Society For Social Work And Research Research Articles

Anti-Transgender Policies and Practices in Social Work Education, Accreditation, and Licensing: A Call for Change

The social work profession is guided by the values of social justice and the dignity and worth of the person. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics requires that all social workers act in a professional manner consistent with these values. These values mandate that social workers “challenge social injustice on behalf of and in concert with vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups.” Yet, historically, and contemporarily, the social work profession and national professional organizations (i.e., NASW, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), Associate of Social Work Boards (ASWB), Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR), and the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (AASW) have failed to advocate for and work in solidarity with transgender and gender expansive (TGE) individuals and groups to advance social justice. This commentary will examine how the social work profession and its national professional organizations have not followed the NASW Code of Ethics as it relates to T E communities. Specifically, the article ill (1) unpack the ways in which explicit and implicit social work curriculum and standards in accredited US social work programs do little to equip students to effectively serve transgender clients and communities upon graduation, (2) discuss the lack of advocacy for and solidarity with TGE communities from professional social work organizations, and (3) review policies governing the licensure of social work practitioners related to culturally responsive social work practice with TGE clients and communities. This commentary provides a set of recommendations for countering and reducing transphobia in the social work profession in the areas education, practice, and policy. We conclude with a call for change for the social work profession that achieves the values of social justice and dignity and worth of TGE individuals, groups, and communities.

