Looking back to look forward: a collaborative autoethnographic study of the effects of neoliberalism on social work practice, education and research

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.

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

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 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. …

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.

An approach to multicultural social work research that is and is being developed by the authors and other faculty and doctoral students affiliated with the Multicultural Research Group at the University of Washington School of Social Work. Members of the group share an interest in the collective creation of models of social work practice, education, and research that reflect a multicultural worldview and a commitment to collaborative work with members of disenfranchised communities - that is, groups in the United States that experience economic, social, and political disadvantage or discrimination. In particular, the authors share a commitment to working with communities of color, women, gay men and lesbians, and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. We believe that too many models of social science research replay and reinforce the theme of disenfranchisement, providing little opportunity for community members to shape research questions, claim ownership of data, develop findings and implications for action, and hone their own critical inquiry skills. The approach discussed in this article reflects the research group's ongoing dialogue on multicultural social work research, practice, and education. It represents a work in progress. An invitation to join a panel on research and diversity at the Council on Social Work Education's 1995 Annual Planning Meeting was the impetus for clarifying and consolidating our current thoughts on multicultural research. We accepted the invitation as an opportunity to struggle with the following questions: What is multicultural social work research? And what are the benefits and challenges associated with teaching, learning, and doing it? The article represents a response to these questions and an invitation to other social welfare researchers to ponder these and related questions individually and collectively. Definition of Multicultural Social Work Research Multicultural social work research should meet three general criteria: (1) It should involve the researcher in a constant of both private and public reflection on a range of issues critically affecting collaboration - from how her or his own biases and motives affect the research to the impact of the larger political economy on the sociocultural history of disadvantaged groups; (2) it should democratize the research process, supporting a continuous of community collaboration rather than token representation of community members in limited advisory roles; and (3) its objectives should be linked to community empowerment, social justice, and social transformation goals. The centrality of empowerment with respect to both the and aims of research differentiates the group's approach from other applied social work research models that also emphasize cooperation with and direct benefits to communities (for example, the Design and Development Model; Rothman & Thomas, 1994). Although redressing the power imbalance between researcher and community participant is an optional feature under other applied models, it is a defining characteristic or parameter of the approach we describe in this article. Our approach is values based because it draws on fundamental undergirding the profession and practice of social work: social justice, equality, self-determination, and empowerment. It is process oriented for two reasons: First, we assume that no single act or set of finite acts performed on research makes it multicultural; instead, reflection and collaboration must become organic to every part of the research (Rogler, 1989). Second, we place trust in the assumption that a of critically reflective and collaborative inquiry can lead to social transformation. The Ultimate Goal: Social Transformation The social work of justice, equality, and empowerment are currently given strong voice in the concept of multiculturalism. …

Social work is a professional academic discipline and profession that contributes to increasing the welfare of the individual, family, environment and society through professional practices in micro, mezzo and macro focus. Sexuality, a fundamental human element, is a complex field in which many people experience difficulties and injustices from time to time. Social workers should not ignore these difficulties, as sexual difficulties and complexities can occupy an important place in the lives of clients and negatively affect their daily lives. Although sexuality is quite suitable to be dealt with theoretically and practically in the field of social work, various researchers criticize that the handling of sexuality issues and sexual difficulties in social work education, research and practice is not sufficient. Invisibility and silence about sexual issues in the field of social work must be destroyed. Various revisions and innovations are needed, starting with social work education and research, in order to support clients with their sexual difficulties. We should recognize sexuality as a political field rather than a personal experience and include it in social work practice. We should consider issues of sexuality in context, in the light of concepts such as sexual well-being, positive sexuality, social justice and universal sexual rights. Keywords: social work, sexuality, social justice, sexual rights.

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.

