographs do not necessarily serve to enhance learning. Image attributions could be provided at the end of the chapter instead of being listed under the glossary. Students might also find it useful to be able to highlight the content and make annotations. This requires that students sign-in. Students should be able to highlight and annotate a downloaded version through Adobe Reader.

I did not find any grammatical errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

Content is not insensitive or offensive in any way. Supporting examples in chapters are very diverse. Students would benefit from some examples of international research (both positive and negative examples) of protection of human subjects.

Reviewed by Jill Hoffman, Assistant Professor, Portland State University on 10/29/19

This text includes 16 chapters that cover content related to the process of conducting research. From identifying a topic and reviewing the literature, to formulating a question, designing a study, and disseminating findings, the text includes research basics that most other introductory social work research texts include. Content on ethics, theory, and to a lesser extent evaluation, single-subject design, and action research are also included. There is a glossary at the end of the text that includes information on the location of the terms. There is a practice behaviors index, but not an index in the traditional sense. If using the text electronically, search functions make it easy to find necessary information despite not having an index. If using a printed version, this would be more difficult. The text includes examples to illustrate concepts that are relevant to settings in which social workers might work. As most other introductory social work research texts, this book appears to come from a mainly positivist view. I would have appreciated more of a discussion related to power, privilege, and oppression and the role these play in the research topics that get studied and who benefits, along with anti-oppressive research. Related to evaluations, a quick mention of logic models would be helpful.

The information appears to be accurate and error free. The language in the text seems to emphasize "right/wrong" choices/decisions instead of highlighting the complexities of research and practice. Using gender-neutral pronouns would also make the language more inclusive.

Content appears to be up-to-date and relevant. Any updating would be straightforward to carry out. I found at least one link that did not work (e.g., NREPP) so if you use this text it will be important to check and make sure things are updated.

The content is clearly written, using examples to illustrate various concepts. I appreciated prompts for questions throughout each chapter in order to engage students in the content. Key terms are bolded, which helps to easily identify important points.

Information is presented in a consistent manner throughout the text.

Each chapter is divided into subsections that help with readability. It is easy to pick and choose various pieces of the text for your course if you're not using the entire thing.

There are many ways you can organize a social work research text. Personally, I prefer to talk about ethics and theory early on, so that students have this as a framework as they read about other's studies and design their own. In the case of this text, I'd put those two chapters right after chapter 1. As others have suggested, I'd also move up the content on research questions, perhaps after chapter 4.

In the online version, no significant interface issues arose. The only thing that would be helpful is to have chapter titles clearly presented when navigating through the text in the online version. For example, when you click through to a new chapter, the title simply says "6.0 Chapter introduction." In order to see the chapter title you have to click into the contents tab. Not a huge issue but could help with navigating the online version. In the pdf version, the links in the table of contents allowed me to navigate through to various sections. I did notice that some of the external links were not complete (e.g., on page 290, the URL is linked as "http://baby-").

Cultural representation in the text is similar to many other introductory social work research texts. There's more of an emphasis on white, western, cis-gendered individuals, particularly in the images. In examples, it appeared that only male/female pronouns were used.

Reviewed by Monica Roth Day, Associate Professor, Social Work, Metropolitan State University (Saint Paul, Minnesota) on 12/26/18

The book provides concrete and clear information on using research as consumers, then developing research as producers of knowledge. It provides a comprehensive review of each step to take to develop a research project from beginning to completion, with appropriate examples. More specific social work links would be helpful as students learn more about the field and the uses of research.

The book is accurate and communicates information and largely without bias. Numerous examples are provided from varied sources, which are then used to discuss potential for bias in research. The addition of critical race theory concepts would add to this discussion, to ground students in the importance of understanding implicit bias as researchers and ways to develop their own awareness.

The book is highly relevant. It provides historical and current examples of research which communicate concepts using accessible language that is current to social work. The text is written so that updates should be easy. Links need to be updated on a regular basis.

The book is accessible for students at it uses common language to communicate concepts while helping students build their research vocabulary. Terminology is communicate both within the text and in glossaries, and technical terms are minimally used.

The book is consistent in its use of terminology and framework. It follows a pattern of development, from consuming research to producing research. The steps are predictable and walk students through appropriate actions to take.

The book is easily readable. Each chapter is divided in sections that are easy to navigate and understand. Pictures and tables are used to support text.

Chapters are in logical order and follow a common pattern.

When reading the book online, the text was largely free of interface issues. As a PDF, there were issues with formatting. Be aware that students who may wish to download the book into a Kindle or other book reader may experience issues.

The text was grammatically correct with no misspellings.

While the book is culturally relevant, it lacks the application of critical race theory. While students will learn about bias in research, critical race theory would ground students in the importance of understanding implicit bias as researchers and ways to develop their own awareness. It would also help students understand why the background of researchers is important in relation to the ways of knowing.

Reviewed by Jennifer Wareham, Associate Professor, Wayne State University on 11/30/18

The book provides a comprehensive introduction to research methods from the perspective of the discipline of Social Work. The book borrows heavily from Amy Blackstone’s Principles of Sociological Inquiry – Qualitative and Quantitative Methods open textbook. The book is divided into 16 chapters, covering: differences in reasoning and scientific thought, starting a research project, writing a literature review, ethics in social science research, how theory relates to research, research design, causality, measurement, sampling, survey research, experimental design, qualitative interviews and focus groups, evaluation research, and reporting research. Some of the more advanced concepts and topics are only covered at superficial level, which limits the intended population of readers to high school students, undergraduate students, or those with no background in research methods. Since the book is geared toward Social Work undergraduate students, the chapters and content address methodologies commonly used in this field, but ignore methodologies that may be more popular in other social science fields. For example, the material on qualitative methods is narrow and focuses on commonly used qualitative methods in Social Work. In addition, the chapter on evaluation is limited to a general overview of evaluation research, which could be improved with more in-depth discussion of different types of evaluation (e.g., needs assessment, evaluability assessment, process evaluation, impact/outcomes evaluation) and real-world examples of different types of evaluation implemented in Social Work. Overall, the author provides examples that are easy for practitioners in Social Work to understand, which are also easily relatable for students in similar disciplines such as criminal justice. The book provides a glossary of key terms. There is no index; however, users can search for terms using the find (Ctrl-F) function in the PDF version of the book.

Overall, the content inside this book is accurate, error-free, and unbiased. However, the content is limited to the Social Work perspective, which may be considered somewhat biased or inaccurate from the perspective of others in different disciplines.

The book describes classic examples used in most texts on social science research methods. It also includes contemporary and relevant examples. Some of the content (such as web addresses and contemporary news pieces) will need to be updated every few years. The text is written and arranged in such a way that any necessary updates should be relatively easy and straightforward to implement.

The book is written in clear and accessible prose. The book provides appropriate context for any jargon/technical terminology used. Readers from any social science discipline should be able to understand the content and context of the material presented in the book.

The framework and use of terminology in the book are consistent.

This book is highly modular. The author has even improved upon the modularity of the book from Blackstone’s open text (which serves as the basis of the present text). Each chapter is divided into short, related subsections. The design of the chapters and their subsections make it easy to divide the material into units of study across a semester or quarter of instruction.

Generally, the book is organized in a similar manner as other texts on social science research methods. However, the organization could be improved slightly. Chapters 2 through 4 describe the process of beginning a research project and conducting a literature review. Chapter 8 describes refining a research question. This chapter could be moved to follow the Chapter 4. Chapter 12 describes experimental design, while Chapter 15 provides a description and examples of evaluation research. Since evaluation research tends to rely on experimental and quasi-experimental design, this chapter should follow the experimental design chapter.

For the online version of the book, there were no interface issues. The images and charts were clear and readable. The hyperlinks to sources mentioned in the text worked. The Contents menu allowed for easy and quick access to any section of the book. For the PDF version of the book, there were interface issues. The images and charts were clear and readable. However, the URLs and hyperlinks were not active in the PDF version. Furthermore, the PDF version was not bookmarked, which made it more difficult to access specific sections of the book.

I did not find grammatical errors in the book.

Overall, the cultural relevance and sensitivity were consistent with other social science research methods texts. The author does a good job of using both female and male pronouns in the prose. While there are pictures of people of color, there could be more. Most of the pictures are of white people. Also, the context is generally U.S.-centric.

Chapter 1: Introduction to research
Chapter 2: Beginning a research project
Chapter 3: Reading and evaluating literature
Chapter 4: Conducting a literature review
Chapter 5: Ethics in social work research
Chapter 6: Linking methods with theory
Chapter 7: Design and causality
Chapter 8: Creating and refining a research question
Chapter 9: Defining and measuring concepts
Chapter 10: Sampling
Chapter 11: Survey research
Chapter 12: Experimental design
Chapter 13: Interviews and focus groups
Chapter 14: Unobtrusive research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches
Chapter 15: Real-world research: Evaluation, single-subjects, and action research
Chapter 16: Reporting and reading research

Ancillary Material

Open Social Work Education

About the Book

As an introductory textbook for social work students studying research methods, this book guides students through the process of creating a research project. Students will learn how to discover a researchable topic that is interesting to them, examine scholarly literature, formulate a proper research question, design a quantitative or qualitative study to answer their question, carry out the design, interpret quantitative or qualitative results, and disseminate their findings to a variety of audiences. Examples are drawn from the author's practice and research experience, as well as topical articles from the literature.

There are ancillary materials available for this book.

About the Contributors

Matt DeCarlo earned his PhD in social work at Virginia Commonwealth University and is an Assistant Professor of Social Work at Radford University. He earned an MSW from George Mason University in 2010 and a BA in Psychology from the College of William and Mary in 2007. His research interests include open educational resources, self-directed Medicaid supports, and basic income. Matt is an Open Textbook Network Campus Leader for Radford University. He is the founder of Open Social Work Education, a non-profit collaborative advancing OER in social work education.

Contribute to this Page

Request new password
Create a new account

Research Methods for Social Work: A Problem-Based Approach

Student resources, welcome to the sage edge site for research methods for social work , 1e.

Research Methods for Social Work: A Problem-Based Approach is a comprehensive introduction to methods instruction that engages students innovatively and interactively. Using a case study and problem-based learning (PBL) approach, authors Antoinette Y. Farmer and G. Lawrence Farmer utilize case examples to achieve a level of application that builds readers’ confidence in methodology and reinforces their understanding of research across all levels of social work practice. These real-case examples, along with critical thinking questions, research tips, and step-by-step problem-solving methods, will improve student mastery and help them see why research is relevant. With the guidance of this new and noteworthy textbook, readers will transform into both knowledgeable consumers of research and skilled practitioners who can effectively address the needs of their clients through research.

This site features an array of free resources you can access anytime, anywhere.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Antoinette Y. Farmer and G. Lawrence Farmer for writing an excellent text. Special thanks are also due to Kryss Shane for developing the resources on this site.

For instructors

Access resources that are only available to Faculty and Administrative Staff.

Want to explore the book further?

Order Review Copy

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Research for Social Workers

DOI link for Research for Social Workers

Get Citation

Research for Social Workers has built a strong reputation as an accessible guide to the key research methods and approaches used in the discipline. Ideal for beginners, the book outlines the importance of social work research, its guiding principles and explains how to choose a topic area, develop research questions together with describing the key steps in the research process. The authors outline the principles of sampling, systematic reviews and surveys and interviews, provide guidance on evaluation and statistical analysis and explain how research can influence policy and practice. This new edition includes: â€¢ an expanded discussion of rigour in qualitative research â€¢ more detailed analysis of systematic reviews â€¢ a new section on on-line surveys â€¢ enhanced examination of action research including recent examples of action research programs and â€¢ an expanded section on evidence-based practice. Featuring practical examples and end-of-chapter exercises and questions, and using non-technical language throughout, this is a vital reference tool for both students and practicing social workers.

