Lived experience educators challenging professional privilege in social work student supervision

Previous articleNext article FreeThe Life and Career of Matthew O. HowardJeffrey M. JensonJeffrey M. JensonUniversity of Denver Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreMatthew O. HowardView Large ImageDownload PowerPointOn December 15, 2018, social work and the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research (JSSWR) lost one of its most prolific scholars, outstanding teachers, and thoughtful mentors in recent memory. Matthew O. Howard, PhD—the Frank A. Daniels Distinguished Professor of Human Services Policy Information and associate dean for doctoral education in the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill—passed away following a lengthy hospitalization. As an associate editor for JSSWR, Matthew had a significant impact on improving the quality and influence of the journal. He will be sorely missed by our editorial team.Matthew was a consummate scholar who possessed a singular ability to understand and conceptualize social problems of all types. His research contributed greatly to existing knowledge of the etiology, prevention, and treatment of substance abuse, alcohol dependence, and mental health disorders. And, Matthew’s provocative articles assessing the state of social work education, practice, and research set forth ideas that will affect the trajectory of social work for years to come. His passion for knowledge—conveyed quietly and effectively to countless graduate students—was felt deeply by the many lives he touched over the course of an academic career that included appointments in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington, the Department of Psychiatry at the Oregon Health Sciences University, the George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, the School of Social Work and the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Michigan, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Matthew’s training in social work coincided with my own enrollment in the University of Washington School of Social Work doctoral program in 1984. Matthew and I became immediate and close friends during our graduate studies in Seattle, and we spent hours discussing social work, class assignments, and the research projects we worked on as doctoral students. Many of these conversations occurred in an alley coffee shop in Seattle’s University District, just a stone’s throw from the School of Social Work. Known by the employees as “Matt and Jeff,” we were treated as regulars who would sit at our customary window table for what was likely far too long. It was a time of great intellectual pursuit, and I had found the perfect colleague and friend with whom to share ideas and discuss future plans. It was the beginning of a personal friendship and professional relationship that lasted 34 years.Matthew entered doctoral education with a well-developed interest in understanding the etiology of alcohol and other substance use disorders. Over the nearly four decades that followed, he devoted his career to conducting basic and applied research aimed at ameliorating substance abuse dependence and co-occurring problems associated with alcohol and drug abuse. He became particularly well known for his basic research and intervention studies addressing the vexing problem of inhalant abuse (e.g., Howard, Balster, Cottler, Wu, & Vaughn, 2008; Howard, Bowen, Garland, Perron, & Vaughn, 2011; Howard & Jenson, 1999b). Matthew’s innovative and rigorous research in this area led to three grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and to widespread recognition as one of the world’s foremost experts on inhalant abuse. In recent years, Matthew extended his work to testing mindfulness-oriented interventions for people with chronic pain and opioid misuse. His coinvestigator in much of this work was Eric Garland, professor and associate dean for research in the University of Utah College of Social Work. Eric, a former student of Matthew’s at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, describes some of the important lessons he learned under Matthew’s tutelage in an accompanying article in this issue (Garland, 2019).Matthew also made significant contributions to social work education and research. In the Aaron Rosen Lecture at the 2015 Annual Conference of the Society for Social Work and Research, Matthew traced key developments in social work during the past 30 years and reflected on a vision of the field that stretched to 2044—30 years into the future (Howard & Garland, 2015). The ideas he shared in this lecture have provided a useful framework for assessing the relatively recent history of social work and addressing the challenges in educating master’s-level practitioners and doctoral students in the future. Matthew delivered a similarly thought-provoking lecture on the current state and future of social work doctoral education at the 2016 Annual Conference of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education. Ideas presented in his lectures were coupled with action. One such example is illustrated by Matthew’s early development of a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill doctoral-level course on conducting systematic reviews. Students in this class often produced publishable papers as a result of Matthew’s fastidious attention to breadth and quality. In earlier work at the Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, Matthew and colleagues advanced the idea of evidence-based practice as a paradigm for training MSW social work practitioners (Howard, McMillen, & Pollio, 2003). Enola Proctor, the Shanti K. Khinduka Distinguished Professor in the Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, was a colleague of Matthew’s at the time. She remembers Matthew as… a brilliant scholar and dear person. Highly regarded for his excellence in the classroom at the Brown School, he was demanding yet was a frequent winner of student-elected teaching awards. Matthew used his seemingly boundless energy to better the fields of addiction research and social work practice. He had my highest respect and unending affection. His passing is a tremendous loss to our field and community of scholars [and] saddens me deeply. (E. Proctor, personal communication, January 9, 2019)In 1999, Matthew and I had the good fortune to guest edit a special issue of Research on Social Work Practice that explored the utility of clinical practice guidelines for social work practice (Howard & Jenson, 1999a). Collectively, Matthew’s lectures and published papers assessing the state of social work education and practice stimulated debate and produced tangible curricula changes in schools across the country.A prolific writer, Matthew published more than 250 peer-reviewed papers in his career. His written work also included 40 book reviews, editorials, and government reports. Matthew’s h-index of 55 and nearly 9,000 citations of his work to date illustrate just how much his scholarship was valued by colleagues. His written contributions will be recognized and used by practitioners, policymakers, and researchers for decades to come.Matthew was a fellow and a board member of the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare and a fellow of the Society for Social Work and Research. A proponent of interdisciplinary work, he also was a faculty research fellow in the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at the time of his passing. Matthew’s devotion to empirical research and scholarship is widely recognized. However, what may be most impressive about Matthew’s career is the recognition he received as both a scholar and a teacher. He was awarded