ABSTRACTThis paper offers a critical analysis of existing literature on historical and contemporary gender dynamics in Australian social work education and practice. Analyses of gender dynamics and inequalities have the potential to illuminate pathways for inclusive social work education and practice, for both practitioners and people who access social work services. This critical review of the literature demonstrates that Australian social work education and practice have been shaped by gendered discourses, structures, and power dynamics since its inception. In a contemporary sense, women constitute the majority of social work educators and practitioners, while men disproportionately dominate positions of power and prestige, although rigorous Australian data on the roles and representation of men and women are not readily available. Our findings point to the need for further engagement with gender as a unit of analysis in Australian social work research, including further engagement with inclusive and intersectional feminisms.IMPLICATIONSEnhanced knowledge of Australian social work history, particularly in relation to gender, allows for a greater understanding of current gendered power relations in social work education and practice.Gender dynamics are underresearched in contemporary Australian social work education and practice.Up-to-date data on the status and representation of men, women, and nonbinary people in social work are needed as the foundation for transformative and inclusive social work education and practice.

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. …

This article reports on a European project that sought to explore the relationships between social work and service user participation, using a five-country (Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland and Portugal) case study approach. It revealed areas of comparison and contrast depending upon respective histories of social work development, organisation, education and research that determined forms of service user participation. It is argued that such cross-national case study approaches can enhance our understanding of vital aspects of social work organisation, practice, education and research in the social work research, policy and practice community in areas of service user participation.

Heeding the Call: Advances in Social Work Intervention Research

This chapter provides readers with a list of suggestions of how social work education, practice, and research will need to be transformed in order to achieve social justice when the state is a primary source of violence. Social work’s social justice approach requires that it be addressed across the entire intervention and lifespan spectrum, occupying a central role in our education. This broad reach is a blessing and curse from an educational standpoint. It is a blessing because social justice is integral to our mission and its importance reaches all aspects of social work. It is a curse by requiring that practice have this as a central tenet, ruffling feathers in our work with other professions not sharing this value stance. Social work is in a unique position to move a social justice agenda during this challenging period in our history. We must, however, guard against “good” deeds going astray and causing more harm than good.

Purpose Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies are rapidly expanding across diverse contexts. As the reach of AI continues to grow, there is a need to examine student perspectives on the increasing prevalence of AI and AI-based practice approaches in social work. Materials and methods In this qualitative study, we conducted structured interviews with 15 students in bachelors and masters social work programs. We developed an interview guide with a list of questions to ask students and no prior knowledge of AI was required by the students. The study was framed based on an interpretive phenomenological analysis approach. Results Through thematic analysis, five key themes were developed, including 1) Risks associated with AI, 2) Ethical Concerns in AI and Technology Use, 3) Bias and Fairness in AI, 4) Applications and Possibilities of AI in Social Work, and 5) Training and Awareness of AI in Social Work. Discussion Social workers can help disadvantaged clients by ensuring access to the various AI technologies and facilitating social welfare interventions created using these technologies. There is a need to address the gap in the existing literature about the use of AI in social work practice and education. Social work researchers can explore and conduct future studies that utilize mixed methods methodologies that can evaluate the use of AI in social work domains. Conclusion This study highlights the need to increase awareness of AI in social work education and practice settings given the potential of these technologies to aid various aspects of social work practice.