Part i | 109 pages, beginning social work research, chapter 1 | 36 pages, social work research, chapter 2 | 14 pages, choosing your topic area, chapter 3 | 28 pages, developing research questions, chapter 4 | 29 pages, steps in the research process, part ii | 114 pages, research methods for social work, chapter 5 | 20 pages, chapter 6 | 27 pages, systematic reviews, chapter 7 | 38 pages, surveys and interviews, chapter 8 | 27 pages, assessing community needs and strengths, part iii | 116 pages, chapter 9 | 25 pages, how do i evaluate my program, chapter 10 | 20 pages, action research, chapter 11 | 25 pages, evidence-based practice and best practice evaluation, chapter 12 | 23 pages, research in post-disaster recovery and other crisis situations: community-based rapid appraisals, chapter 13 | 21 pages, other methods, part iv | 110 pages, statistical analysis, chapter 14 | 24 pages, producing results: qualitative research, chapter 15 | 18 pages, producing results: quantitative research, chapter 16 | 33 pages, statistics for social workers: analysis of a single variable, chapter 17 | 33 pages, statistics for social workers: two or more variables, part v | 44 pages, bringing it all together, chapter 18 | 24 pages, influencing policy and practice, chapter 19 | 18 pages, developing a research proposal.

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Taylor & Francis Online
Taylor & Francis Group
Students/Researchers
Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

Advance articles
Editor's Choice
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access
About The British Journal of Social Work
About the British Association of Social Workers
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
Dispatch Dates
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

< Previous

Practice research methods in social work: Processes, applications and implications for social service organisations

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Bowen McBeath, Michael J Austin, Sarah Carnochan, Emmeline Chuang, Practice research methods in social work: Processes, applications and implications for social service organisations, The British Journal of Social Work , Volume 52, Issue 6, September 2022, Pages 3328–3346, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab246

Permissions Icon Permissions

Although social work research is commonly rooted within social service settings, it can be difficult for social work researchers and practitioners to develop and sustain participatory studies that specifically promote knowledge sharing and service improvement involving organisational practice. One participatory approach is practice research (PR), which involves social work researchers and practitioners collaborating to define, understand and try to improve the delivery of health and social care services and organisational structures and processes. The two goals of this commentary are to introduce essential methods and approaches to PR and to identify points of connection involving PR and social service organisational studies. Our specific focus on PR in statutory, voluntary and private social service organisations reflects efforts to connect practice, theory and qualitative and quantitative research methods to develop and share organisationally-situated knowledge.

Personal account

Sign in with email/username & password
Get email alerts
Save searches
Purchase content
Activate your purchase/trial code
Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with username/password
Recommend to your librarian
Institutional account management
Get help with 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.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institutionâ€™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 institutionâ€™s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

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 â€˜Sign in through society siteâ€™ 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.

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.

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.

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.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Month:	Total Views:
December 2021	53
January 2022	39
February 2022	30
March 2022	26
April 2022	37
May 2022	44
June 2022	25
July 2022	17
August 2022	11
September 2022	66
October 2022	93
November 2022	43
December 2022	35
January 2023	37
February 2023	39
March 2023	42
April 2023	43
May 2023	33
June 2023	33
July 2023	19
August 2023	32
September 2023	34
October 2023	41
November 2023	42
December 2023	15
January 2024	24
February 2024	36
March 2024	24
April 2024	28
May 2024	33
June 2024	62
July 2024	23
August 2024	11
September 2024	12

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1468-263X
Print ISSN 0045-3102
Copyright © 2024 British Association of Social Workers
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Rights and permissions
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
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 © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Sage Research Methods: Social Work

Start Your Research
Business & Management
Criminology
Social Work
Political Science
Citation Information
Tutorial Videos
Sage Research Methods Cases
Sage Research Methods Datasets
Sage Research Methods Video
Sage Research Methods Video: Practical Research & Academic Skills

Suggested Methods Books in Social Work

Search Research Methods

Type a method such as "case study" or "focus group" into the widget below to get to books and videos on Sage Research Methods:

Methods Map

Need to find a Method? Explore the Methods Map!

<< Previous: Psychology
Next: Sociology >>
Last Updated: Sep 9, 2024 11:19 AM
URL: https://sagepub.libguides.com/research-methods

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

5.3 Social work research paradigms

Learning objectives.

Learners will be able to…

Distinguish between the three major research paradigms in social work and apply the assumptions upon which they are built to a student research project

In the previous two sections, we reviewed the three elements to the philosophical foundation of a research method: ontology, epistemology and axiology (Crotty, 1998; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Heron & Reason, 1997). [1] In this section, you will explore how to apply these philosophical approaches to your research project. In the next section, we will do the same for theory. Keep in mind that it’s easy for us as textbook authors to lay out each step (paradigm, theory, etc.) sequentially, but in reality, research projects are not linear. Researchers rarely proceed by choosing an ontology, epistemology and axiology separately and then deciding which theory and methods to apply. As we discussed in Chapter 2 when you started conceptualizing your project, you should choose something that interests you, is feasible to conduct, and does not pose unethical risks to others. Whatever part or parts your project you have figured out right now, you’re right where you should be—in the middle of conceptualization.

How do scientific ideas change over time?

Much like your ideas develop over time as you learn more, so does the body of scientific knowledge. Kuhn’s (1962) [2] The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most influential works on the philosophy of science, and is credited with introducing the idea of competing paradigms (or “disciplinary matrices”) in research. Kuhn investigated the way that scientific practices evolve over time, arguing that we don’t have a simple progression from “less knowledge” to “more knowledge” because the way that we approach inquiry is changing over time. This can happen gradually, but the process results in moments of change where our understanding of a phenomenon changes more radically (such as in the transition from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics; or from Lamarckian to Darwinian theories of evolution). For a social work practice example, Fleuridas & Krafcik (2019) [3] trace the development of the “four forces” of psychotherapy , from psychodynamics to behaviorism to humanism as well as the competition among emerging perspectives to establish itself as the fourth force to guide psychotherapeutic practice. But how did the problems in one paradigm inspire new paradigms? Kuhn presents us with a way of understanding the history of scientific development across all topics and disciplines.

As you can see in this video from Matthew J. Brown (CC-BY), there are four stages in the cycle of science in Kuhn’s approach. Firstly, a pre-paradigmatic state where competing approaches share no consensus. Secondly, the “normal” state where there is wide acceptance of a particular set of methods and assumptions. Thirdly, a state of crisis where anomalies that cannot be solved within the existing paradigm emerge and competing theories to address them follow. Fourthly, a revolutionary phase where some new paradigmatic approach becomes dominant and supplants the old. Shnieder (2009) [4] suggests that the Kuhnian phases are characterized by different kinds of scientific activity.

Newer approaches often build upon rather than replace older ones, but they also overlap and can exist within a state of competition. Scientists working within a particular paradigm often share methods, assumptions and values. In addition to supporting specific methods, research paradigms also influence things like the ambition and nature of research, the researcher-participant relationship and how the role of the researcher is understood.

Paradigm vs. theory

The terms ‘ paradigm ‘ and ‘ theory ‘ are often used interchangeably in social science. There is not a consensus among social scientists as to whether these are identical or distinct concepts. With that said, in this text, we will make a clear distinction between the two ideas because thinking about each concept separately is more useful for our purposes.

We define research paradigm as a set of common philosophical (ontological, epistemological, and axiological) assumptions that inform research. The four paradigms we describe in this section refer to patterns in how groups of researchers resolve philosophical questions. Some assumptions naturally make sense together, and paradigms grow out of researchers with shared assumptions about what is important and how to study it. Paradigms are like “analytic lenses” and a provide framework on top of which we can build theoretical and empirical knowledge (Kuhn, 1962). [5] Consider this video of an interview with world-famous physicist Richard Feynman in which he explains why “when you explain a ‘why,’ you have to be in some framework that you allow something to be true. Otherwise, you are perpetually asking why.” In order to answer basic physics question like “what is happening when two magnets attract?” or a social work research question like “what is the impact of this therapeutic intervention on depression,” you must understand the assumptions you are making about social science and the social world. Paradigmatic assumptions about objective and subjective truth support methodological choices like whether to conduct interviews or send out surveys, for example.

While paradigms are broad philosophical assumptions, theory is more specific, and refers to a set of concepts and relationships scientists use to explain the social world. Theories are more concrete, while paradigms are more abstract. Look back to Figure 5.1 at the beginning of this chapter. Theory helps you identify the concepts and relationships that align with your paradigmatic understanding of the problem. Moreover, theory informs how you will measure the concepts in your research question and the design of your project.

For both theories and paradigms, Kuhn’s observation of scientific paradigms, crises, and revolutions is instructive for understanding the history of science. Researchers inherit institutions, norms, and ideas that are marked by the battlegrounds of theoretical and paradigmatic debates that stretch back hundreds of years. We have necessarily simplified this history into four paradigms: positivism, constructivism, critical, and pragmatism. Our framework and explanation are inspired by the framework of Guba and Lincoln (1990) [6] and Burrell and Morgan (1979). [7] while also incorporating pragmatism as a way of resolving paradigmatic questions. Most of social work research and theory can be classified as belonging to one of these four paradigms, though this classification system represents only one of many useful approaches to analyzing social science research paradigms.

Building on our discussion in section 5.1 on objective vs. subjective epistemologies and ontologies, we will start with the difference between positivism and constructivism. Afterward, we will link our discussion of axiology in section 5.2 with the critical paradigm. Finally, we will situate pragmatism as a way to resolve paradigmatic questions strategically. The difference between positivism and constructivism is a good place to start, since the critical paradigm and pragmatism build on their philosophical insights.

It’s important to think of paradigms less as distinct categories and more as a spectrum along which projects might fall. For example, some projects may be somewhat positivist, somewhat constructivist, and a little critical. No project fits perfectly into one paradigm. Additionally, there is no paradigm that is more correct than the other. Each paradigm uses assumptions that are logically consistent, and when combined, are a useful approach to understanding the social world using science. The purpose of this section is to acquaint you with what research projects in each paradigm look like and how they are grounded in philosophical assumptions about social science.

You should read this section to situate yourself in terms of what paradigm feels most “at home” to both you as a person and to your project. You may find, as I have, that your research projects are more conventional and less radical than what feels most like home to you, personally. In a research project, however, students should start with their working question rather than their heart. Use the paradigm that fits with your question the best, rather than which paradigm you think fits you the best.

Positivism: Researcher as “expert”

Positivism has its roots in the scientific revolution of the Enlightenment. Positivism is based on the idea that we can come to know facts about the natural world through our experiences of it. The processes that support this are the logical and analytic classification and systemization of these experiences. Through this process of empirical analysis, Positivists aim to arrive at descriptions of law-like relationships and mechanisms that govern the world we experience.

Positivists have traditionally claimed that the only authentic knowledge we have of the world is empirical and scientific. Essentially, positivism downplays any gap between our experiences of the world and the way the world really is; instead, positivism determines objective “facts” through the correct methodological combination of observation and analysis. Data collection methods typically include quantitative measurement, which is supposed to overcome the individual biases of the researcher.

Positivism aspires to high standards of validity and reliability supported by evidence, and has been applied extensively in both physical and social sciences. Its goal is familiar to all students of science: iteratively expanding the evidence base of what we know is true. We can know our observations and analysis describe real world phenomena because researchers separate themselves and objectively observe the world, placing a deep epistemological separation between “the knower” and “what is known” and reducing the possibility of bias. We can all see the logic in separating yourself as much as possible from your study so as not to bias it, even if we know we cannot do so perfectly.

However, the criticism often made of positivism with regard to human and social sciences (e.g. education, psychology, sociology) is that positivism is scientistic ; which is to say that it overlooks differences between the objects in the natural world (tables, atoms, cells, etc.) and the subjects in the social world (self-aware people living in a complex socio-historical context). In pursuit of the generalizable truth of “hard” science, it fails to adequately explain the many aspects of human experience don’t conform to this way of collecting data. Furthermore, by viewing science as an idealized pursuit of pure knowledge, positivists may ignore the many ways in which power structures our access to scientific knowledge, the tools to create it, and the capital to participate in the scientific community.