eight outstanding teaching and mentoring awards from students and colleagues at Washington University in St. Louis and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Two of Matthew’s doctoral students at North Carolina (Eric Garland, University of Utah; and Carrie Pettus-Davis, Florida State University) received Doctoral Fellow Awards from the Society for Social Work and Research. Matthew connected with his students by combining high scientific standards with a compassionate approach to helping people succeed. He was soft-spoken, but his ideas and words carried great weight and influence.Matthew’s service to the fields of social work and addiction was also exemplary. He reviewed manuscripts for more than 60 different academic journals in his career. He was on the editorial boards of more than 50 journals—including serving a JSSWR associate editor for the past several years—and he previously served as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Social Service Research, Social Work Research, and the Journal of Addictive Diseases. Matthew also was vice president and served on the Society for Social Work and Research Board of Directors from 2005 to 2008.The task of summarizing the life and career of a prolific and impactful scholar, teacher, and mentor like Matthew is daunting. Mark Fraser, professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the founding editor of JSSWR, was a longtime friend, collaborator, and colleague. Reflecting on Matthew’s career, he recalls,As a scholar and a teacher, Matthew was eloquent and encyclopedic. Students flocked to his classes. A gentle spirit who treasured collaboration with others, his greatest joys came in exploring new ideas and reading recent research. In the profession as a thought leader, Matthew was a tour de force. At once, he was creative, insightful, sensitive, critical, and thorough. Matthew was—quite simply—incomparable. (M. Fraser, personal communication, January 8, 2019)Tangible accomplishments like those summarized here do not tell the complete story of a person. Matthew had an uncanny ability to effectively express his strong personal beliefs and ethical values in everyday interactions with friends and colleagues. He had a deep interest in applying the lessons gained from his own empirical work to promote fairness and equity for all people. Matthew’s invaluable input and feedback to students and colleagues about their ideas, papers, or projects came with great civility and kindness. He was an insatiable reader whose knowledge extended to topics well beyond social work or the addictions. In this sense, one could discuss a wide range of topics with Matthew with the preordained understanding that he had very likely already read much of what had been written on the topic. Matthew’s longstanding practice of underscoring written text with yellow highlighters was applied to thousands of empirical and conceptual articles and manuscripts during his career.On a personal level, Matthew enjoyed taking walks, listening to music, and reading novels and poetry. His wry sense of humor often left many of his closest friends and colleagues writhing in laughter. I was among them.JSSWR is proud to count Matthew as one of its most influential associate editors and contributors. His place as an important teacher and scholar in social work education and research is secure. Matthew’s many contributions will be discovered anew by emerging scholars for decades to come. His presence in social work and the broad field of the addictions will be missed by us all.NotesJeffrey M. Jenson, PhD, is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research and the Phillip D. & Eleanor G. Winn Endowed Professor Children and Youth at the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work.Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Jeffrey M. Jenson, University of Denver, 2148 S. High St., Denver, CO 80208 or via e-mail to [email protected]ReferencesGarland, E. L. (2019). Standing on the shoulders of giants: Matthew O. Howard as a mentor and his influence on the science of mindfulness as a treatment for addiction. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1086/702654First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O. (2016, March 31). Hot topics in doctoral education. Presentation at the 2016 Annual Conference of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education, Chapel Hill, NC.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., Balster, R., Cottler, L. B., Wu, L., & Vaughn, M. G. (2008). Inhalant use among incarcerated adolescents: Prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 93, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.08.023First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., Bowen, S., Garland, E. L., Perron, B. E., & Vaughn, M. G. (2011). Inhalant use and inhalant use disorders in the United States. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 6, 18–31.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., & Garland, E. L. (2015). Social work research: 2044. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 6, 173–200. https://doi.org/10.1086/681099First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., & Jenson, J. M. (1999a). Clinical practice guidelines: Should social work develop them? Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973159900900302First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., & Jenson, J. M. (1999b). Inhalant use among antisocial youth: Prevalence and correlates. Addictive Behaviors, 24, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4603(98)00039-2First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., McMillen, J. C., & Pollio, D. (2003). Teaching evidence-based practice: Toward a new paradigm for social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 234–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731502250404First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research Volume 10, Number 1Spring 2019 Published for the Society for Social Work and Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/702653HistoryPublished online February 04, 2019 © 2019 by the Society for Social Work and Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Since 1980, national and international research knowledge on carers and care-giving has been accumulating. However, the theoretical bases of this research are usually unstated and implicit. Theory is vital in shaping social work research programs and types of social work intervention. This paper examines and critiques the social work theories influencing published social work research on care-giving. A search of key social work journals from 1980 to 2001 identified a total of 102 research articles about care-giving. The perspectives informing these articles fall into four groupings: positivist; interpretivist; systems; and feminist/radical. Building on the model developed by Howe (1987), which differentiates theories of radical change from those concerned with social regulation, each perspective is critically analysed for its underlying assumptions, level of analysis, research methodology and implications for policy and practice. Our review indicated that research on care-giving is dominated by a positivist approach that focuses on stress-coping and social support theories. These approaches are essentially individualistic, focus on the burden of care and prescribe interventions that assist carers to adjust to or cope with the care-giving role. Future social work research on care-giving should be informed by critical social work theories offering deeper structural analysis. This would be more consistent with our discipline's concern for social change and social justice.