Editorial: Advancing Our Commitment to Antiracist Scholarship

Previous articleNext article FreeEditorial: Advancing Our Commitment to Antiracist ScholarshipTodd I. Herrenkohl, Nikki R. Wooten, Lisa Fedina, Jennifer L. Bellamy, Alicia C. Bunger, Ding-Geng Chen, Jeffrey M. Jenson, Bethany R. Lee, Jungeun Olivia Lee, Jeanne C. Marsh, Phyllis Solomon, and Anne WillifordTodd I. HerrenkohlUniversity of Michigan Search for more articles by this author , Nikki R. WootenUniversity of South Carolina Search for more articles by this author , Lisa FedinaUniversity of Michigan Search for more articles by this author , Jennifer L. BellamyUniversity of Denver Search for more articles by this author , Alicia C. BungerThe Ohio State University Search for more articles by this author , Ding-Geng ChenUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Search for more articles by this author , Jeffrey M. JensonUniversity of Denver Search for more articles by this author , Bethany R. LeeUniversity of Maryland Search for more articles by this author , Jungeun Olivia LeeUniversity of Southern California Search for more articles by this author , Jeanne C. MarshUniversity of Chicago Search for more articles by this author , Phyllis SolomonUniversity of Pennsylvania Search for more articles by this author , and Anne WillifordColorado State University Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreSocial work prides itself as a profession committed to improving the lives of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty. Achieving this mission requires candid conversations about racism as a social justice and public health issue and the role of social work in dismantling white supremacy and promoting racial justice. At its core, research on social work practice and policy should focus on examining how racism and inequality undermine the health, well-being, and social mobility of diverse and marginalized populations. We write this statement as a call to social work researchers to prioritize pursuits that will surface and motivate action to address the causes and consequences of racism. We also call on researchers to renew their commitment to scholarship that alleviates the suffering in Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color.Social work research is a foundation on which social policies and services are developed and advanced. Extensive research points to the ways in which systems and structures oppress and produce negative impacts on the health and safety of individuals and families of color, and recent events—including those involving police brutality—show that racism is rampant and unrelenting. During this time of deep uncertainty and social unrest, each of us must strengthen our commitment to antiracist scholarship, and we must prioritize research that disrupts patterns of oppression and white supremacy and interrogates the reasons why racism persists.Social work research can bring about meaningful and lasting changes to communities and society so that vulnerable individuals and populations are protected and uplifted, but this requires a concerted effort to clarify and potentially change how and for what purpose research is conducted. Social work research should directly embody the values and ethics of the profession and energize emerging lines of scholarship that generate new evidence for social change. Research that fails to advance knowledge in support of social work’s mission further perpetuates harm, upholds white supremacist culture and systems, and slows progress in achieving racial justice. We must examine innovative and thought-provoking questions about racism, discrimination, and inequality if we are to achieve the lasting transformation of racial injustices nationally and internationally. In this work, time is of the essence.In June 2020, the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) Board of Directors published a statement condemning recent acts of police violence and calling on social workers to bring about an end to institutional racism and white supremacy by “building on our connections to grassroots organizing” and leading efforts to shape policy and programs that can “eliminate state sanctioned violence.” The board also urged us to make transparent the implications of racism and white supremacy in social work scholarship, incorporate the voices of marginalized and oppressed groups in our research, and disseminate research findings for social change and advocacy. (Read the full statement here: https://secure.sswr.org/sswr-call-and-commitment-to-ending-police-brutality-racial-injustice-and-white-supremacy/).We support these recommendations and offer in this statement several specific strategies to advance racial justice through social work scholarship. We invite others—social work researchers, authors, reviewers, and editors—to suggest additional strategies and welcome dialogue on these topics as we continue to explore ways in which social work scholarship can most effectively promote an antiracist agenda.Since its founding in 2009, the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research (JSSWR) has led efforts to disseminate quantitative and qualitative research on social problems, programs, and policies. Articles featured in the journal engage timely and important questions about race and racial inequities in a number of ways, sometimes pointing specifically to how racist policies or gaps in services and service systems are biased against people and communities of color. Research published by JSSWR has also highlighted shortcomings in theories, methods, and modalities of research when viewed through an antiracist lens. At the same time, JSSWR articles—like those in other social work journals—can do better at identifying and examining the myriad ways that racism shapes the institutions in which we work and practice, as well as the models we apply to deepen knowledge about racial and social justice.As scholars and authors, we should center racism and racial disparities more prominently and intentionally in our research—in the language we use, theories we apply, questions we ask, data we collect, and evidence we disseminate. Additionally, scholars who publish in social work journals should