Kivunja and Kuyini (2017) [8] describe the essential features of positivism as:

A belief that theory is universal and law-like generalizations can be made across contexts
The assumption that context is not important
The belief that truth or knowledge is ‘out there to be discovered’ by research
The belief that cause and effect are distinguishable and analytically separable
The belief that results of inquiry can be quantified
The belief that theory can be used to predict and to control outcomes
The belief that research should follow the scientific method of investigation
Rests on formulation and testing of hypotheses
Employs empirical or analytical approaches
Pursues an objective search for facts
Believes in ability to observe knowledge
The researcher’s ultimate aim is to establish a comprehensive universal theory, to account for human and social behavior
Application of the scientific method

Postpositivism

Many quantitative researchers now identify as postpositivist. Postpositivism retains the idea that truth should be considered objective, but asserts that our experiences of such truths are necessarily imperfect because they are ameliorated by our values and experiences. Understanding how postpositivism has updated itself in light of the developments in other research paradigms is instructive for developing your own paradigmatic framework. Epistemologically, postpositivists operate on the assumption that human knowledge is based not on the assessments from an objective individual, but rather upon human conjectures. As human knowledge is thus unavoidably conjectural and uncertain, though assertions about what is true and why it is true can be modified or withdrawn in the light of further investigation. However, postpositivism is not a form of relativism, and generally retains the idea of objective truth.

These epistemological assumptions are based on ontological assumptions that an objective reality exists, but contra positivists, they believe reality can be known only imperfectly and probabilistically. While positivists believe that research is or can be value-free or value-neutral, postpositivists take the position that bias is undesired but inevitable, and therefore the investigator must work to detect and try to correct it. Postpositivists work to understand how their axiology (i.e., values and beliefs) may have influenced their research, including through their choice of measures, populations, questions, and definitions, as well as through their interpretation and analysis of their work. Methodologically, they use mixed methods and both quantitative and qualitative methods, accepting the problematic nature of “objective” truths and seeking to find ways to come to a better, yet ultimately imperfect understanding of what is true. A popular form of postpositivism is critical realism , which lies between positivism and constructivism.

Is positivism/postpositivism right for your research?

Positivism is concerned with understanding what is true for everybody. Social workers whose working question fits best with the positivist paradigm will want to produce data that are generalizable and can speak to larger populations. For this reason, positivistic researchers favor quantitative methods—probability sampling, experimental or survey design, and multiple, and well-established instruments to measure key concepts.

A positivist orientation to research is appropriate when your research question asks for generalizable truths. For example, your working question may look something like: does my agency’s housing intervention lead to fewer periods of homelessness for our clients? It is necessary to study such a relationship quantitatively and objectively. When social workers speak about social problems impacting societies and individuals, they reference positivist research, including experiments and surveys of the general populations. Positivist research is exceptionally good at producing cause-and-effect explanations that apply across many different situations and groups of people. There are many good reasons why positivism is the dominant research paradigm in the social sciences.

Critiques of positivism stem from two major issues. First and foremost, positivism may not fit the messy, contradictory, and circular world of human relationships. A positivistic approach does not allow the researcher to understand another person’s subjective mental state in detail. This is because the positivist orientation focuses on quantifiable, generalizable data—and therefore encompasses only a small fraction of what may be true in any given situation. This critique is emblematic of the constructivism paradigm, which we will describe next.

In the section after that, we will describe the critical paradigm, which critiques the positivist paradigm (and the constructivism paradigm) for focusing too little on social change, values, and oppression. Positivists assume they know what is true, but they often do not incorporate the knowledge and experiences of oppressed people, even when those community members are directly impacted by the research. Positivism has been critiqued as ethnocentrist, patriarchal, and classist (Kincheloe & Tobin, 2009). [9] This leads them to do research on , rather than with populations by excluding them from the conceptualization, design, and impact of a project, a topic we discussed in section 2.4. It also leads them to ignore the historical and cultural context that is important to understanding the social world. The result can be a one-dimensional and reductionist view of reality.

TRACK 1 (IF YOU ARE CREATING A RESEARCH PROPOSAL FOR THIS CLASS):

Review the assumptions of the positivist research paradigm.
Discuss in a few sentences how the author’s conclusions are based on some of these paradigmatic assumptions. How might a researcher operating from a different paradigm (e.g., constructivism, critical) critique these assumptions as well as the conclusions of this study?

TRACK 2 (IF YOU AREN’T CREATING A RESEARCH PROPOSAL FOR THIS CLASS):

You are interested in researching bullying among school-aged children, and how this impacts students’ academic success.

Constructivism: Researcher as “empathizer”

Positivism is focused on generalizable truth. Constructivism , by contrast, develops from the idea that we want to understand the truths of individuals, how they interpret and experience the world, their thought processes, and the social structures that emerge from sharing those interpretations through language and behavior. The process of interpretation (or social construction) is guided by the empathy of the researcher to understand the meaning behind what other people say.

Historically, constructivism grew out of a specific critique of positivism: that knowledge in the human and social sciences cannot conform to the model of natural science because there are features of human experience that cannot objectively be “known”. The tools we use to understand objects that have no self-awareness may not be well-attuned to subjective experiences like emotions, understandings, values, feelings, socio-cultural factors, historical influences, and other meaningful aspects of social life. Instead of finding a single generalizable “truth,” the constructivist researcher aims to generate understanding and often adopts a relativist position.

While positivists seek “the truth,” the social constructionist framework argues that “truth” varies. Truth differs based on who you ask, and people change what they believe is true based on social interactions. These subjective truths also exist within social and historical contexts, and our understanding of truth varies across communities and time periods. This is because we, according to this paradigm, create reality ourselves through our social interactions and our interpretations of those interactions. Key to the constructivism perspective is the idea that social context and interaction frame our realities.

Researchers operating within this framework take keen interest in how people come to socially agree, or disagree, about what is real and true. Consider how people, depending on their social and geographical context, ascribe different meanings to certain hand gestures. When a person raises their middle finger, those of us in Western cultures will probably think that this person isn’t very happy (not to mention the person at whom the middle finger is being directed!). In other societies around the world, a thumbs-up gesture, rather than a middle finger, signifies discontent (Wong, 2007). [10] The fact that these hand gestures have different meanings across cultures aptly demonstrates that those meanings are socially and collectively constructed. What, then, is the “truth” of the middle finger or thumbs up? As we’ve seen in this section, the truth depends on the intention of the person making the gesture, the interpretation of the person receiving it, and the social context in which the action occurred.

Qualitative methods are preferred as ways to investigate these phenomena. Data collected might be unstructured (or “messy”) and correspondingly a range of techniques for approaching data collection have been developed. Interpretivism acknowledges that it is impossible to remove cultural and individual influence from research, often instead making a virtue of the positionality of the researcher and the socio-cultural context of a study.

One common objection positivists levy against constructivists is that constructivism tends to emphasize the subjective over the objective. If the starting point for an investigation is that we can’t fully and objectively know the world, how can we do research into this without everything being a matter of opinion? For the positivist, this risk for confirmation bias as well as invalid and unreliable measures makes interpretivist research unscientific. Clearly, we disagree with this assessment, and you should, too. Positivism and constructivism have different ontologies and epistemologies with contrasting notions of rigor and validity (for more information on assumptions about measurement, see Chapter 11 for quantitative validity and reliability and Chapter 20 for qualitative rigor). Nevertheless, both paradigms apply the values and concepts of the scientific method through systematic investigation of the social world, even if their assumptions lead them to do so in different ways. Constructivist research often embraces a relativist epistemology, bringing together different perspectives in search of a trustworthy and authentic understanding or narrative.

Kivunja and Kuyini (2017) [11] describe the essential features of constructivism as:

The belief that truths are multiple and socially constructed
The acceptance that there is inevitable interaction between the researcher and his or her research participants
The acceptance that context is vital for knowledge and knowing
The belief that knowledge can be value laden and the researcher’s values need to be made explicit
The need to understand specific cases and contexts rather deriving universal laws that apply to everyone, everywhere.
The belief that causes and effects are mutually interdependent, and that causality may be circular or contradictory
The belief that contextual factors need to be taken into consideration in any systematic pursuit of understanding

One important clarification: it’s important to think of the constructivist perspective as not just about individual interpretations but the social life of interpretations. While individuals may construct their own realities, groups—from a small one such as a married couple to large ones such as nations—often agree on notions of what is true and what “is” and what “is not.” In other words, the meanings that we construct have power beyond the individuals who create them. Therefore, the ways that people and communities act based on such meanings is of as much interest to constructivists as how they were created in the first place. Theories like social constructionism, phenomenology, and symbolic interactionism are often used in concert with constructivism.

Is constructivism right for your project?

A constructivist orientation to research is appropriate when your working question asks about subjective truths. The cause-and-effect relationships that interpretivist studies produce are specific to the time and place in which the study happened, rather than a generalizable objective truth. More pragmatically, if you picture yourself having a conversation with participants like an interview or focus group, then constructivism is likely to have a major influence on your study.

Positivists critique the constructivist paradigm as non-scientific. They view the constructivist focus on subjectivity and values as sources of bias. Positivists and constructivists differ on the degree to which social phenomena are like natural phenomena. Positivists believe that the assumptions of the social sciences and natural sciences are the same, while constructivists strongly believe that social sciences differ from the natural sciences because their subjects are social creatures.

Similarly, the critical paradigm finds fault with the constructivist focus on the status quo rather than social change. Although constructivists often proceed from a feminist or other standpoint theory, the focus is less on liberation than on understanding the present from multiple perspectives. Other critical theorists may object to the consensus orientation of constructivist research. By searching for commonalities between people’s stories, they may erase the uniqueness of each individual’s story. For example, while constructivists may arrive at a consensus definition of what the experience of “coming out” is like for people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer, it cannot represent the diversity of each person’s unique “coming out” experience and what it meant to them. For example, see Rosario and colleagues’ (2009) [12] critique the literature on lesbians “coming out” because previous studies did not addressing how appearing, behaving, or identifying as a butch or femme impacted the experience of “coming out” for lesbians.

Review the assumptions of the constructivist research paradigm.
Discuss in a few sentences how the author’s conclusions are based on some of these paradigmatic assumptions. How might a researcher operating from a different paradigm (e.g., positivism, critical) critique these assumptions as well as the conclusions of this study?

Critical paradigm: Researcher as “activist”

As we’ve discussed a bit in the preceding sections, the critical paradigm focuses on power, inequality, and social change. Although some rather diverse perspectives are included here, the critical paradigm, in general, includes ideas developed by early social theorists, such as Max Horkheimer (Calhoun et al., 2007), [13] and later works developed by feminist scholars, such as Nancy Fraser (1989). [14] Unlike the positivist paradigm, the critical paradigm assumes that social science can never be truly objective or value-free. Furthermore, this paradigm operates from the perspective that scientific investigation should be conducted with the express goal of social change. Researchers in the critical paradigm foreground axiology, positionality and values. In contrast with the detached, “objective” observations associated with the positivist researcher, critical approaches make explicit the intention for research to act as a transformative or emancipatory force within and beyond the study.

Researchers in the critical paradigm might start with the knowledge that systems are biased against certain groups, such as women or ethnic minorities, building upon previous theory and empirical data. Moreover, their research projects are designed not only to collect data, but to impact the participants as well as the systems being studied. The critical paradigm applies its study of power and inequality to change those power imbalances as part of the research process itself. If this sounds familiar to you, you may remember hearing similar ideas when discussing social conflict theory in your human behavior in the social environment (HBSE) class. [15] Because of this focus on social change, the critical paradigm is a natural home for social work research. However, we fall far short of adopting this approach widely in our profession’s research efforts.

Is the critical paradigm right for your project?

