International Practice Research Conference (ICPR) Moving East

Abstract

I had the privilege of joining other practice-research advocates in attending the First International Conference on Practice Research (ICPR) held in idyllic Salisbury, situated in the south of England, on June 24–27, 2008. One of the primary aims of this relatively small, international forum was to draft an initial statement on practice research in social work to provide a platform for its further development (Southampton Practice Research Initiative Network Group, n.d.). Professor Jan Fook, who kindly invited me to this momentous event, was its key facilitator and emphasized that the statement should reflect current debates around practice research as well as putting down some markers to define its boundaries. Among 24 invited delegates from the UK and across the world who attended the event, I was the only Asian who lived and worked in Asia. By the end of the conference, the key aspects for the statement were agreed, but writing the actual statement was delegated to the small group facilitators to complete later that year. Thereafter, all the attendees provided their comments through e-mail exchanges. Ultimately, the statement, entitled ‘‘Salisbury Statement on Practice Research’’ (The Salisbury Forum Group, 2011) has provided me, my students, and colleagues in Singapore, Hong Kong and China, and many others across the world (e.g., Briggs, Caroline, & Briggs, 2016; Pain, 2011) an important document to which to refer about how practice research is variously conceptualized and conducted. Immediately after the first ICPR, there were numerous changes in the practice of social work and social work research occasioned by the financial crisis that engulfed many Western nations. Spending was cut for services and research. In tandem with the changing and harsh landscape of practice research, the second ICPR took place in Helsinki of Finland from May 30– 31, 2012 (The Second ICPR Scientific Committee, 2014). This conference aimed to explore different approaches to practice research, highlighting the architecture of practice research, iterative nature of knowledge production processes, and the implications for professional knowledge of different theoretical assumptions underpinning practice. In essence, the theme of the 2012 conference devoted considerable attention to what ‘‘robust’’ might mean in an inhospitable practice research environment. A group of conscientious social work researchers drew from the discussion of the conference and updated the Salisbury Statement and worked out the ‘‘Helsinki Statement on Social Work Practice Research’’ (The Second ICPR Scientific Committee, 2014). Different from the First International Conference, the participants of this conference were not invited but participated via open registration. With little external support, the conference organizers, chaired by Ilse Julkunen from Finland, deliberately kept it a small conference. Nevertheless, 120 participants from 11 countries attended, offering 10 workshops and 50 papers. Unfortunately, no Asians attended. Following the success of the second ICPR, the third was held on June 9–11, 2014, at the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College, New York City. Along with the conference organizers, the conference chair Irwin Epstein chose ‘‘Building bridges not pipelines: Promoting two-way traffic between practice and research’’ as the conference theme. Its purpose was obvious from the metaphor to promote innovative, flexible, and truly collaborative practice–research strategies that engage academic researchers and social work practitioners in a productive dialogue rather than a conflict over researchbased ‘‘versus’’ practice-based knowledge development paradigms. Hence, the conference was intended to bring the most inventive, established, and emerging national and international thinkers together to learn from each other rather than to set them apart (The Third ICPR, n.d.). This third ICPR offered 8 plenaries, 128 papers, 23 posters, numerous workshops, and special interest group discussions and was well attended by 250 people from 19 countries (Fisher, 2014). Since the first conference and the publication of the Salisbury Statement, it is apparent that much action, deliberation, and discussion about practice research has taken place in Europe, the UK, and the United States. However, social work practitioners, practitioner-researchers, researchers, and service users in the other continents and regions have yet to share their experience and challenges on practice research in their countries or to articulate their perspectives on practice research given their unique social, economic, cultural, and political contexts.