Social Work Research In The Uk

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Part 1

Introduction

The first part of this essay outlines social work’s historical struggle with its professional and research identities, and explores the importance of social work research to policy as well as practice. Despite being relatively ignored by practitioners in the field, social work research mirrors the values underpinning social work and is synonymous with good practice. The second part focuses on two studies, comparing and analysing their methodologies and their overall contribution to the furthering of social work’s knowledge.

Social work research in the UK

In the mid-1980s, social work was still a young profession but grew rapidly as the flow of legislation greatly widened the range and complexity of its work (Barclay Report 1982), and brought a new emphasis towards consumer sovereignty and individual choice (Williams et al.1999). Social work has historically struggled with its research identity, since it has no unique subject matter or methodology (Witkin 1995), and is still largely seen as an amalgamation of other disciplines, and therefore struggles to have its own voice heard (Bywaters 2008). The struggle in comparison with other social sciences is evident if you consider its absence altogether as an undergraduate and postgraduate degree at both Cambridge and Oxford Universities. One of the largest funders of social science research alongside government departments (Marsh and Fisher 2005), is the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC); the low profile and visibility of social work research is evident with the fact that projects linked to social work represented 0.6 per cent of the total bids for funding for research (Shaw et al. 2006).

Social work may struggle with its research identity, but it does have a unique commitment to understanding people within their social context and the commitment to serving marginalised individuals (Witkin 1995). It attempts to understand people, acknowledges the need to understand the social context of social problems, and recognises the inherent danger of pathologising individuals whose problems are largely the result of wider social factors. As the environment and tasks of social work change, it begs the question if research should develop current theories, or focus on the development of new concepts and models? (Pease and Fook 1999).

The progression of social work research has seen growing attention paid to emergent themes such as the interactions between service users and social workers, the representation of service users’ voices and understanding organisational culture (Shaw and Gould 2001Such developments see it as accountable to service users, involves holistic engagement with the different aspects of the person’s problem and is fundamentally change oriented (Dominelli 2005:230).

Social work research

General research is carried out to find out something about the world (Hughes and Sharrock 1990) and essentially involves collecting information and thinking systematically about it (Connell 1975). It is a process that people engage in every day but instead of using the word research it is referred to as’ making enquiries’ or ‘trial and error’ (Jones & D'Cruz 2004). What makes it differ however from other information gathering is it is systematic and disciplined (Becker and Bryman 2004).

Social work research goes further and intends to do one or more of the following: explore, aiming to generate knowledge on a relatively unknown and under researched issue; describe, by highlighting certain aspects of a particular issue; and explain, attempting to provide explanations for the issue (Marlow 2001, Royse 1999). Social work research focuses on a particular aspect of social life, and aims to derive theory from the resultant data to help explain why something occurs (May 1994). Conversely, it can often be the needs or issues that arise from practice that prompt ideas for research (Jones & D'Cruz 2004).

Importance of research

Concerns about quality in social work can stem from a variety of sources and research is one of them (Adams 1998). Social workers are required to not only use their knowledge and experience to engage in research, but also contribute to it (BASW 2012). This contribution would be vital since it is suggested that for research to be useful it needs to be grounded in practice (Jones & D'Cruz 2004). Well established traditions of enquiry within social work emphasises the search for effective measures and evidence of positive practice outcomes (Sheldon 1983, 1986, Sheldon and Macdonald 1992 as cited in Smith 2009).

Social work has become increasingly specialist and fragmented (McLaughlin 2007); therefore the importance of specialist knowledge is invaluable to good practice. ‘Research mindedness’ seeks knowledge for such a purpose, and by the very nature of it includes ethical and political dimensions; it encompasses anti-oppressive values, reciprocity between practitioners and service users and opposes social control models (Everitt et al. 1992). Such values parallel those informing other areas of social work practice, and can therefore be seen as another method of helping achieve social work’s emancipatory aspirations (Jones and D’Cruz 2004). Indeed, it has been argued that social work practice necessitates processes, language and skills similar to those in research (Shaw 2000), and can be seen as interdependent with research since they share common goals. Furthermore, practice is improved by being subject to critical scrutiny, and research is enhanced by principles drawn from practice (Everitt et al. 1992). It is therefore about more than the pursuit of knowledge, with the political and ethical aspects promoting social justice (Jones and D’Cruz 2004), a central goal of social work as outlined in its code of ethics (BASW 2012, Sewpaul and Jones 2004).