Every social work research project impacts social justice in some way. What distinguishes critical research is how it integrates an analysis of power into the research process itself. Critical research is appropriate for projects that are activist in orientation. For example, critical research projects should have working questions that explicitly seek to raise the consciousness of an oppressed group or collaborate equitably with community members and clients to addresses issues of concern. Because of their transformative potential, critical research projects can be incredibly rewarding to complete. However, partnerships take a long time to develop and social change can evolve slowly on an issue, making critical research projects a more challenging fit for student research projects which must be completed under a tight deadline with few resources.

Positivists critique the critical paradigm on multiple fronts. First and foremost, the focus on oppression and values as part of the research process is seen as likely to bias the research process, most problematically, towards confirmation bias. If you start out with the assumption that oppression exists and must be dealt with, then you are likely to find that regardless of whether it is truly there or not. Similarly, positivists may fault critical researchers for focusing on how the world should be, rather than how it truly is . In this, they may focus too much on theoretical and abstract inquiry and less on traditional experimentation and empirical inquiry. Finally, the goal of social transformation is seen as inherently unscientific, as science is not a political practice.

Constructivists often find common cause with critical researchers. Feminist studies, for example, may explore the perspectives of women while centering gender-based oppression as part of the research process. In constructivist research, the focus is less on radical change as part of the research process and more on small, incremental changes based on the results and conclusions drawn from the research project. Additionally, some critical researchers’ focus on individuality of experience is in stark contrast to the consensus-orientation of constructivists. Constructivists seek to understand people’s true selves. Some critical theorists argue that people have multiple selves or no self at all.

As discussed throughout the chapter, each research paradigm can be linked with a specific ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology. Table 5.2 below summarizes each of the major paradigms we have discussed so far.



Positivism	There is truth!	We can know this truth!	Values should play no role in inquiry; researcher and the researched are separable.	Almost entirely quantitative, tightly controlled experiments
Post-Positivism	There is truth!	Alas, we are limited in our ability to know this truth, but we shall try our darndest!	Ok, so people clearly have values and biases, but we will completely remove their influence, and thus maintain separation.	Largely quantitative, including experimental and observational methods. But can also be qualitative and mixed methods.
Constructivism	There are multiple truths, varying by individuals and contexts.	Knowledge is co-constructed between researcher and participants, and thus cannot be independent of the researcher.	Values have strong influence on inquiry. These values should be discussed, described, and considered vis-à-vis the research.	Largely qualitative, especially via interviews, focus groups, and content analysis. But can also be quantitative and mixed methods.
Critical	There are multiple truths, and they are contoured by relative access to societal power.	Knowledge is co-constructed between researchers and participants, and it is the responsibility of researchers to empower participants.	All inquiry is embedded in a value system, and research should be used to improve the lives of those who are marginalized	Almost entirely qualitative, especially via participatory approaches. May also be non-empirical.

Note: this table comes from: Syed, M. (2020, September). What the Heck is Post-Positivism? . Get Syeducated.

Review the assumptions of the critical research paradigm.
Discuss in a few sentences how the author’s conclusions are based on some of these paradigmatic assumptions. How might a researcher operating from different assumptions (like values-neutrality or researcher as neutral and unbiased) critique the conclusions of this study?

Pragmatism: Researcher as “strategist”

“Essentially, all models are wrong but some are useful.” (Box, 1976) [16]

Pragmatism is a research paradigm that suspends questions of philosophical ‘truth’ and focuses more on how different philosophies, theories, and methods can be used strategically to provide a multidimensional view of a topic. Researchers employing pragmatism will mix elements of positivist, constructivist, and critical research depending on the purpose of a particular project and the practical constraints faced by the researcher and their research context. We favor this approach for student projects because it avoids getting bogged down in choosing the “right” paradigm and instead focuses on the assumptions that help you answer your question, given the limitations of your research context. Student research projects are completed quickly and moving in the direction of pragmatism can be a route to successfully completing a project. Your project is a representation of what you think is feasible, ethical, and important enough for you to study.

The crucial consideration for the pragmatist is whether the outcomes of research have any real-world application, rather than whether they are “true.” The methods, theories, and philosophies chosen by pragmatic researchers are guided by their working question. There are no distinctively pragmatic research methods since this approach is about making judicious use whichever methods fit best with the problem under investigation. Pragmatic approaches may be less likely to prioritize ontological, epistemological or axiological consistency when combining different research methods. Instead, the emphasis is on solving a pressing problem and adapting to the limitations and opportunities in the researchers’ context.

Adopt a multi-paradigmatic perspective

Believe it or not, there is a long literature of acrimonious conflict between scientists from positivist, constructivist, and critical camps (see Heineman-Pieper et al., 2002 [17] for a longer discussion). Pragmatism is an old idea, but it is appealing precisely because it attempts to resolve the problem of multiple incompatible philosophical assumptions in social science. To a pragmatist, there is no “correct” paradigm. All paradigms rely on assumptions about the social world that are the subject of philosophical debate. Each paradigm is an incomplete understanding of the world, and it requires a scientific community using all of them to gain a comprehensive view of the social world. This multi-paradigmatic perspective is a unique gift of social work research, as our emphasis on empathy and social change makes us more critical of positivism, the dominant paradigm in social science.

We offered the metaphors of expert, empathizer, activist, and strategist for each paradigm. It’s important not to take these labels too seriously. For example, some may view that scientists should be experts or that activists are biased and unscientific. Nevertheless, we hope that these metaphors give you a sense of what it feels like to conduct research within each paradigm.

One of the unique aspects of paradigmatic thinking is that often where you think you are most at home may actually be the opposite of where your research project is. For example, in my graduate and doctoral education, I thought I was a critical researcher. In fact, I thought I was a radical researcher focused on social change and transformation. Yet, often times when I sit down to conceptualize and start a research project, I find myself squarely in the positivist paradigm, thinking through neat cause-and-effect relationships that can be mathematically measured. There is nothing wrong with that! Your task for your research project is to find the paradigm that best matches your research question. Think through what you really want to study and how you think about the topic, then use assumptions of that paradigm to guide your inquiry.

Another important lesson is that no research project fits perfectly in one paradigm or another. Instead, there is a spectrum along which studies are, to varying degrees, constructivist, positivist, and critical. For example, all social work research is a bit activist in that our research projects are designed to inform action for change on behalf of clients and systems. However, some projects will focus on the conclusions and implications of projects informing social change (i.e., positivist and constructivist projects) while others will partner with community members and design research projects collaboratively in a way that leads to social change (i.e. critical projects). In section 5.5, we will describe a pragmatic approach to research design.

Key Takeaways

Social work research falls, to some degree, in each of the four paradigms: positivism, constructivism, critical, and pragmatist.
Adopting a pragmatic, multi-paradigmatic approach to research makes sense for student researchers, as it directs students to use the philosophical assumptions and methodological approaches that best match their research question and research context.
Research in all paradigms is necessary to come to a comprehensive understanding of a topic, and social workers must be able to understand and apply knowledge from each research paradigm.
Describe which paradigm best fits your perspective on the world and which best fits with your project.
Identify any similarities and differences in your personal assumptions and the assumption your research project relies upon. For example, are you a more critical and radical thinker but have chosen a more “expert” role for yourself in your research project?
How might this problem be conceptualized and studied under positivism?
How would this be different using constructivism, criticalism, or post-positivism?
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process . London: SAGE.; Guba E., & Lincoln, Y., (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research (pp. 105-118). In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y (eds.) Handbook on qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.; Heron, J. & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry. 3(3), 274-294. ↵
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ↵
Fleuridas, C., & Krafcik, D. (2019). Beyond four forces: The evolution of psychotherapy. Sage Open , 9 (1), 2158244018824492. ↵
Shneider, A. M. (2009). Four stages of a scientific discipline; four types of scientist. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 34 (5), 217-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2009.02.00 ↵
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis . Routledge. Guba, E. (ed.) (1990). The paradigm dialog . SAGE. ↵
Routledge. Guba, E. (ed.) (1990). The paradigm dialog . SAGE. ↵
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis . Here is a summary of Burrell & Morgan from Babson College , and our classification collapses radical humanism and radical structuralism into the critical paradigm, following Guba and Lincoln's three-paradigm framework. We feel this approach is more parsimonious and easier for students to understand on an introductory level. ↵
Kivuna, C. & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6 (5), 26-41. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1154775 ↵
Kincheloe, J. L. & Tobin, K. (2009). The much exaggerated death of positivism. Cultural studies of science education , 4, 513-528. ↵
For more about how the meanings of hand gestures vary by region, you might read the following blog entry: Wong, W. (2007). The top 10 hand gestures you’d better get right . Retrieved from: http://www.languagetrainers.co.uk/blog/2007/09/24/top-10-hand-gestures ↵
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Levy-Warren, A. (2009). The coming-out process of young lesbian and bisexual women: Are there butch/femme differences in sexual identity development?. Archives of sexual behavior , 38 (1), 34-49. ↵
Calhoun, C., Gerteis, J., Moody, J., Pfaff, S., & Virk, I. (Eds.). (2007). Classical sociological theory (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. ↵
Fraser, N. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. ↵
Here are links to two HBSE open textbooks, if you are unfamiliar with social work theories and would like more background. https://uark.pressbooks.pub/hbse1/ and https://uark.pressbooks.pub/humanbehaviorandthesocialenvironment2/ ↵
Box, G. E. P.. (1976). Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71 (356), 791. ↵
Heineman-Pieper, J., Tyson, K., & Pieper, M. H. (2002). Doing good science without sacrificing good values: Why the heuristic paradigm is the best choice for social work. Families in Society , 83 (1), 15-28. ↵

a set of common philosophical (ontological, epistemological, and axiological) assumptions that inform research (e.g., Post-positivism, Constructivism, Pragmatic, Critical)

a set of concepts and relationships scientists use to explain the social world

a paradigm guided by the principles of objectivity, knowability, and deductive logic

a paradigm based on the idea that social context and interaction frame our realities

a paradigm in social science research focused on power, inequality, and social change

a research paradigm that suspends questions of philosophical ‘truth’ and focuses more on how different philosophies, theories, and methods can be used strategically to resolve a problem or question within the researcher's unique context

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
HHS Author Manuscripts

The Pursuit of Quality for Social Work Practice: Three Generations and Counting

Enola proctor.

Shanti K. Khinduka Distinguished Professor and director of the Center for Mental Health Services Research at Washington University in St. Louis

Social work addresses some of the most complex and intractable human and social problems: poverty, mental illness, addiction, homelessness, and child abuse. Our field may be distinct among professions for its efforts to ameliorate the toughest societal problems, experienced by society’s most vulnerable, while working from under-resourced institutions and settings. Members of our profession are underpaid, and most of our agencies lack the data infrastructure required for rigorous assessment and evaluation.

Moreover, social work confronts these challenges as it is ethically bound to deliver high-quality services. Policy and regulatory requirements increasingly demand that social work deliver and document the effectiveness of highest quality interventions and restrict reimbursement to those services that are documented as evidence based. Social work’s future, its very survival, depends on our ability to deliver services with a solid base of evidence and to document their effectiveness. In the words of the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (AASWSW; n.d.) , social work seeks to “champion social progress powered by science.” The research community needs to support practice through innovative and rigorous science that advances the evidence for interventions to address social work’s grand challenges.

My work seeks to improve the quality of social work practice by pursuing answers to three questions:

What interventions and services are most effective and thus should be delivered in social work practice?
How do we measure the impact of those interventions and services? (That is, what outcomes do our interventions achieve?)
How do we implement the highest quality interventions?

This paper describes this work, demonstrates the substantive and methodological progression across the three questions, assesses what we have learned, and forecasts a research agenda for what we still need to learn. Given Aaron Rosen’s role as my PhD mentor and our many years of collaboration, the paper also addresses the role of research mentoring in advancing our profession’s knowledge base.

What Interventions and Services Are Most Effective?