consider how race and racial diversity, equity, and disparity are addressed in the implications and limitations of their research while being mindful of their own implicit biases and subjective interpretations.JSSWR and other social work journals can promote an antiracist agenda by encouraging authors to publish research using a racial justice lens that focuses on how racism and white supremacy contribute to disparities in health, education, criminal justice, child welfare, and other domains. Social work journals can also encourage authors to define constructs of race and ethnicity in their work, to avoid deficit narratives, and, at a minimum, address and acknowledge study limitations as they pertain to these important constructs as well as to the communities we study and with whom we collaborate. Further, content in social work journals should not only call out the racial injustice of current events but also make explicit connections between these events and historical patterns of racism and white supremacy so that it is clear how current circumstances are linked to a legacy of racial injustice.As we review and factor the merits of social work scholarship, we must consider how race and ethnicity are defined and how group differences based on race are examined. We must also recognize where interpretations and conclusions derived from research fail to account for or acknowledge the role of structural inequality—including racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia—when dictated by relevant areas of inquiry. As editors, we should ensure that manuscripts accepted for publication thoughtfully and thoroughly examine race and racial disparities, and we should encourage reviewers with the requisite expertise to assess and critique research using the same criteria.Although we are on the right path, we are far from our goals. We can and must do more to propel an antiracist research agenda forward and make scholarship aligned with this agenda as widely and rapidly available as possible. As authors, reviewers, editors, and consumers of social work research, we must proactively renew our commitment and approach to name and interrogate racism as the pervasive, enduring, and destructive problem it is. As stated by our SSWR colleagues, social work scholars are uniquely positioned and qualified to lead an antiracist agenda, but to do so, we must fully devote ourselves to the cause and take the steps necessary to conduct and prioritize research and scholarship that foregrounds racial equity and justice. As social work scholars, we have the expertise to generate new knowledge on racism and the power to disseminate evidence that can shape practice and policy that meaningfully advances racial justice for vulnerable and oppressed populations.NotesTodd I. Herrenkohl, PhD, is the Marion Elizabeth Blue Professor of Children and Families at the University of Michigan School of Social Work and editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research (JSSWR).Nikki R. Wooten, PhD, is an associate professor at the University of South Carolina College of Social Work and chair of the Society for Social Work and Research Committee on Publications.Lisa Fedina, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Michigan School of Social Work and a JSSWR associate editor.Jennifer L. Bellamy, PhD, is a professor and associate dean for research at the University of Denver School of Social Work and a JSSWR associate editor.Alicia C. Bunger, PhD, is an associate professor in the College of Social Work at The Ohio State University and a JSSWR associate editor.Ding-Geng Chen, PhD, is the Wallace H. Kuralt Distinguished Professor in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Social Work and a JSSWR associate editor.Jeffrey M. Jenson, PhD, is the Philip and Eleanor Winn Endowed Professor Emeritus at the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work and past JSSWR editor-in-chief.Bethany R. Lee, PhD, is a professor in the University of Maryland School of Social Work and a JSSWR associate editor.Jungeun Olivia Lee, PhD, is an assistant professor in the University of Southern California Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work and a JSSWR associate editor.Jeanne C. Marsh, PhD, is the George Herbert Jones Distinguished Service Professor in the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration, director of the University of Chicago Center for Health Administration Studies, and an outgoing JSSWR associate editor.Phyllis Solomon, PhD, is a professor in the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy & Practice and a JSSWR associate editor.Anne Williford, PhD, is an associate professor in the Colorado State University School of Social Work and a JSSWR associate editor.Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Editor-in-Chief Todd I. Herrenkohl at [email protected]. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research Volume 11, Number 3Fall 2020 Published for the Society for Social Work and Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/711561 Views: 415 Citations: 3Citations are reported from Crossref HistoryPublished online September 22, 2020 Keywordsracismsocial changesocial justicesocial work research© 2020 by the Society for Social Work and Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Calia A. Morais, Edwin N. Aroke, Janelle E. Letzen, Claudia M. Campbell, Anna M. Hood, Mary R. Janevic, Vani A. Mathur, Ericka N. Merriwether, Burel R. Goodin, Staja Q. Booker, Lisa C. Campbell Confronting Racism in Pain Research: A Call to Action, The Journal of Pain 47 (Feb 2022).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2022.01.009Jennifer Romich and Maria Y. Rodriguez There and Back Again: A Commentary on Social Welfare Policy in the Wake of 2020, Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research 12, no.11 (Feb 2021): 1–10.https://doi.org/10.1086/713020Audrey Mengwasser Shillington, Sarah Gehlert, Paula S. Nurius, Jorge Delva, Nancy R. Hooyman, Ronald William Manderscheid, and Lawrence A. Palinkas COVID-19 and Long-Term Impacts on Tenure-Line Careers, Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research 11, no.44 (Dec 2020): 499–507.https://doi.org/10.1086/712579