This changing context has not necessarily removed the importance of using research and practice reflection however, in that it seeks to find evidence to identify and differentiate what is effective and what is intrusive practice. Effective practice is more likely when the social worker has the ability to draw on and evaluate previous research (Jones and D’Cruz 2004). The importance of research evidence to support policy and practice development is reiterated by continued government requests for large-scale projects. Works by Townsend (1962), Jackson and Marsden (1962) and Greve et al.(1971) are examples of how research led directly to policy change, however current researchers having to negotiate the discursive balance of power held by many different groups and stakeholders (Williams et al. 1999). Developing a strong research base is especially important so social work can build on its professional identity, and command political authority and influence. This is vitally important since intensely emotive areas of social work, such as child protection have in the past been more influenced by political pragmatism than objective evidence (Ward 2000).

Good practice involves research informed evidence which is underpinned by methodology, and forms the crux of evidence based practice (EBP) (Webb 2001). Evidence based practice highlights the importance of outcomes (McLaughlin 2007), and focuses on ways of improving these for particular client groups. EBP constitutes the appropriate use of current best evidence in decision making of service user welfare, and aims to improve effectiveness (Webb 2001).

Although for some years it has not sought to extend or develop the core knowledge base or central underpinnings of the social work tradition (Trevillion 2008: 448). Furthermore, EBP is grounded in positivist and empiricist methods, with some suggesting contain fundamental flaws (Polanyi 1967, Habermas 1968, Held 1980, Smith 1987). Nevertheless it chimes well with managerialism and its various administrative functions and control, and results in information processing and regulated action (Webb 2001).

Research types

Quantitative research methods do not feature heavily in social work research. It is a method that involves numbers, and analysed in ways that allow for mathematical calculations and the generation of statistics (D’Cruz and Jones 2004). It allows for numerical codes and categories to be generated, and normally requires a large sample to ensure rigour and credibility.

Qualitative methods seek a deeper truth by studying things in their natural setting, using ethnography, grounded theory, case studies, narrative, discourse analysis, conversation analysis and co-operative inquiry (Shaw and Gould 2001). It takes an interpretive approach to its subject, and attempts to understand the view of the world and experiences of people, and ideally not the researcher (Jones 1995). In short, it is a method that is not quantifiable (D’Cruz and Jones 2004).

Despite the two being very different, it is possible to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods (Hammersley 1996, Mason 1996), such as using an initial survey to determine or provide a sampling frame for interviews. Nevertheless there are some major differences that necessitate a brief explanation. The relationship between researcher and subject for instance: quantitative research is traditionally linked with positivism, therefore researcher objectivity is essential ; qualitative on the other hand is more reflexive, which highlights the researcher’s awareness of their positioning, acting as an active agent (D’Cruz and Jones 2004).

Ethics and values

Increased professionalisation champions expertise but risks encircling social work in its own knowledge and practice boundaries. The consequences of this are that it can lead to the exclusion of the very voices of the people it is trying to help, running the risk of practicing oppressively (Jones and D’Cruz 2004). Research that does not properly involve service users is disempowering and the outcomes of which could be used to perpetuate oppressive service delivery processes (Alston and Bowles 1998).

Finding and gaining consent from participants is also problematic, especially when seeking access to vulnerable groups such as looked after children (Hepinstall 2000). The Data Protection Act 1998 formed the basis for ethical guidelines that would frame the conduct of social research (Munro et al. 2005). However there is a further need of a code of ethics that mirrors that of social work, which includes respect for autonomy, beneficence, non- maleficence and justice (Butler 2002).

On a wider level, policy makers demand outcomes within tight budgets and want answers, yet good quality research findings usually require at least two years to produce results (Meagher and Wilson 2002). Such pressure, along with legal concerns, not only places individual researchers in difficult positions, but can discourage some local authorities from participating in research (Munro et al. 2005). The ever changing organisation structure of local authorities also makes long term research difficult and researchers can find themselves negotiating difficult terrain in the interface between organisational interests and those of the people who use services (Smith 2009). The fact that research is highly dependent on government and large agency funding means their vested interests will most likely be getting addressed, perhaps imposing conditions or allowing their political expectations to justify or govern the ethical decisions made during the research (May 1994). Weber (1949) argued that social science could only provide the means, and not tell people the ends. This is particularly important in social work research, since means themselves can inherit the ends, therefore furthering oppression and inequality.

Part 2 – comparison of two studies

Study 1

The study by Ericsson et al. (2011) used passive observation followed by semi-structured interviews to gather data. A qualitative methodology was appropriate in this case as it attempted from the outset to obtain a deeper understanding of the issue at hand (Greenhalgh and Taylor 1997), which in this case involved relationships with people with advanced dementia. It explored the method of ‘Relational Time’ (RT), and used this as an instrument to study how relationships with people with dementia are created. This grounded theory study involved videotaping and interviewing people with dementia. The sessions were undisturbed and took place in a usual, familiar environment in six residential units in southern Sweden. There were nine participants in total.

Interviews took place directly after RT, and involved brief questions with a concrete connection to the activity that had taken place. They were also interviewed two more times at a later date, as was the caregiver who had taken the session. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and the video recordings were written out in field notes. This was then compared with the notes of a participant observer.