Answering the question “What services are effective?” requires rigorous testing of clearly specified interventions. The first paper I coauthored with Aaron Rosen—“Specifying the Treatment Process: The Basis for Effectiveness Research” ( Rosen & Proctor, 1978 )—provided a framework for evaluating intervention effectiveness. At that time, process and outcomes were jumbled and intertwined concepts. Social work interventions were rarely specified beyond theoretical orientation or level of focus: casework (or direct practice); group work; and macro practice, which included community, agency-level, and policy-focused practice. Moreover, interventions were not named, nor were their components clearly identified. We recognized that gross descriptions of interventions obstruct professional training, preclude fidelity assessment, and prevent accurate tests of effectiveness. Thus, in a series of papers, Rosen and I advocated that social work interventions be specified, clearly labeled, and operationally defined, measured, and tested.

Specifying Interventions

Such specification of interventions is essential to two professional responsibilities: professional education and demonstrating the effectiveness of the field’s interventions. Without specification, interventions cannot be taught. Social work education is all about equipping students with skills to deliver interventions, programs, services, administrative practices, and policies. Teaching interventions requires an ability to name, define, see them in action, measure their presence (or absence), assess the fidelity with which they are delivered, and give feedback to students on how to increase or refine the associated skills.

To advance testing the effectiveness of social work interventions, we drew distinctions between interventions and outcomes and proposed these two constructs as the foci for effectiveness research. We defined interventions as practitioner behaviors that can be volitionally manipulated by practitioners (used or not, varied in intensity and timing), that are defined in detail, can be reliably measured, and can be linked to specific identified outcomes ( Rosen & Proctor, 1978 ; Rosen & Proctor, 1981 ). This definition foreshadowed the development of treatment manuals, lists of specific evidence-based practices, and calls for monitoring intervention fidelity. Recognizing the variety of intervention types, and to advance their more precise definition and measurement, we proposed that interventions be distinguished in terms of their complexity. Interventive responses comprise discrete or single responses, such as affirmation, expression of empathy, or positive reinforcement. Interventive strategies comprise several different actions that are, together, linked to a designated outcome, such as motivational interviewing. Most complex are interventive programs , which are a variety of intervention actions organized and integrated as a total treatment package; collaborative care for depression or community assertive treatment are examples. To strengthen the professional knowledge base, we also called for social work effectiveness research to begin testing the optimal dose and sequencing of intervention components in relation to attainment of desired outcomes.

Advancing Intervention Effectiveness Research

Our “specifying paper” also was motivated by the paucity of literature at that time on actual social work interventions. Our literature review of 13 major social work journals over 5 years of published research revealed that only 15% of published social work research addressed interventions. About a third of studies described social problems, and about half explored factors associated with the problem ( Rosen, Proctor, & Staudt, 2003 ). Most troubling was our finding that only 3% of articles described the intervention or its components in sufficient detail for replication in either research or practice. Later, Fraser (2004) found intervention research to comprise only about one fourth of empirical studies in social work. Fortunately, our situation has improved. Intervention research is more frequent in social work publications, thanks largely to the publication policies of the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research and Research on Social Work Practice .

Research Priorities

Social work faces important and formidable challenges as it advances research on intervention effectiveness. The practitioner who searches the literature or various intervention lists can find more than 500 practices that are named or that are shown to have evidence from rigorous trials that passes a bar to qualify as evidence-based practices. However, our profession still lacks any organized compendium or taxonomy of interventions that are employed in or found to be effective for social work practice. Existing lists of evidence-based practices, although necessary, are insufficient for social work for several reasons. First, as a 2015 National Academies Institute of Medicine (IOM) report—“Psychosocial Interventions for Mental and Substance Use Disorders: A Framework for Establishing Evidence-Based Standards” ( IOM, 2015 )—concluded, too few evidence-based practices have been found to be appropriate for low-resource settings or acceptable to minority groups. Second, existing interventions do not adequately reflect the breadth of social work practice. We have too few evidence-based interventions that can inform effective community organization, case management, referral practice, resource development, administrative practice, or policy. Noting that there is far less literature on evidence-based practices relevant to organizational, community, and policy practice, a social work task force responding to the 2015 IOM report recommended that this gap be a target of our educational and research efforts ( National Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work, 2016 ). And finally, our field—along with other professions that deliver psychosocial interventions—lacks the kinds of procedure codes that can identify the specific interventions we deliver. Documenting social work activities in agency records is increasingly essential for quality assurance and third-party reimbursement.

Future Directions: Research to Advance Evidence on Interventions

Social work has critically important research needs. Our field needs to advance the evidence base on what interventions work for social work populations, practices, and settings. Responding to the 2015 IOM report, the National Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work (2016) identified as a social work priority the development and testing of evidence-based practices relevant to organizational, community, and policy practice. As we advance our intervention effectiveness research, we must respond to the challenge of determining the key mechanisms of change ( National Institute of Mental Health, 2016 ) and identify key modifiable components of packaged interventions ( Rosen & Proctor, 1978 ). We need to explore the optimal dosage, ordering, or adapted bundling of intervention elements and advance robust, feasible ways to measure and increase fidelity ( Jaccard, 2016 ). We also need to conduct research on which interventions are most appropriate, acceptable, and effective with various client groups ( Zayas, 2003 ; Videka, 2003 ).

Documenting the Impact of Interventions: Specifying and Measuring Outcomes

Outcomes are key to documenting the impact of social work interventions. My 1978 “specifying” paper with Rosen emphasized that the effectiveness of social work practice could not be adequately evaluated without clear specification and measurement of various types of outcomes. In that paper, we argued that the profession cannot rely only on an assertion of effectiveness. The field must also calibrate, calculate, and communicate its impact.

The nursing profession’s highly successful campaign, based on outcomes research, positioned that field to claim that “nurses save lives.” Nurse staffing ratios were associated with in-hospital and 30-day mortality, independent of patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, or medical treatment ( Person et al., 2004 ). In contrast, social work has often described—sometimes advertised—itself as the low-cost profession. The claim of “cheapest service” may have some strategic advantage in turf competition with other professions. But social work can do better. Our research base can and should demonstrate the value of our work by naming and quantifying the outcomes—the added value of social work interventions.

As a start to this work—a beginning step in compiling evidence about the impact of social work interventions—our team set out to identify the outcomes associated with social work practice. We felt that identifying and naming outcomes is essential for conveying what social work is about. Moreover, outcomes should serve as the focus for evaluating the effectiveness of social work interventions.

We produced two taxonomies of outcomes reflected in published evaluations of social work interventions ( Proctor, Rosen, & Rhee, 2002 ; Rosen, Proctor, & Staudt, 2003 ). They included such outcomes as change in clients’ social functioning, resource procurement, problem or symptom reduction, and safety. They exemplify the importance of naming and measuring what our profession can contribute to society. Although social work’s growing body of effectiveness research typically reports outcomes of the interventions being tested, the literature has not, in the intervening 20 years, addressed the collective set of outcomes for our field.

Fortunately, the Grand Challenges for Social Work (AASWSW, n.d.) now provide a framework for communicating social work’s goals. They reflect social work’s added value: improving individual and family well-being, strengthening social fabric, and helping to create a more just society. The Grand Challenges for Social Work include ensuring healthy development for all youth, closing the health gap, stopping family violence, advancing long and productive lives, eradicating social isolation, ending homelessness, creating social responses to a changing environment, harnessing technology for social good, promoting smart decarceration, reducing extreme economic inequality, building financial capability for all, and achieving equal opportunity and justice ( AASWSW, n.d. ).

These important goals appropriately reflect much of what we are all about in social work, and our entire field has been galvanized—energized by the power of these grand challenges. However, the grand challenges require setting specific benchmarks—targets that reflect how far our professional actions can expect to take us, or in some areas, how far we have come in meeting the challenge.

For the past decade, care delivery systems and payment reforms have required measures for tracking performance. Quality measures have become critical tools for all service providers and organizations ( IOM, 2015 ). The IOM defines quality of care as “the degree to which … services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired … outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge” ( Lohr, 1990 , p. 21). Quality measures are important at multiple levels of service delivery: at the client level, at the practitioner level, at the organization level, and at the policy level. The National Quality Forum has established five criteria for quality measures: They should address (a) the most important, (b) the most scientifically valid, (c) the most feasible or least burdensome, (d) the most usable, and (e) the most harmonious set of measures ( IOM, 2015 .) Quality measures have been advanced by accrediting groups (e.g., the Joint Commission of the National Committee for Quality Assurance), professional societies, and federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. However, quality measures are lacking for key areas of social work practice, including mental health and substance-use treatment. And of the 55 nationally endorsed measures related to mental health and substance use, only two address a psychosocial intervention. Measures used for accreditation and certification purposes often reflect structural capabilities of organizations and their resource use, not the infrastructure required to deliver high-quality services ( IOM, 2015 ). I am not aware of any quality measure developed by our own professional societies or agreed upon across our field.

Future Directions: Research on Quality Monitoring and Measure Development

Although social work as a field lacks a strong tradition of measuring and assessing quality ( Megivern et al., 2007 ; McMillen et al., 2005 ; Proctor, Powell, & McMillen, 2012 ), social work’s role in the quality workforce is becoming better understood ( McMillen & Raffol, 2016 ). The small number of established and endorsed quality measures reflects both limitations in the evidence for effective interventions and challenges in obtaining the detailed information necessary to support quality measurement ( IOM, 2015 ). According to the National Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work (2016) , developing quality measures to capture use of evidence-based interventions is essential for the survival of social work practice in many settings. The task force recommends that social work organizations develop relevant and viable quality measures and that social workers actively influence the implementation of quality measures in their practice settings.

How to Implement Evidence-Based Care

A third and more recent focus of my work addresses this question: How do we implement evidence-based care in agencies and communities? Despite our progress in developing proven interventions, most clients—whether served by social workers or other providers—do not receive evidence-based care. A growing number of studies are assessing the extent to which clients—in specific settings or communities—receive evidence-based interventions. Kohl, Schurer, and Bellamy (2009) examined quality in a core area of social work: training for parents at risk for child maltreatment. The team examined the parent services and their level of empirical support in community agencies, staffed largely by master’s-level social workers. Of 35 identified treatment programs offered to families, only 11% were “well-established empirically supported interventions,” with another 20% containing some hallmarks of empirically supported interventions ( Kohl et al., 2009 ). This study reveals a sizable implementation gap, with most of the programs delivered lacking scientific validation.

Similar quality gaps are apparent in other settings where social workers deliver services. Studies show that only 19.3% of school mental health professionals and 36.8% of community mental health professionals working in Virginia’s schools and community mental health centers report using any evidence-based substance-abuse prevention programs ( Evans, Koch, Brady, Meszaros, & Sadler, 2013 ). In mental health, where social workers have long delivered the bulk of services, only 40% to 50% of people with mental disorders receive any treatment ( Kessler, Chiu, Demler, Merikangas, & Walters, 2005 ; Merikangas et al., 2011 ), and of those receiving treatment, a fraction receive what could be considered “quality” treatment ( Wang, Demler, & Kessler, 2002 ; Wang et al., 2005 ). These and other studies indicate that, despite progress in developing proven interventions, most clients do not receive evidence-based care. In light of the growth of evidence-based practice, this fact is troubling evidence that testing interventions and publishing the findings is not sufficient to improve quality.

So, how do we get these interventions in place? What is needed to enable social workers to deliver, and clients to receive, high-quality care? In addition to developing and testing evidence-based interventions, what else is needed to improve the quality of social work practice? My work has focused on advancing quality of services through two paths.

Making Effective Interventions Accessible to Providers: Intervention Reviews and Taxonomies

First, we have advocated that research evidence be synthesized and made available to front-line practitioners. In a research-active field where new knowledge is constantly produced, practitioners should not be expected to rely on journal publications alone for information about effective approaches to achieve desired outcomes. Mastering a rapidly expanding professional evidence base has been characterized as a nearly unachievable challenge for practitioners ( Greenfield, 2017 ). Reviews should critique and clarify the intervention’s effectiveness as tested in specific settings, populations, and contexts, answering the question, “What works where, and with whom?” Even more valuable are studies of comparative effectiveness—those that answer, “Which intervention approach works better, where, and when?”