Reflections on theJournal of the Society for Social Work and Research

Previous articleNext article FreeReflections on the Journal of the Society for Social Work and ResearchJeffrey 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 SectionsMoreI am pleased to offer a few reflections on the evolution, progress, and current status of the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research (JSSWR) as I end my tenure as editor-in-chief.My involvement in efforts led by the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) to publish high-quality scientific articles began in 2005 when I co-chaired the SSWR Presidential Task Force on Publications with President Anne E. (Ricky) Fortune. Our task force found that manuscript submission and review processes of many social work journals were hindered by lengthy manuscript review periods, inconsistent quality in manuscript reviews, and extensive publication backlogs (Jenson et al., 2008). The vison of a new SSWR-sponsored journal was seen as an opportunity to create a publication outlet that was not plagued by the inadequacies identified in the task force report. JSSWR was launched in 2009 to fill a void in both rigor and process in social work journals at the time (Fong, Gehlert, Marsh, Uehara, & Williams, 2019). Founding Editor-in-Chief Mark Fraser noted in the inaugural issue that “JSSWR is a scholarly journal that is committed to the rapid dissemination of research that informs practice, evaluates social and health programs, assesses public policies, and encourages further research (Fraser & Wyant, 2010, p. i).”Begun in a self-published, open-access format, the journal enjoyed early success that quickly outstripped the capacity of its publication platform and infrastructure. As chairperson of SSWR’s Committee on Publications (COP) at the time, I led an effort to select a new publisher for JSSWR in 2012. This was a collaborative effort involving COP members, SSWR staff and board members, and the JSSWR editorial team. We reviewed five proposals from well-known publishers, and the SSWR Board selected the University of Chicago Press as its publisher in 2014 (Fong et al., 2019). This decision moved JSSWR from an open-access format to a hybrid publication model that includes subscription-based print and online-first articles as well as some open-access articles.The journal’s early years provided a solid foundation for the progress we made during my 4 years as editor-in-chief (2016–2020). I am pleased to report that JSSWR is thriving and poised to take significant strides in the future. We received 127 submissions in 2019—more than in any past year. Our manuscript acceptance rate remains low at 21%, suggesting that we are publishing some of our field’s highest quality research. To address the increase in the number of submissions, the SSWR Board recently approved an expansion in the number of pages published in the journal each year. Finally, true to its founding principles, JSSWR has maintained its reputation for the rapid turnaround and rigor of its publications. In 2019, reviewers completed reviews in 19 days, on average, and the average turnaround time from submission to first decision was 42 days.The impact of manuscripts published in the journal continues to grow. JSSWR received its first impact factor score from Journal Citation Reports in June 2016. Our initial score was .688, which placed us No. 31 of 42 journals in the social work category. Circulation and access to online articles have continued to increase since our first score, and in the 2018 Journal Citation Reports (published in June 2019), our impact factor improved to 1.508. JSSWR is now ranked No. 10 among all social work journals. In a recent article published in Research on Social Work Practice, JSSWR was ranked No. 2 in both overall quality and prestige among 64 journals in the field by a sample of 307 tenure-track social work faculty (Hodge, Yu, & Kim, 2019). JSSWR articles had 547 general and news media references in 2019—a substantial uptick in our visibility beyond academia—and we established a social media presence on Twitter to promote research published in the journal. In addition, in 2019 JSSWR established an Early Career Reviewer Program to provide mentoring to early career researchers interested in developing skills associated with reviewing research articles. Eleven early career reviewers were selected in the program’s first year.We published several special sections and issues during my tenure as editor-in-chief. These include special issues on the etiology and treatment of severe mental illness (Jenson, Solomon, & Gioia, 2016) and on the social work Grand Challenge to Ensure Healthy Development for All Youth (Jenson, Shapiro, & Bender, 2018). Special sections of the journal have been devoted to the implementation of the Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative (Jenson & Uehara, 2017), social work and neuroscience (Jenson & Eack, 2018), and public impact scholarship in social work (Jenson, Sliva, & Greenfield, 2019). Invited articles from awardees of the Aaron Rosen Lecture at the annual SSWR conference have been featured in each of the past 4 years. Finally, an invited article coauthored by five past presidents of SSWR (Fong et al., 2019) provided a historical perspective of the evolution of the society from 2008 to 2018.It was a privilege to be part of JSSWR’s origins, to serve as an associate editor from 2010 to 2015, and to lead the journal as editor-in-chief from 2016 to 2020. As I conclude my term as editor-in-chief, I am grateful for the outstanding work of our associate editors and peer reviewers, who have made our success possible. I also appreciate the commitment of COP members and the SSWR Board and staff. My work as editor-in-chief has been supported by Dean Amanda Moore McBride of the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work, whose commitment to the journal and passion for promoting science and social work have been critical supports during my years as editor-in-chief. Finally, I am particularly grateful to Chelsey Baker-Hauck, JSSWR’s outstanding managing editor. Many of you have had the opportunity to work on manuscripts with Chelsey and know the important role she plays in the life of the journal. I am happy to report that Chelsey will be continuing her managing editor role in the future. Todd Herrenkohl of the University of Michigan, whose comments follow in this issue (Herrenkohl, 2020) assumes the editor-in-chief role with the publication of this issue. He is an outstanding scholar who is well-positioned to lead JSSWR to new achievements and milestones.I appreciate the opportunity I have had to share exceptional social work science with the world as JSSWR editor-in-chief. Thank you all for your interest and support.NotesJeffrey M. Jenson, PhD, is the Philip D. & Eleanor G. Winn Endowed Professor for 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, Graduate School of Social Work, 2148 S. High St., Denver, CO 80208 or via e-mail to [email protected]ReferencesFong, R., Gehlert, S., Marsh, J. C., Uehara, E. S., & Williams, J. H. (2019). Reflections on the history of the Society for Social Work and Research, 2008–2018. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 10(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1086/702826First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarFraser, M. W., & Wyant, D. (2010). Introduction to the inaugural issue. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 1(1), i–ii. https://doi.org/10.5243/JSSWR11000First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHerrenkohl, T. I. (2020). The future of the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 11(2), 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1086/709437First citation in articleAbstractGoogle ScholarHodge, D. R., Yu, M., & Kim, A. (2019). Assessing the quality and prestige of disciplinary social work journals: A national study of faculty perceptions. Research on Social Work Practice, 30, 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731519890402First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., & Eack, S. M. (Eds.). (2018). Social work and neuroscience [Special section]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 9(2), 217–358. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2018/9/2First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., Fortune, A. E., Ashford, J. B., Baer, J. C., Barth, R. P., Cohen, B., … Shanks, T. R. W. (2008). Journal publication practices in social work: Final report from the Society for Social Work and Research Presidential Task Force on Publications. Washington, DC: Society for Social Work and Research.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., Shapiro, V. B., & Bender, K. (Eds.). (2018). Ensuring healthy development for all youth through the power of prevention [Special issue]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 9(4). Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2018/9/4First citation in articleGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., Sliva, S. M., & Greenfield, J. C. (Eds.). (2019). Public impact scholarship in social work [Special section]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 10(4), 529–621. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2019/10/4First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., Solomon, P., & Gioia, D. (Eds.). (2016). The etiology and treatment of severe mental illness [Special issue]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 7(2). Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2016/7/2First citation in articleGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., & Uehara, E. S. (Eds.). (2017). Implementing the Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative [Special section]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 8(1), 71–159. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2017/8/1First citation in articleLinkGoogle Scholar Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research Volume 11, Number 2Summer 2020 Published for the Society for Social Work and Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/709454HistoryPublished online June 23, 2020 KeywordsSociety for Social Work and Researchsocial worksocial scienceresearchpublishing© 2020 by the Society for Social Work and Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Reflections on the History of the Society for Social Work and Research, 2008–2018