Discussion

The study was clearly written, and when jargon was unavoidable, it was clearly explained to the reader, therefore making it engaging and easy to read. The sample observed and interviewed for the study was appropriate for what it intended to explore. Furthermore, it attempted to cover other aspects by interviewing the care giver and takes in their point of view and their understanding of the situation. Passive observation allows the avoidance of the Hawthorne effect, whereby the presence of an observer influence participants’ behaviours (Hawthorne 2001).

The study does not highlight any sampling issues, for instance why only nine participants were involved and does not discuss the limitations brought on by this. The sample was not picked by the researchers, but instead by health workers, and raises questions over biased sample choice that were perhaps not what the researcher was looking for. The (mis)use of leading questions and informed consent are notable issues that would arise from the use of interviews with this user group.

This phenomenological study somewhat adds value to our knowledge of communication and relationships with people with dementia by clearly stating the methodology and then providing concrete examples of how caregivers encouraged communication in particular ways. What was particularly beneficial was that the study gave a voice to a normally unheard section of society. However, use of RT as an instrument to gather data casts doubt over the replicability of the research process. Furthermore the caregiver represents a variable that exacerbates this.

Study 2

The study by Ruch (2004) explored the use of reflection for practitioners, in particularly ‘holistic’ reflection, and suggested that the characteristics it encouraged are capable of addressing the challenges of contemporary child care practice..

It involved two ethnographic case studies of family support teams in the UK. There were a total of 16 practitioners involved, 13 women and 3 men (two of whom were team managers). Participant observation was carried out over a period of 6 months in each setting. Once data saturation started to occur, an initial and follow up semi-structured interview took place.

Discussion

This study was also clearly written, and was easy to follow. The sample is relevant for what was being explored, however there is a considerable gender divide, yet this is acknowledged. This is suggested as an area of possible future research.

The methods used to collect the data during the two six month periods were comprehensive and saw the researcher as the research instrument. The methodology is clearly explained and argued for. Ethnographic studies create fluid data, and attempt to explain and understand richness and complexity of their subjects. It is a reflexive process, attempting to see through the eyes of the research subject, and is therefore relevant to social work practice. Furthermore, it helps disentangle all the elements to really understand what is going on. However, the possible unintentional consequences of the hawthorn effect are not addressed. The dynamics between researcher (academic) and subject (professional) is something worth noting, and it something to take into consideration during observation but more importantly during the interviews. Would the responses have been different if the interview was undertaken by a fellow practitioner for instance?

The research provides an insight into the usefulness of reflection in the field of social work, and particularly when working in child care practice. Considering the importance of reflection for practitioners, the study distinguishes between two types, and provides a useful comparison. It also removes it from the personal, and draws the readers’ attention to the environment that fosters the kind of reflection that proves beneficial.

Comparisons

The first study is with older service users, and the second looks at practitioners, so the samples are somewhat different. Secondly, cultural differences between the UK and Sweden need to be taken into account if somebody were to try and transfer the findings.

It is clear that both pieces of research add value to social work considering the importance of both reflection to practitioners and good communication with service users. The second study in particular provides an excellent summation of the benefits of reflection, and the characteristics of the workplace that encourages it. Therefore it would prove useful to practitioners and managers alike. The first study is useful for a broad range of social care workers and provides an insight into the subjective mind of a person with dementia, highlighting how communication is possible even in the advanced stages of dementia.

It is clear that these research studies both directly and indirectly promote good practice. Ethnographic research helps to analyse and question taken for granted practices, and helps understand organisational culture and context. The question that really needs to be tackled by research is ‘Is social work effective?’ Does this research help in the promotion of social work values such as social justice and self-determination?

Conclusion

Social work as a discipline and a research topic has historically been sidelined and left to borrow from other social sciences. However the creation of SCIE, SIESWE and SSSC amongst others highlights the importance placed on social work and its research, and the value on its exploratory nature and holistic engagement with the myriad aspects of peoples’ problems. The reciprocal relationship between research and practice places importance on having research minded practitioners, recognising the comparable skills that they require and their similar objectives.

Qualitative research methods such as participant observation and semi-structured interviews allow for a rich, detailed picture to be painted of the subject and their experiences. The ethical implications of such research are clear, and are deepened with the involvement of vulnerable groups and sensitive issues.

The two research studies examined both adopted different qualitative research methods. Direct comparison was not strictly possible but the merits and drawbacks were identified. Both studies increase knowledge and understanding in their respective areas, with the research on professional reflection particularly adding value for practitioners. They both indirectly increase the effectiveness of social work. Yet, with regards to the reflection paper, there is the danger that it merely sidelines some of the more pressing structural inequalities that necessitate social work involvement in the first place.