This article reviews the 15 years of research development efforts of the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR); delineates IASWR's roles in relation to the social work practice, education, and research communities; presents the transdisciplinary and transorganizational partnerships in which IASWR engages to influence national-level policy; identifies markers that demonstrate increased capacity; and, finally, points toward opportunities for the profession to carry gains to the next level. Specifically discussed are IASWR's role in partnerships and coalitions to influence federal policy and research resource development and IASWR's leadership work in promoting evidence-based practices in social work. KEY WORDS: collaboration; evidence-based practice; infrastructure; policy development; resource development; social work research ********** The Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR) was created in 1993 to be an infrastructure through which the profession's research capacity and knowledge development could be both strengthened and demonstrated (Zlotnik, Biegel, & Solt, 2001; Zlotnik & Solt, 2006). IASWR HISTORY Despite the dual traditions of social work research and social work practice, there have been few organized and sustained national efforts focused on developing social work researchers or building social work research resources. In 1988, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Director Lewis Judd funded the creation of the Task Force on Social Work Research (Task Force), recognizing that whereas 70% of mental health services are provided by social workers, fewer than one-half of 1% of NASW members identified their primary professional activity as research (Task Force, 1991). The Task Force met for three years and gathered input from a broad range of social workers and other stakeholders to assess the current state of social work research. The culminating report, Building Social Work Knowledge for Effective Services and Policies: A Plan for Research Development (Task Force, 1991) stated the following: There is a crisis in the current development of research resources in social work.... This has serious consequences for individuals using social work services, for professional practitioners, for the credibility of the profession, and for the American society. Billions of dollars are being spent for services to deal with critical social problems, including services provided by social workers. Extremely little is being spent on research to improve the effectiveness of such services. (p. viii) This report laid the groundwork for IASWR's creation. IASWR's founding organizations, NASW; the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE); the Association of Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors (BPD); the National Association of Deans and Directors of Schools of Social Work (NADD); the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE); and, in 2000, the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) made a long-term commitment to the importance of social work research for the profession and for their organizations and constituents. IASWR's mission is to advance the profession's knowledge base by building research capacity; by increasing support and opportunities for research; by promoting linkages among social work practice, research, and education communities; and by representing the profession within the national scientific community. IASWR's work follows two parallel paths: one focuses on building research capacity and research practice connections within social work, and the other focuses on advocacy and increased social work research visibility with federal agencies, with legislators, and with sister scientific societies. SUPPORTING RESEARCH AND BUILDING RESEARCH CAPACITY Building capacity within schools of social work required development of expertise in writing and reviewing federal research grants. …

The Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) created its Research Capacity and Development Committee in 2017 to build research capacity across the careers of social work scholars. The committee has initiated multiple conferences and webinar sessions that have increasingly focused on antiracist and antioppressive (ARAO) research, including "Mentorship for Antiracist and Inclusive Research" and "Strategies for Supporting Antiracist Pedagogy & Scholarship: Reimagining Institutional Systems & Structures." This commentary integrates themes from these sessions and other discussions among committee members about strategies to advance ARAO research. Although SSWR board members reviewed and approved this submission, it is not an official statement of SSWR or its board of directors.

Een zoektocht naar de identiteit van het sociaalwerkonderzoek: een reflectie over de kenmerken van een academische discipline

The recently released National Institutes of Health Plan for Social Work Research (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003) is evidence of two important trends in the field of social work. One is the growing recognition of the value of social work research for promoting and preserving health in our country. The other is the inclination and capacity for NASW to collaborate with and support other professional social work organizations. In 2003 the Congressional Appropriations Committee commended the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Cancer Institute, and the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research for their recognition of social work research's important contributions to the nation's health. They urged to develop a social work research plan that outlines research priorities, as well as a research agenda, across NIH Institutes and Centers (Senate Report 107-216, 2002, p. 155). In the National Institutes of Health (NIH) plan social work research is defined as studies of the individual, family, group, community, policy and/or organizational level, focusing across the life span on prevention, intervention, treatment, aftercare, and rehabilitation of acute and chronic conditions, including the effects of policy on social work practice. This definition acknowledges that social work research often examines cross-cutting issues, such as children's mental health in juvenile justice settings, aging and caregiving, or community services to diverse cultural groups. Key social work organizations supported development of the report and have been responsive since its release. NASW participated through ANSWER (Action Network for Social Work Education and Research), our advocacy coalition of social work organizations, including NASW, CSWE (Council on Social Work Education), BPD (Baccalaureate Program Directors), SSWR (Society for Social Work Research), IASWR (Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research), GADE (Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education), and NADD (National Association of Deans and Directors). All groups encouraged Congress to make the request to NIH and to develop a plan. The report specifies proposals in the areas of social work research, research infrastructure and training, and information dissemination and community outreach. The recommendations include the following: social work research * to establish a Social Work Research Committee, a standing committee internal to NIH, to assess and initiate activities to foster social work research at NIH * to expand outreach activities designed to increase the submission of investigator-initiated research focused on social work practice related to concepts relevant to missions of each NIH Institute * to develop a program announcement entitled Developmental Research on Social Work Practice and Concepts in Health to integrate social work-specific perspectives and concepts into the NIH portfolio and to expand a social work-relevant scientific base that would be useful to allied health professionals research infrastructure and training * to develop a mechanism whereby social work researchers could be added to ongoing NIH research projects to increase mentoring and research training and to improve their competitiveness for NIH training. …