Taxonomies of clearly and consistently labeled interventions will enhance their accessibility and the usefulness of research reports and systematic reviews. A pre-requisite is the consistent naming of interventions. A persistent challenge is the wide variation in names or labels for interventive procedures and programs. Our professional activities are the basis for our societal sanction, and they must be capable of being accurately labeled and documented if we are to describe what our profession “does” to advance social welfare. Increasingly, and in short order, that documentation will be in electronic records that are scrutinized by third parties for purposes of reimbursement and assessment of value toward outcome attainment.

How should intervention research and reviews be organized? Currently, several websites provide lists of evidence-based practices, some with links, citations, or information about dissemination and implementation organizations that provide training and facilitation to adopters. Practitioners and administrators find such lists helpful but often note the challenge in determining which are most appropriate for their needs. In the words of one agency leader, “The drug companies are great at presenting [intervention information] in a very easy form to use. We don’t have people coming and saying, ‘Ah, let me tell you about the best evidence-based practice for cognitive behavioral therapy for depression,’” ( Proctor et al., 2007 , p. 483). We have called for the field to devise decision aids for practitioners to enhance access to the best available empirical knowledge about interventions ( Proctor et al., 2002 ; Proctor & Rosen, 2008 ; Rosen et al., 2003 ). We proposed that intervention taxonomies be organized around outcomes pursued in social work practice, and we developed such a taxonomy based on eight domains of outcomes—those most frequently tested in social work journals. Given the field’s progress in identifying its grand challenges, its associated outcomes could well serve as the organizing focus, with research-tested interventions listed for each challenge. Compiling the interventions, programs, and services that are shown—through research—to help achieve one of the challenges would surely advance our field.

We further urged profession-wide efforts to develop social work practice guidelines from intervention taxonomies ( Rosen et al., 2003 ). Practice guidelines are systematically compiled, critiqued, and organized statements about the effectiveness of interventions that are organized in a way to help practitioners select and use the most effective and appropriate approaches for addressing client problems and pursuing desired outcomes.

At that time, we proposed that our published taxonomy of social work interventions could provide a beginning architecture for social work guidelines ( Rosen et al., 2003 ). In 2000, we organized a conference for thought leaders in social work practice. This talented group wrestled with and formulated recommendations for tackling the professional, research, and training requisites to developing social work practice guidelines to enable researchers to access and apply the best available knowledge about interventions ( Rosen et al., 2003 ). Fifteen years later, however, the need remains for social work to synthesize its intervention research. Psychology and psychiatry, along with most fields of medical practice, have developed practice guidelines. Although their acceptance and adherence is fraught with challenges, guidelines make evidence more accessible and enable quality monitoring. Yet, guidelines still do not exist for social work.

The 2015 IOM report, “Psychosocial Interventions for Mental and Substance Use Disorders: A Framework for Establishing Evidence-Based Standards,” includes a conclusion that information on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions is not routinely available to service consumers, providers, and payers, nor is it synthesized. That 2015 IOM report called for systematic reviews to inform clinical guidelines for psychosocial interventions. This report defined psychosocial interventions broadly, encompassing “interpersonal or informational activities, techniques, or strategies that target biological, behavioral, cognitive, emotional, interpersonal, social, or environmental factors with the aim of reducing symptoms and improving functioning or well-being” ( IOM, 2015 , p. 5). These interventions are social work’s domain; they are delivered in the very settings where social workers dominate (behavioral health, schools, criminal justice, child welfare, and immigrant services); and they encompass populations across the entire lifespan within all sociodemographic groups and vulnerable populations. Accordingly, the National Task Force on Evidence Based Practice in Social Work (2016) has recommended the conduct of more systematic reviews of the evidence supporting social work interventions.

If systematic reviews are to lead to guidelines for evidence-based psychosocial interventions, social work needs to be at the table, and social work research must provide the foundation. Whether social work develops its own guidelines or helps lead the development of profession-independent guidelines as recommended by the IOM committee, guidelines need to be detailed enough to guide practice. That is, they need to be accompanied by treatment manuals and informed by research that details the effect of moderator variables and contextual factors reflecting diverse clientele, social determinants of health, and setting resource challenges. The IOM report “Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust” sets criteria for guideline development processes ( IOM, 2011 ). Moreover, social work systematic reviews of research and any associated evidence-based guidelines need to be organized around meaningful taxonomies.

Advancing the Science of Implementation

As a second path to ensuring the delivery of high-quality care, my research has focused on advancing the science of implementation. Implementation research seeks to inform how to deliver evidence-based interventions, programs, and policies into real-world settings so their benefits can be realized and sustained. The ultimate aim of implementation research is building a base of evidence about the most effective processes and strategies for improving service delivery. Implementation research builds upon effectiveness research then seeks to discover how to use specific implementation strategies and move those interventions into specific settings, extending their availability, reach, and benefits to clients and communities. Accordingly, implementation strategies must address the challenges of the service system (e.g., specialty mental health, schools, criminal justice system, health settings) and practice settings (e.g., community agency, national employee assistance programs, office-based practice), and the human capital challenge of staff training and support.

In an approach that echoes themes in an early paper, “Specifying the Treatment Process—The Basis for Effectiveness Research” ( Rosen & Proctor, 1978 ), my work once again tackled the challenge of specifying a heretofore vague process—this time, not the intervention process, but the implementation process. As a first step, our team developed a taxonomy of implementation outcomes ( Proctor et al., 2011 ), which enable a direct test of whether or not a given intervention is adopted and delivered. Although it is overlooked in other types of research, implementation science focuses on this distinct type of outcome. Explicit examination of implementation outcomes is key to an important research distinction. Often, evaluations yield disappointing results about an intervention, showing that the expected and desired outcomes are not attained. This might mean that the intervention was not effective. However, just as likely, it could mean that the intervention was not actually delivered, or it was not delivered with fidelity. Implementation outcomes help identify the roadblocks on the way to intervention adoption and delivery.

Our 2011 taxonomy of implementation outcomes ( Proctor et al., 2011 ), became the framework for two national repositories of measures for implementation research: the Seattle Implementation Research Collaborative ( Lewis et al., 2015 ) and the National Institutes of Health GEM measures database ( Rabin et al., 2012 ). These repositories of implementation outcomes seek to harmonize and increase the rigor of measurement in implementation science.

We also have developed taxonomies of implementation strategies ( Powell et al., 2012 ; Powell et al., 2015 ; Waltz et al., 2014 , 2015) . Implementation strategies are interventions for system change—how organizations, communities, and providers can learn to deliver new and more effective practices ( Powell et al., 2012 ).

A conversation with a key practice leader stimulated my interest in implementation strategies. Shortly after our school endorsed an MSW curriculum emphasizing evidence-based practices, a pioneering CEO of a major social service agency in St. Louis met with me and asked,

Enola Proctor, I get the importance of delivering evidence based practices. My organization delivers over 20 programs and interventions, and I believe only a handful of them are really evidence based. I want to decrease our provision of ineffective care, and increase our delivery of evidence-based practices. But how? What are the evidence-based ways I, as an agency director, can transform my agency so that we can deliver evidence-based practices?

That agency director was asking a question of how . He was asking for evidence-based implementation strategies. Moving effective programs and practices into routine care settings requires the skillful use of implementation strategies, defined as systematic “methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of a clinical program or practice into routine service” ( Proctor et al., 2013 , p. 2).

This question has shaped my work for the past 15 years, as well as the research priorities of several funding agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the World Health Organization. Indeed, a National Institutes of Health program announcement—Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health ( National Institutes of Health, 2016 )—identified the discovery of effective implementation strategies as a primary purpose of implementation science. To date, the implementation science literature cannot yet answer that important question, but we are making progress.

To identify implementation strategies, our teams first turned to the literature—a literature that we found to be scattered across a wide range of journals and disciplines. Most articles were not empirical, and most articles used widely differing terms to characterize implementation strategies. We conducted a structured literature review to generate common nomenclature and a taxonomy of implementation strategies. That review yielded 63 distinct implementation strategies, which fell into six groupings: planning, educating, financing, restructuring, managing quality, and attending to policy context ( Powell et al., 2012 ).

Our team refined that compilation, using Delphi techniques and concept mapping to develop conceptually distinct categories of implementation strategies ( Powell et al., 2015 ; Waltz et al., 2014 ). The refined compilation of 73 discrete implementation strategies was then further organized into nine clusters:

changing agency infrastructure,
using financial strategies,
supporting clinicians,
providing interactive assistance,
training and educating stakeholders,
adapting and tailoring interventions to context,
developing stakeholder relationships,
using evaluative and iterative strategies, and
engaging consumers.

These taxonomies of implementation strategies position the field for more robust research on implementation processes. The language used to describe implementation strategies has not yet “gelled” and has been described as a “Tower of Babel” ( McKibbon et al., 2010 ). Therefore, we also developed guidelines for reporting the components of strategies ( Proctor et al., 2013 ) so researchers and implementers would have more behaviorally specific information about what a strategy is, who does it, when, and for how long. The value of such reporting guidelines is illustrated in the work of Gold and colleagues (2016) .

What have we learned, through our own program of research on implementation strategies—the “how to” of improving practice? First, we have been able to identify from practice-based evidence the implementation strategies used most often. Using novel activity logs to track implementation strategies, Bunger and colleagues (2017) found that strategies such as quality improvement tools, using data experts, providing supervision, and sending clinical reminders were frequently used to facilitate delivery of behavioral health interventions within a child-welfare setting and were perceived by agency leadership as contributing to project success.

Second, reflecting the complexity of quality improvement processes, we have learned that there is no magic bullet ( Powell, Proctor, & Glass, 2013 ). Our study of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs clinics working to implement evidence-based HIV treatment found that implementers used an average of 25 (plus or minus 14) different implementation strategies ( Rogal, et al., 2017 ). Moreover, the number of implementation strategies used was positively associated with the number of new treatment starts. These findings suggest that implementing new interventions requires considerable effort and resources.

To advance our understanding of the effectiveness of implementation strategies, our teams have conducted a systematic review ( Powell et al., 2013 ), tested specific strategies, and captured practice-based evidence from on-the-ground implementers. Testing the effectiveness of implementation strategies has been identified as a top research priority by the IOM (2009) . In work with Charles Glisson in St. Louis, our 15-agency-based randomized clinical trial found that an organizational-focused intervention—the attachment, regulatory, and competency model—improved agency culture and climate, stimulated more clinicians to enroll in evidence-based-practice training, and boosted clinical effect sizes of various evidence-based practices ( Glisson, Williams, Hemmelgarn, Proctor, & Green, 2016a , 2016b ). And in a hospital critical care unit, the implementation strategies of developing a team, selecting and using champions, provider education sessions, and audit and feedback helped increase team adherence to phlebotomy guidelines ( Steffen et al., in press ).

We are also learning about the value of different strategies. Experts in implementation science and implementation practice identified as most important the strategies of “use evaluate and iterative approaches” and “train and educate stakeholders.” Reported as less helpful were such strategies as “access new funding streams” and “remind clinicians of practices to use” ( Waltz et al., 2015 ). Successful implementers in Veterans Affairs clinics relied more heavily on such strategies as “change physical structures and equipment” and “facilitate relay of clinical data to providers” than did less successful implementers ( Rogal et al., 2017 ).

Many strategies have yet to be investigated empirically, as has the role of dissemination and implementation organizations—organizations that function to promote, provide information about, provide training in, and scale up specific treatments. Most evidence-based practices used in behavioral health, including most listed on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration National Registry of Promising and Effective Practices, are disseminated and distributed by dissemination and implementation organizations. Unlike drugs and devices, psychosocial interventions have no Federal Drug Administration-like delivery system. Kreuter and Casey (2012) urge better understanding and use of the intervention “delivery system,” or mechanisms to bring treatment discoveries to the attention of practitioners and into use in practice settings.

