Social Work Researchers' Quest for Respectability

Abstract

In the November 1992 issue of Social Work, Professor Tyson (A New Approach to Relevant Scientific Research for Practitioners: The Heuristic Paradigm, pp. 541-556) presented a restatement of how the heuristic research paradigm can generate useful research findings for social work than its complementary counterpart, the positivistic research paradigm. Notwithstanding the fact that Tyson conceptualizes the heuristic research paradigm as having a positivistic component, attempts were made to advance the practicality of the heuristic research paradigm by launching an attack on the positivistic approach. Too often advocates of alternative practice and research paradigms become victims of a strategy that diminishes the usefulness of their contributions; they discredit other viewpoints with bold assertions rather than evidence. Tyson's article is an example of this phenomenon. The numerous inaccuracies regarding positivism detract from the article's credibility. However, leaving aside the article's scholarly merits, two presentational errors were made. First, an artificial dichotomy was created as a means of inappropriately forcing readers into an either--or choice between the heuristic and positivistic research approaches. Second, using a selective view of positivism, a straw person was constructed that could then be attacked, leaving readers with only the heuristic approach as the alternative. In reality, such important issues cannot be reduced to such a simplistic choice. We believe that Tyson underestimated the sophistication of the readers of Social Work by presenting this type of argument. To the best of our knowledge, most beginning social work research courses contain multiple approaches to social work research, especially in the problem conceptualization and operationalization phases. At a minimum, the positivistic research paradigm has produced some social work--relevant knowledge of some utility for some practitioners. Beyond discussions and promises about the future, what social work--relevant findings has the heuristic paradigm (beyond its positivistic components) recently produced? The article may have been more valuable to readers had it identified a body of heuristic social work--relevant research findings so that readers could see the results of the paradigm described in the article. Readers could compare and contrast the usefulness of research findings generated from heuristic studies directly with those derived from positivistic approaches (or some combination). Such comparisons will help formulate useful social work research approaches. In addition, it would have been helpful if some guidelines were given to enable social workers to implement the heuristic model as alluded to in the article's title. We believe that neither the heuristic nor the positivistic paradigm is inherently better than the other. Instead of holding an impassioned subscription to one or the other, social workers need to consider the quality and type of knowledge that exists relative to the research problem and the context in which the research study is taking place--the most appropriate research approaches will logically follow. All approaches to research must work toward the generation of unbiased (as much as possible) knowledge that can be shared, withstand scrutiny, and provide a foundation for effective service and for future investigations--the ultimate goal of research. In sum, the article added little to the existing literature as its contents have been advanced for more than three decades in numerous articles, chapters, and books. We think that published articles need to present something new and refrain from fueling rhetoric-laden debates that exaggerate and exacerbate divisions between practitioners and researchers, both of whom are working toward the common goal of improved services to clients. Richard M. Grinnell, Jr., PhD, is professor, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4 Canada. …