This article reports on a critical discourse analysis study exploring how ableism, racism, and neocolonialism play out in Canadian immigration policies. Situated within critical social work theory as well as postcolonial and anticolonial theoretical frameworks, the study focused on Canadian immigration policies in relation to people with disabilities from the global South, an area that has not received sufficient attention in social work research and practice. Findings indicate that discourses concerning risk and protection are central in determining the admissibility and inadmissibility of immigration applicants and reinforce ableism, racism, and neocolonialism. The article concludes with implications for social work practice and research.

Heeding the Call: Advances in Social Work Intervention Research

The popularity of evidence-based practice (EBP) in social work is contributing to renewed interest in developing, testing, and selecting efficacious interventions for diverse client groups and problems. This activity affords a unique opportunity for social work practitioners, educators, and investigators to make significant strides in connecting science to social intervention. The integration of science and intervention is an important, yet elusive, goal in social work practice and research. ADVANCES IN CONNECTING SCIENCE AND PRACTICE Early Efforts Discussion of the connection between science and practice is not new. In an oft-cited paper dating to the early 20th century, Flexner (1915) grappled with the question of whether social work was a legitimate profession. He also noted the relatively weak integration between research and practice that characterized early social intervention. Social work pioneers such as Jane Addams (1911) suggested that systematic data collection and information processing were critical aspects of effective individual-level interventions and community practice strategies. The persistence of early advocates and subsequent interest in the growing number of empirically based treatments for mental health and other problems in the mid-20th century set the stage for later efforts to link research and practice. The effects of social work interventions on client outcomes became a focal point in the discussion of science and intervention during the 1970s. Several reviews of the treatment outcome literature in social work revealed few effective interventions for clients (Fischer, 1976, 1978). These findings, accompanied by similar results in criminal justice and other fields (for example, Martinson, 1974), called attention to the inadequate methodology used in outcome studies and, in general, highlighted the fragile link between science and practice. The disappointing results from treatment outcome reviews contributed to the endorsement of the scientist-practitioner model, a framework first adopted by psychology at a 1949 conference in Boulder, Colorado (Raimy, 1950). The scientist--practitioner framework encouraged social workers to rigorously evaluate the effects of intervention with clients by using research strategies associated with single-subject design (Barlow, Hayes, & Nelson, 1984; Jayaratne & Levy, 1979). In the 1980s most schools of social work offered or required graduate-level research courses in single-subject design. Many readers will likely recall their classroom or instructional experiences in the study and application of this methodology. The fact that nearly all social work graduate programs allocated instructional time to convey the scientist--practitioner model to students was a testament to the importance relegated to the framework. Unfortunately, the combined effects of past efforts to connect science and practice were largely unsuccessful. Evaluations of the scientist--practitioner model revealed that relatively few practitioners engaged in systematic practice evaluation (Kirk & Reid, 2002). Many practitioners suggested that the principles associated with single-subject design inhibited their ability to engage in effective and sensitive practice with clients. Investigators also found that most practitioners did not consider empirical evidence when selecting interventions for clients (Rosen, Proctor, Morrow-Howell, & Staudt, 1995). Recent Developments Proactive and concrete steps to integrate science and intervention in the past 20 years have produced greater advances in connecting science and practice. In 1988 the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) appointed the Task Force on Social Work Research to lead an investigation of the status of social work research. The task force examined virtually all aspects of social work research, including the productivity of social work faculty, the apparent lack of federally funded social work researchers, and the nature of advanced research training in social work doctoral programs (Task Force on Social Work Research, 1991). …