Implementation strategies have been shown to boost clinical effectiveness ( Glisson et al., 2010 ), reduce staff turnover ( Aarons, Sommerfield, Hect, Silvosky, & Chaffin, 2009 ) and help reduce disparities in care ( Balicer et al., 2015 ).

Future directions: Research on implementation strategies

My work in implementation science has helped build intellectual capital for the rapidly growing field of dissemination and implementation science, leading teams to distinguish, clearly define, develop taxonomies, and stimulate more systematic work to advance the conceptual, linguistic, and methodological clarity in the field. Yet, we continue to lack understanding of many issues. What strategies are used in usual implementation practice, by whom, for which empirically supported interventions? What strategies are effective in which organizational and policy contexts? Which strategies are effective in attaining which specific implementation outcomes? For example, are the strategies that are effective for initial adoption also effective for scale up, spread, and sustained use of interventions? Social workers have the skill set for roles as implementation facilitators, and refining packages of implementation strategies that are effective in social service and behavioral health settings could boost the visibility, scale, and impact of our work.

The Third Generation and Counting

Social work faces grand, often daunting challenges. We need to develop a more robust base of evidence about the effectiveness of interventions and make that evidence more relevant, accessible, and applicable to social work practitioners, whether they work in communities, agencies, policy arenas, or a host of novel settings. We need to advance measurement-based care so our value as a field is recognized. We need to know how to bring proven interventions to scale for population-level impact. We need to discover ways to build capacity of social service agencies and the communities in which they reside. And we need to learn how to sustain advances in care once we achieve them ( Proctor et al., 2015 ). Our challenges are indeed grand, far outstripping our resources.

So how dare we speak of a quality quest? Does it not seem audacious to seek the highest standards in caring for the most vulnerable, especially in an era when we face a new political climate that threatens vulnerable groups and promises to strip resources from health and social services? Members of our profession are underpaid, and most of our agencies lack the data infrastructure required for assessment and evaluation. Quality may be an audacious goal, but as social workers we can pursue no less. By virtue of our code of ethics, our commitment to equity, and our skills in intervening on multiple levels of systems and communities, social workers are ideally suited for advancing quality.

Who will conduct the needed research? Who will pioneer its translation to improving practice? Social work practice can be only as strong as its research base; the responsibility for developing that base, and hence improve practice, is lodged within social work research.

If my greatest challenge is pursuing this quest, my greatest joy is in mentoring the next generation for this work. My research mentoring has always been guided by the view that the ultimate purpose of research in the helping professions is the production and systemization of knowledge for use by practitioners ( Rosen & Proctor, 1978 ). For 27 years, the National Institute of Mental Health has supported training in mental health services research based in the Center for Mental Health Services Research ( Hasche, Perron, & Proctor, 2009 ; Proctor & McMillen, 2008 ). And, with colleague John Landsverk, we are launching my sixth year leading the Implementation Research Institute, a training program for implementation science supported by the National Institute of Mental Health ( Proctor et al., 2013 ). We have trained more than 50 social work, psychology, anthropology, and physician researchers in implementation science for mental health. With three more cohorts to go, we are working to assess what works in research training for implementation science. Using bibliometric analysis, we have learned that intensive training and mentoring increases research productivity in the form of published papers and grants that address how to implement evidence-based care in mental health and addictions. And, through use of social network analysis, we have learned that every “dose” of mentoring increases scholarly collaboration when measured two years later ( Luke, Baumann, Carothers, Landsverk, & Proctor, 2016 ).

As his student, I was privileged to learn lessons in mentoring from Aaron Rosen. He treated his students as colleagues, he invited them in to work on the most challenging of questions, and he pursued his work with joy. When he treated me as a colleague, I felt empowered. When he invited me to work with him on the field’s most vexing challenges, I felt inspired. And as he worked with joy, I learned that work pursued with joy doesn’t feel like work at all. And now the third, fourth, and fifth generations of social work researchers are pursuing tough challenges and the quality quest for social work practice. May seasoned and junior researchers work collegially and with joy, tackling the profession’s toughest research challenges, including the quest for high-quality social work services.

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this paper was supported by IRI (5R25MH0809160), Washington University ICTS (2UL1 TR000448-08), Center for Mental Health Services Research, Washington University in St. Louis, and the Center for Dissemination and Implementation, Institute for Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis.

This invited article is based on the 2017 Aaron Rosen Lecture presented by Enola Proctor at the Society for Social Work and Research 21st Annual Conference—“Ensure Healthy Development for All Youth”—held January 11–15, 2017, in New Orleans, LA. The annual Aaron Rosen Lecture features distinguished scholars who have accumulated a body of significant and innovative scholarship relevant to practice, the research base for practice, or effective utilization of research in practice.

Aarons GA, Sommerfield DH, Hect DB, Silvosky JF, Chaffin MJ. The impact of evidence-based practice implementation and fidelity monitoring on staff turnover: Evidence for a protective effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2009; 77 (2):270–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013223 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (AASWSW) Grand challenges for social work (n.d.) Retrieved from http://aaswsw.org/grand-challenges-initiative/
Balicer RD, Hoshen M, Cohen-Stavi C, Shohat-Spitzer S, Kay C, Bitterman H, Shadmi E. Sustained reduction in health disparities achieved through targeted quality improvement: One-year follow-up on a three-year intervention. Health Services Research. 2015; 50 :1891–1909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12300 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bunger AC, Powell BJ, Robertson HA, MacDowell H, Birken SA, Shea C. Tracking implementation strategies: A description of a practical approach and early findings. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2017; 15 (15):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0175-y . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Evans SW, Koch JR, Brady C, Meszaros P, Sadler J. Community and school mental health professionals’ knowledge and use of evidence based substance use prevention programs. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2013; 40 (4):319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-012-0422-z . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fraser MW. Intervention research in social work: Recent advances and continuing challenges. Research on Social Work Practice. 2004; 14 (3):210–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731503262150 . [ Google Scholar ]
Glisson C, Schoenwald SK, Hemmelgarn A, Green P, Dukes D, Armstrong KS, Chapman JE. Randomized trial of MST and ARC in a two-level evidence-based treatment implementation strategy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2010; 78 (4):537–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019160 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Glisson C, Williams NJ, Hemmelgarn A, Proctor EK, Green P. Increasing clinicians’ EBT exploration and preparation behavior in youth mental health services by changing organizational culture with ARC. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2016a; 76 :40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2015.11.008 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Glisson C, Williams NJ, Hemmelgarn A, Proctor EK, Green P. Aligning organizational priorities with ARC to improve youth mental health service outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2016b; 84 (8):713–725. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000107 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gold R, Bunce AE, Cohen DJ, Hollombe C, Nelson CA, Proctor EK, DeVoe JE. Reporting on the strategies needed to implement proven interventions: An example from a “real-world” cross-setting implementation study. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2016; 91 (8):1074–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.03.014 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Greenfield S. Clinical practice guidelines: Expanded use and misuse. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2017; 317 (6):594–595. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.19969. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hasche L, Perron B, Proctor E. Making time for dissertation grants: Strategies for social work students and educators. Research on Social Work Practice. 2009; 19 (3):340–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731508321559 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Institute of Medicine (IOM), Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
Institute of Medicine (IOM) Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
Institute of Medicine (IOM) Psychosocial interventions for mental and substance use disorders: A framework for establishing evidence-based standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015. https://doi.org/10.17226/19013 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jaccard J. The prevention of problem behaviors in adolescents and young adults: Perspectives on theory and practice. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. 2016; 7 (4):585–613. https://doi.org/10.1086/689354 . [ Google Scholar ]
Kessler RC, Chiu WT, Demler O, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2005; 62 (6):617–627. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.617 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kohl PL, Schurer J, Bellamy JL. The state of parent training: Program offerings and empirical support. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services. 2009; 90 (3):248–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3894 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kreuter MW, Casey CM. Enhancing dissemination through marketing and distribution systems: A vision for public health. In: Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E, editors. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
Lewis CC, Stanick CF, Martinez RG, Weiner BJ, Kim M, Barwick M, Comtois KA. The Society for Implementation Research collaboration instrument review project: A methodology to promote rigorous evaluation. Implementation Science. 2015; 10 (2):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0193-x . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lohr KN. Medicare: A strategy for quality assurance. I. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1990. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Luke D, Baumann A, Carothers B, Landsverk J, Proctor EK. Forging a link between mentoring and collaboration: A new training model for implementation science. Implementation Science. 2016; 11 (137):1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0499-y . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DA, Straus SS. A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: A tower of Babel? Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (16) doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-16. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Megivern D, Striley CW, Cabasa LJ, Munson MR, Dickey B. Quality of care in the social services: Research agenda and methods. Social Work Research. 2005; 29 (3):181–191. doi.org/10.1093/swr/29.3.181. [ Google Scholar ]
McMillen JC, Raffol M. Characterizing the quality workforce in private U.S. child and family behavioral health agencies. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2016; 43 (5):750–759. doi: 10.1007/s10488-0150-0667-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Megivern DA, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Striley CW, Cabassa LJ, Munson MR. Quality of care: Expanding the social work dialogue. Social Work. 2007; 52 (2):115–124. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/52.2.115 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Merikangas KR, He J, Burstein M, Swendsen J, Avenevoli S, Case B, Olfson M. Service utilization for lifetime mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: Results of the National Comorbidity Survey Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A) Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2011; 50 (1):32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2010.10.006 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
National Institute of Mental Health. Psychosocial research at NIMH: A primer. 2016 Retrieved from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-priorities/psychosocial-research-at-nimh-a-primer.shtml .
National Institutes of Health. Dissemination and implementation research in health (R01) 2016 Sep 14; Retrieved from https://archives.nih.gov/asites/grants/09-14-2016/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-16-238.html .
National Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work. Unpublished recommendations to the Social Work Leadership Roundtable 2016 [ Google Scholar ]
Person SD, Allison JJ, Kiefe CI, Weaver MT, Williams OD, Centor RM, Weissman NW. Nurse staffing and mortality for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction. Medical Care. 2004; 42 (1):4–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000102369.67404.b0 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Powell BJ, McMillen C, Proctor EK, Carpenter CR, Griffey RT, Bunger AC, York JL. A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Medical Care Research and Review. 2012; 69 (2):123–157. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077558711430690 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Powell BJ, Proctor EK, Glass JE. A systematic review of strategies for implementing empirically supported mental health interventions. Research on Social Work Practice. 2013; 24 (2):192–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731513505778 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Kirchner JE. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science. 2015; 10 (21):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Proctor EK, Knudsen KJ, Fedoravicius N, Hovmand P, Rosen A, Perron B. Implementation of evidence-based practice in community behavioral health: Agency director perspectives. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2007; 34 (5):479–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-007-0129-8 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Baumann AA, Mittman BS, Aarons GA, Brownson RC, Chambers D. The Implementation Research Institute: Training mental health implementation researchers in the United States. Implementation Science. 2013; 8 (105):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-105 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Proctor EK, Luke D, Calhoun A, McMillen C, Brownson R, McCrary S, Padek M. Sustainability of evidence-based healthcare: Research agenda, methodological advances, and infrastructure support. Implementation Science. 2015; 10 (88):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0274-5 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Proctor EK, McMillen JC. Quality of care. In: Mizrahi T, Davis L, editors. Encyclopedia of Social Work. 20. Washington, DC, and New York, NY: NASW Press and Oxford University Press; 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.33 . [ Google Scholar ]
Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen CJ. Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implementation Science. 2012; 8 (139):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Proctor EK, Rosen A. From knowledge production to implementation: Research challenges and imperatives. Research on Social Work Practice. 2008; 18 (4):285–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731507302263 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Proctor EK, Rosen A, Rhee C. Outcomes in social work practice. Social Work Research & Evaluation. 2002; 3 (2):109–125. [ Google Scholar ]
Proctor EK, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Hensley M. Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011; 38 (2):65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rabin BA, Purcell P, Naveed S, Moser RP, Henton MD, Proctor EK, Glasgow RE. Advancing the application, quality and harmonization of implementation science measures. Implementation Science. 2012; 7 (119):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-119 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rogal SS, Yakovchenko V, Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Kirchner JE, Proctor EK, Chinman MJ. The association between implementation strategy use and the uptake of hepatitis C treatment in a national sample. Implementation Science. 2017; 12 (60) http://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0588-6 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rosen A, Proctor EK. Specifying the treatment process: The basis for effectiveness research. Journal of Social Service Research. 1978; 2 (1):25–43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v02n01_04 . [ Google Scholar ]
Rosen A, Proctor EK. Distinctions between treatment outcomes and their implications for treatment evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1981; 49 (3):418–425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.49.3.418 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rosen A, Proctor EK, Staudt M. Targets of change and interventions in social work: An empirically-based prototype for developing practice guidelines. Research on Social Work Practice. 2003; 13 (2):208–233. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049731502250496 . [ Google Scholar ]
Steffen K, Doctor A, Hoerr J, Gill J, Markham C, Riley S, Spinella P. Controlling phlebotomy volume diminishes PICU transfusion: Implementation processes and impact. Pediatrics (in press) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Videka L. Accounting for variability in client, population, and setting characteristics: Moderators of intervention effectiveness. In: Rosen A, Proctor EK, editors. Developing practice guidelines for social work intervention: Issues, methods, and research agenda. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2003. pp. 169–192. [ Google Scholar ]
Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, Kirchner JE. Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC): Protocol for a mixed methods study. Implementation Science. 2014; 9 (39):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-39 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, Kirchner JE. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implementation Science. 2015; 10 (109):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wang PS, Lane M, Olfson M, Pincus HA, Wells KB, Kessler RC. Twelvemonth use of mental health services in the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2005; 62 (6):629–640. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.629. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wang PS, Demler O, Kessler RC. Adequacy of treatment for serious mental illness in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92 (1):92–98. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.92.1.92 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zayas L. Service delivery factors in the development of practice guidelines. In: Rosen A, Proctor EK, editors. Developing practice guidelines for social work intervention: Issues, methods, and research agenda. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2003. pp. 169–192. https://doi.org/10.7312/rose12310-010 . [ Google Scholar ]