本文目的在於以英國為例，嘗試著說明社會政策治理邏輯的改變如何影響其福利服務輸送體系，進而影響社會工作專業發展，藉此說明社會工作專業發展是如何鑲嵌於特定的國家文化、歷史脈絡和政治經濟脈絡中。在方法上，我們採取歷史追蹤分析方法。本文研究結果發現如下，在戰後福利國家的黃金年代，在以社會行政為基礎的科層治理形塑社會工作的專業主義上，社會工作者對於社會服務使用者的需求評估和處遇擬定都受限於科層體系的規範，也就是那些進入社會工作和社會服務體系的公民的社會權是被專業科層體系和法律所規範。在1980年代之後，西方福利國家立基於新自由主義，而使其治理模式轉往以管理主義以強調效率和選擇等價值，也影響社會工作轉向以管理主義為基礎，在論述上，強調透過個案管理、賦權和使能等概念以強化和正當化對於效率和個人責任的重視。但是，同時，新管理主義在過度強調效率和個人責任的情況下，反而削弱了社會工作者和接受服務者的自主性。2000年之後，社會投資政策理念興起，使得社會政策治理邏輯改以新公共治理為主，不再強調最佳模式，而必須反映了治理客體的現實，因此強調共同生產和網絡治理，且社會工作者可在其中扮演服務協調與創新的角色，而使得未來社會工作教育可能會進一步強調夥伴關係和社會創新等等價值與概念。我們認為本文也提出一些未來研究的可能性，認為未來可以更進一步強化社會政策與社會工作之間的連結，並將台灣的社會工作專業體系置於國際比較的脈絡中。This article aims to identify linkages between social policy and social work. Over the past few decades in Taiwan, social workers and social work educators have emerged as formal professions. However, the relationship between social policy and social work is often ignored, particularly how social work (education) is developed and shaped by social policy. This is because in the process of professionalization and specialization, social policy and social work are treated independently, and the linkage between them goes unacknowledged. Social work studies often focus on micro-level social work practices and methods, and social work is rarely seen as a type of policy model or regime at the institutional level. As a result, social work is often regarded as single undifferentiated policy model, with social work systems and education presented as identical across the world. However, a growing number of comparative studies have identified significant cross-national variations in national social work systems due to idiosyncratic historical, cultural and political economic contexts. This raises the need for additional research on comparative social work systems. In this study, we argue that the key to studying the linkage between social policy and social work is using models of governance to analyze and understand how social work systems are developed and understood. Models of social policy governance influence how social work is practiced and how social work curricula are designed. The remainder of this study is structured as follows: Section two focuses on how hierarchical governance and new public management shapes social policy and social work systems. Section three examines the impact of new public governance on social investment for social work systems. Finally, section four summarises the influence of various models of social policy governance on the development of social work systems, and propose issues for future research. We identify three stages of welfare state development. In the Golden Age of the welfare state, the logic of social administration underpins the model of social policy governance and broader hierarchical governance. The rights and obligations of welfare benefits as well as social work practices were legislatively regulated, along with the relationship between social workers and their clients, resulting in the professionalization of social work. In this stage, client assessments and treatments were be regulated to discipline client behavior and attitudes. However, with the neoliberalism of the Thatcher and Reagan governments, respectively in the UK and the USA, the welfare state shifted towards a workfare state, and the models of social policy governance shifted to a new public management paradigm. The welfare state discursively began to emphasize the role of the market in welfare provision, stressing values such as efficiency and choice, and embedding a managerialist approach in social policy governance. Social work practices and education were therefore transformed, and social workers were/are often regarded and trained as case managers, emphasizing concepts such as case management, choice, empowerment and enablement. Moreover, the relationship between social workers and clients was also transformed into a “manager-consumer” duality, in which the rights and obligations of welfare benefits are regulated by contracts and market mechanisms. This transformed the role of the client into that of the consumer. Third, after 2000, the emergence of social investment concepts has driven the emergence of a new approach to public governance in response to new social risks and the complexities of social problems, raising multiple obstacles to clients accessing welfare benefits. This new public governance pushes concepts of co-production and network governance to cope with social complexities and the emergence of new social risks. This has naturally changed the role of social workers in the provision of welfare provisions from case managers into coordinators of resources and services and policy innovators. The role of welfare beneficiaries is neither client nor consumer, but rather a stakeholder in the coordination and innovation of welfare provisions. In this study, we show that social work practices and education are not identical but are rather shaped by social policy governance and political economic contexts. We compare three models of social policy governance in terms of how social work practices and education are shaped, and propose issues for future research. First, additional attention should focus on the linkage between social policy and social work to provide a better understanding of the development of social work and social work education. Second, the development of social work in Taiwan should be examined in comparison to international practices.