Previous editorials in this journal have noted the importance of expanding the capacity and improving the quality of social work research. Topics discussed in these editorials have addressed the nature and rigor of social work research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and research infrastructure in schools of social work (Fortune, 1999; Jenson, 2005; Proctor, 2002, 2003). Although improvements have occurred in each of these areas, considerable work remains in the quest to increase the impact and status of social work research. A new development in meeting this goal emerged recently with the release of a program announcement from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) aimed at advancing social work research (see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-06-081.html). NIH SEEKS PROPOSALS FOR EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE In December 2005, the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) released a program announcement (PA) with three award mechanisms targeting social work research. Research on Social Work Practice and Concepts in Health is a call for proposals to investigate the effects of theoretically and empirically based social work practice on health outcomes for people experiencing medical and behavioral problems (PA-06-081). The PA is the product of efforts led by the Social Work Research Working Group, a team composed of representatives from NIH Institutes and Centers charged by Congress to develop a social work research agenda across NIH. In NIH Plan for Social Work Research (NIH, 2003), the group identified nine recommendations to enhance social work research. One proposed a new initiative by NIH to solicit empirical studies examining the effects of social work services and interventions on medical and behavioral outcomes for people receiving assistance in health care and nonspecialty health care settings (in schools, social services agencies, or correctional facilities, for example).The Research on Social Work Practice and Concepts in Health announcement is an outcome of this recommendation. This new NIH announcement is important for several reasons. The PA publicly acknowledges the contribution of social work practice to the enhancement and efficacy of medical interventions targeting health problems. Significantly, the language in the PA goes beyond the proposition that social work strategies are mere enhancements to existing services and interventions. The existence of a social work knowledge base that offers unique and significant clinical expertise to interdisciplinary intervention efforts with client groups across multiple systems of care is clearly recognized. Specifically, the PA calls for investigations that apply empirically derived knowledge of efficacious interdisciplinary and coordinated intervention strategies aimed at improving health outcomes. Finally, the initiative seeks to advance sound scientific studies that will develop and test innovative social work approaches to ameliorating adverse health conditions. The need for at least four types of social work investigations are highlighted in the announcement: (1) studies that assess the effectiveness of existing social work services and interventions on health outcomes; (2) investigations to develop and test the effects of innovative social work interventions on client functioning; (3) proposals that aim to improve health outcomes through interventions delivered in nontraditional health care settings; and (4) studies that examine effective program implementation strategies in communities. The initiative emphasizes collaborative and interdisciplinary projects based on a public health framework. The standard R01, R03, and R21 NIH award mechanisms are identified in the PA. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES The NIH Research on Social Work Practice and Concepts in Health PA gives long-overdue recognition to the unique and shared strengths of social work intervention. …

I have in a dusty foolscap folder my handwritten lecture notes for courses I was given to teach in my first year as a social work academic at Cardiff University in the early 1970s – two-year-long courses on social work research and another on ‘Principles of Social Work’ – 105 hours of lectures. I lived from hand to mouth. Among the most rewarding reading were the ‘introductory’ books written by Noel Timms. Among these were his Language of Social Casework (Timms, 1968), a string of historical articles from archival sources regarding the London Charity Organisation Society (COS), his then recent collaboration with JohnMayer that yieldedThe Client Speaks (Mayer and Timms, 1970), and the unexpected ways he constantly set the terms of reference for what on the face of it were standard social work texts. My early research and writing was influenced in several ways by the angles of vision, the ‘gaze’, that he brought to thinking about and doing social work practice and research. He was to be an examiner for my doctoral thesis a few years later. The range of his interests – diverse yet interconnected – has been wider, perhaps, than any other contemporary social work scholar and includes the history of social work, relations between social work and other disciplines, faith issues in social work, social work and the work of philosophers and research with and about service users. There is a serendipity about Noel Timms’ appearance as the focus of this special issue of Qualitative Social Work. Various rediscoveries prompted the decision to invite him to be interviewed as part of the occasional series of career interviews in the journal. Library research for a history of the relation of sociology and social work in the UK, the stimulus provided by the network of people linked to the recent annual conferences on sociology and social work, the spontaneous enthusiasm of doctoral social work students at Michigan to engage with his Sociological Approach to Social Problems (Timms, 1967/2014), and the editors’ awareness of and contribution to current work on the history of social work came together in fortunate ways. Qualitative Social Work 2014, Vol. 13(6) 742–748 ! The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1473325014552886 qsw.sagepub.com