IMAGES

Research Methods in Social Work
Social Work Research: Methods for the Helping Professions
Social Work Research Methods
Essential Research Methods For Social Work: A Comprehensive Guide
Research Methods for Social Work: 9788131601617
Definition and Types of Social Research Methods

VIDEO

Chapter 4 Quant Qual & Mixed Methods
social work research
social work is what social workers do #music #love
MUST WATCH! SOCIAL WORK REVIEWER: SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH SAMPLING METHODS
Research Design in Social Work, Part –I
Social Work Research 31 October 2023

COMMENTS

Social Work Research Methods That Drive the Practice
Social work researchers will send out a survey, receive responses, aggregate the results, analyze the data, and form conclusions based on trends. Surveys are one of the most common research methods social workers use — and for good reason. They tend to be relatively simple and are usually affordable.
Social Work Research Methods
Social work research means conducting an investigation in accordance with the scientific method. The aim of social work research is to build the social work knowledge base in order to solve practical problems in social work practice or social policy. Investigating phenomena in accordance with the scientific method requires maximal adherence to ...
Practice Research in Social Work: Themes, Opportunities and Impact
Practice research in social work is evolving and has been iteratively defined through a series of statements over the last 15 years (Epstein et al., 2015; Fook & Evans, 2011; Joubert et al., 2023; Julkunen et al., 2014; Sim et al., 2019).Most recently, the Melbourne Statement on Practice Research (Joubert et al., 2023) focused on practice meeting research, with an emphasis on 'the ...
Graduate research methods in social work
We designed our book to help graduate social work students through every step of the research process, from conceptualization to dissemination. Our textbook centers cultural humility, information literacy, pragmatism, and an equal emphasis on quantitative and qualitative methods. It includes extensive content on literature reviews, cultural bias and respectfulness, and qualitative methods, in ...
The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods
"`Not so much a handbook, but an excellent source of reference' - British Journal of Social Work This volume is the definitive resource for anyone doing research in social work. It details both quantitative and qualitative methods and data collection, as well as suggesting the methods appropriate to particular types of studies.
The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods
The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods represents an area that we have several other publications coming out and a market we actively reach. In addition, Bruce Thyer is the editor of the journal Research in Social Work Practice and expressed interest in updating the book along with the other two candidates. In the field of social work ...
Social Work Research and Mixed Methods: Stronger With a Quality
Mixed methods are a useful approach chosen by many social work researchers. This article showcases a quality framework using social work examples as practical guidance for social work researchers. Combining methodological literature with practical social work examples, elements of a high-quality approach to mixed methods are showcased in this ...
Foundations of Social Work Research
This textbook was created to provide an introduction to research methods for BSW and MSW students, with particular emphasis on research and practice relevant to students at the University of Texas at Arlington. It provides an introduction to social work students to help evaluate research for evidence-based practice and design social work research projects. It can be used with its companion, A ...
Research Methods for Social Work: A Problem-Based Approach
Research Methods for Social Work: A Problem-Based Approach is a comprehensive introduction to methods instruction that engages students innovatively and interactively. Using a case study and problem-based learning (PBL) approach, authors Antoinette Y. Farmer and G. Lawrence Farmer utilize case examples to achieve a level of application which ...
Back to the Future: Using Social Work Research to Improve Social Work
Abstract This article traces themes over time for conducting social work research to improve social work practice. The discussion considers 3 core themes: (a) the scientific practitioner, including different models for applying this perspective to research and practice; (b) intervention research; and (c) implementation science. While not intended to be a comprehensive review of these themes ...
Research Methods for Social Work
Widely considered the best text for the course, RESEARCH METHODS FOR SOCIAL WORK, Seventh Edition strikes an optimal balance of quantitative and qualitative research techniques--illustrating how the two methods complement one another. Allen Rubin and Earl R. Babbie's classic bestseller is acclaimed for its depth and breadth of coverage as well as the authors' clear and often humorous ...
Scientific Inquiry in Social Work
Chapter 1: Introduction to research. Chapter 2: Beginning a research project. Chapter 3: Reading and evaluating literature. Chapter 4: Conducting a literature review. Chapter 5: Ethics in social work research. Chapter 6: Linking methods with theory. Chapter 7: Design and causality. Chapter 8: Creating and refining a research question.
Research design in social work: Qualitative and quantitative methods
Based on: Campbell AnneTaylor BrianMcGlade Anne, Research design in social work: Qualitative and quantitative methods. London: Sage Publications - Learning Matters, 2017; 160 pp. ISBN 9781446271247, £20.99 (pbk) ... Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2008. 281 pp. ISBN 978 1412951920 (hbk ...
Research Methods for Social Work: A Problem-Based Approach
Welcome to the SAGE Edge site for Research Methods for Social Work, 1e!. Research Methods for Social Work: A Problem-Based Approach is a comprehensive introduction to methods instruction that engages students innovatively and interactively.Using a case study and problem-based learning (PBL) approach, authors Antoinette Y. Farmer and G. Lawrence Farmer utilize case examples to achieve a level ...
Research for Social Workers
Research for Social Workers has built a strong reputation as an accessible guide to the key research methods and approaches used in the discipline. Ideal for beginners, the book outlines the importance of social work research, its guiding principles and explains how to choose a topic area, develop research questions together with describing the key steps in the research process.
Social Work Research Methods: Learning by Doing
A three-part structure introduces the fundamentals of research methods, the different types of social work research, and the use of data analysis for evaluation of social work practice. Chapter-opening vignettes illustrate the value of chapter content to the practicing social worker.
Practice research methods in social work: Processes, applications and
Abstract. Although social work research is commonly rooted within social service settings, it can be difficult for social work researchers and practitioners to develop and sustain participatory studies that specifically promote knowledge sharing and service improvement involving organisational practice.
LibGuides: Sage Research Methods: Social Work
The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods by Bruce A. Thyer. ISBN: 9780761919063. Publication Date: 2000-12-29. This volume is the definitive resource for anyone doing research in social work. It details both quantitative and qualitative methods and data collection, as well as suggesting the methods appropriate to particular types of studies.
(PDF) Research Methods for Social Work
PDF | On Jan 1, 2009, A. Rubin and others published Research Methods for Social Work | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
Research on Social Work Practice: Sage Journals
Research on Social Work Practice (RSWP), peer-reviewed and published eight times per year, is a disciplinary journal devoted to the publication of empirical research concerning the assessment methods and outcomes of social work practice. Intervention programs covered include behavior analysis and therapy; psychotherapy or counseling with individuals; case management; and education.
5.3 Social work research paradigms
Distinguish between the three major research paradigms in social work and apply the assumptions upon which they are built to a student research project. In the previous two sections, we reviewed the three elements to the philosophical foundation of a research method: ontology, epistemology and axiology (Crotty, 1998; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Heron ...
Research Methods in Social Work
Research Methods in Social Work helps students develop evidence-based practice by involving them in the process of research methodology. An innovative storytelling approach follows two students engaged in internships who go through the steps and tasks required to design a program and evaluate it in their practicum. Readers can see how realistic ...
The Pursuit of Quality for Social Work Practice: Three Generations and
Although social work as a field lacks a strong tradition of measuring and assessing quality (Megivern et al., 2007; McMillen et al., 2005; Proctor, Powell, & McMillen, 2012), social work's role in the quality workforce is becoming better understood (McMillen & Raffol, 2016). The small number of established and endorsed quality measures ...

Social Work Research Methods That Drive the Practice

Data-Driven Work

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

Quantitative Research

Qualitative Research

Mixed Methods Research

The Importance of Research Design

Research Methods in Social Work

Program Evaluations

Needs Assessments

Randomized Controlled Trials

Descriptive Studies

Single-System Designs

Learn More About Social Work Research Methods

Social Work

How to Subscribe

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Social Work Research Methods

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

Other Subject Areas

Scientific Inquiry in Social Work

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Book

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

Research Methods for Social Work: A Problem-Based Approach

Acknowledgments

For instructors

Get Citation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sign in through your institution

Practice research methods in social work: Processes, applications and implications for social service organisations

Personal account

Institutional access

IP based access

Society Members

Sign in through society site

Sign in using a personal account

Viewing your signed in accounts

Signed in but can't access content

Short-term Access

Email alerts

Affiliations

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sage Research Methods: Social Work

Quick Links

Most Popular Methods

Suggested Methods Video in Social Work

Suggested Methods Books in Social Work

Search Research Methods

Methods Map

5.3 Social work research paradigms

How do scientific ideas change over time?

Paradigm vs. theory

Positivism: Researcher as “expert”

Postpositivism

Is positivism/postpositivism right for your research?

Constructivism: Researcher as “empathizer”

Is constructivism right for your project?

Critical paradigm: Researcher as “activist”

Is the critical paradigm right for your project?

Pragmatism: Researcher as “strategist”

Adopt a multi-paradigmatic perspective

Key Takeaways

Share This Book

The Pursuit of Quality for Social Work Practice: Three Generations and Counting

What Interventions and Services Are Most Effective?

Specifying Interventions

Advancing Intervention Effectiveness Research

Research Priorities

Future Directions: Research to Advance Evidence on Interventions

Documenting the Impact of Interventions: Specifying and Measuring Outcomes

Future Directions: Research on Quality Monitoring and Measure Development

How to Implement Evidence-Based Care

Making Effective Interventions Accessible to Providers: Intervention Reviews and Taxonomies

Advancing the Science of Implementation

Future directions: Research on implementation strategies

The Third Generation and Counting

Acknowledgments