International migration has emerged as one of the most controversial phenomena of the 21st century. The complexity and implications of global migrations require that social work practitioners and researchers have access to data-informed research and critical analyses. However, the content of recent social work research on international migration has not been adequately examined to assess whether and to what extent this substantive area is being addressed. This article explores how social work research published in five leading social work journals-Health & Social Work, Research on Social Work Practice, Social Service Review, Social Work, and Social Work Research-is advancing our understanding of international migration and where it may be lacking. Focusing on articles published between 2007 and 2016, the authors analyzed content addressing immigrants and refugees. The content analysis indicates that social work research is making a strong contribution in the area of mental health but is not adequately addressing critical dimensions of stratification, including race, ethnicity, and legal status. Authors also find ambiguity in how "immigrant" is defined and in the generation(s) addressed. Authors argue that maximizing social work's contributions requires offering more nuanced definitions of the immigrant populations addressed and paying greater analytical attention to dimensions of inequality.

Given the quintessentially collaborative nature of social work practice research, many researchers have explored the utility of participatory action research for promoting collaborative learning and knowledge production in social work. As a response to this call for participatory practice research methodology, we developed and piloted ‘collaborative practice research in social work’ in the project, ‘Empowering Social Workers in Challenging Times: Learning from Best Practice during COVID-19’. ‘Collaborative practice research in social work’ is a networked approach to social work participatory practice research, designed to integrate practice wisdom and research evidence to produce useful knowledge for social workers to practise ethically and effectively during COVID-19. This article will present some findings from the evaluation of ‘collaborative practice research in social work’, showing how the reversed sequence of involvement (practitioner researchers first and then academics) in research can enable practitioner-led learning, democratise knowledge production and help validate different types of knowledge in social work practice research. ‘Collaborative practice research in social work’ has demonstrated the need to address alienating academic practices that are not sensitive to the needs of practice or see practice as an afterthought. Findings further suggest the need to better prepare academic researchers to engage with participatory practice research, which can be an emotionally unsettling and unfamiliar research environment.

This paper analyses the pressures and contradictions facing research in social work and the position of critical theory in social work education and practice. The discussion draws from the authors' recent experiences of research in child protection. They argue that these experiences provide some unique opportunities to examine political, structural and social influences on research and on social work education and practice. The authors maintain that the connections between research, practice and education are not always interrogated critically in relation to being interactive and inter-dependent processes. However, this article argues that critical theory should be central in defining social work in research, education and practice and that when this focus slips, the primary purpose of social work - addressing need in the light of people's lived experience - is thwarted and distorted.

Although professional social work in Egypt has a 100-year history, there is a dearth of information in English about social work in Egypt and other non-Western countries. Five domains of social work in Egypt are (1) the international flow of Western social work practice into Egypt, (2) modern social work, (3) social work research and social work interventions, (4) social work education, and (5) fields of practice. These five domains that inform modern social work in Egypt were produced from international flows of Western social work practice into Egypt. It was also produced from social work research and social work intervention. Modern social work also comes from teaching bachelor of social work students professional social work courses. Social work knowledge was adapted, authenticated, and indigenized to meet local context. These five dominated themes have been detailed and explained. International flows of Western social work practice into Egypt include transmission (transplantation), authentication, and indigenization. Modern social work in Egypt includes social work practice and social welfare policy. Social work research has included explanatory, descriptive and experiment social work research studies. Social work intervention has included social work intervention of aiming at solving problems and stressors and social work intervention of aiming at applying resources for change. Fields of social work practice includes family and child Social Work and school social work. Social work education is focused only on Bachelor of Science in Social Work covering the professional social work courses group work practice, social casework practice, community organization, social welfare planning, policy and administration, fields of social work practice. A synthetic approach that knits together these five themes entail that modern social work has been produced from international flows of Western social work practice into Egyptian context. It is also produced from social work research and social work intervention. Modern social work also comes as results of teaching Bachelor Social Work (BSW) students the professional social work courses.