AbstractFounded in 1994, the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) is social work’s scientific society, widely recognized as the world’s foremost venue for scientific exchange, advancement, a...

High-Impact Social Work Scholars

Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the bibliometric contributions of high-impact social work faculty. Methods: Toward this end, we used a sample comprising fellows ( N = 143) affiliated with the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) and the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (AASWSW). To quantify impact, we relied primarily upon the h-index (a measure of lifetime scholarly impact) and the m-index (which adjusts for career length). Results: Analyses revealed the mean h-index value for SSWR fellows ( M = 26.44, SD = 14.72) was substantially lower than the mean for AASWSW fellows ( M = 32.52, SD = 15.96), but minimal differences existed in m-index values. H- and m-index values for the 40 highest impact scholars ranged, respectively, from 33 to 93 and 1.13 to 3.33. Conclusions: The results indicate the social work profession includes many researchers who are making an exceptional scientific impact.

Marshaling Social Responses to Environmental Changes

At the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) 2016 conference, the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (AASWSW) will officially announce the 12 Grand Challenges for Social Work (GCSW). AASWSW did a soft rollout of a preliminary set of Grand Challenges at the SSWR 2015 conference. After the 2015 preliminary rollout, additional adjustments were conducted and additional feedback was incorporated in preparation for the official announcement. The introduction of GCSW has the potential to be a watershed event for social work. I previously discussed them in an editorial on the unification and defining of the profession (Williams, 2015). GCSW are committed to developing a scientific base for our profession that supports social resolutions for positive change in several important areas of need (AASWSW, n.d.). Recently, the United Nations (UN) released its goals for 2030 in Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015). In reviewing the UN 2030 agenda for sustainable development, the reader will notice that many of the UN goals overlap with GCSW (AASWSW, n.d.). This would suggest that the profession is on the right path in developing a comprehensive set of challenges where social work can focus its fiscal and intellectual resources to transform our systems. In this editorial, I would like to highlight one of the GCSW—creating social responses to a changing environment (AASWSW, n.d.). There are three goals in the UN 2030 agenda for sustainable development directly related to this challenge: (1) take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts; (2) conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development; and (3) protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems; sustainably manage forests; combat desertification; and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015). Climate change, sustainable use of ecosystems, and biodiversity loss are not generally considered to be areas in which social workers have the skills, knowledge, and abilities to make a significant impact. However, there is a growing literature in social work and social science on sustainable development, biodiversity, and the environment ( Jones & Williams, 2011; Kemp et al., 2015; Kumssa, Jones, & Williams, 2009; Kumssa, Williams, Jones, & Des Marais, 2014; Miller & Hayward, 2014; Peeters, 2012; Swim, Clayton, & Howard, 2011). Creating social responses to environmental changes is one area in which social work can make tremendous impact.

From SSWR to Peer-Reviewed Publication: How Many Live and How Many Die?

The purpose of this study was to estimate how many presentations at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) are subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. A 30% random sample of abstracts presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of SSWR was reviewed. To determine publication status of the presentations, the authors conducted searches using Google Scholar, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Social Work Abstracts, in addition to reviewing faculty pages and curriculum vitae (CVs). The authors recorded information about the published articles including the journal title, impact factor, year, and authors. Forty-three percentage (95% CI = [34.5%, 51.9%]) of presentations were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Twenty-eight percentage (95% CI = [20.9%, 36.7%]) of publications were in a journal with an ISI Impact Factor (M = 1.32). The number of presentation authors was not associated with a subsequent publication. No differences were observed by type of presentation.

Harmful Effects of Federal Research Grants

The past two decades have seen an increasing emphasis on the importance of university faculty obtaining external funding to support their research efforts. Social work faculty have not been exempt from this pressure, especially within the network of programs housed in so-called research universities. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching currently designates 96 universities as Research Universities--Very High (RU/VH), meaning they annually award at least 20 doctoral degrees a year. These RU/VH institutions particularly value faculty obtaining federal research grants, although the pressure to do so is percolating throughout academe. Of the 203 Council on Social Work Education-accredited MSW programs, 47 are located in RU/VH universities. Federal research grants are among the most highly sought sources of external funding, for several reasons. One is prestige, in that the competition for such grants is very keen, with a rigorous peer-review process used to exclude all but the highest quality research proposals from being funded. A second reason is that certain forms of important research can only be undertaken with substantial funding. A third factor (perhaps paramount) is that universities are allowed to attach a percentage of the research expenses to the total amount of the grant, expenses called administrative or My own university charges a 47% overhead rate for federally funded research conducted on campus. What this means is that if a research project is budgeted at $100,000 a year, the grant will receive its $100,000 to conduct the research, and the university will receive an additional $47,000 for indirect costs. (Indirect cost recovery rates do vary across funding sources and funding mechanisms.) This overhead is used to help provide the physical plant, personnel, and other resources needed to keep the university up and running. A portion of it is usually divided between the college and department from which the grant originated, and perhaps a small amount is awarded to the principal investigator (PI) of the grant itself, to provide supplemental research funds. In 2009, my university received over $142 million in federal contracts or grants. Thus, the grant overhead income received by research-oriented universities can be a major source of institutional revenue. In this era of shrinking resources and cutbacks in state and private funding, university administrators increasingly encourage faculty to seek lucrative federal grants. Although hard data are difficult to obtain, it seems as if the profession of social work has been only modestly successful in this regard. The Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) now publishes a directory of social work grants funded annually by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (see https://htmldbprod.bc.edu/ pls/htmldb/f?p=545:1:2378998554668479::NO:1). A histogram of these social work grants awarded from 1987 to 2009 looks rather like a normal curve, peaking in 2002 with 53 awards and declining yearly to 28 in 2009, about the same number as in 1996 (30 awards). It is by no means an accelerating curve, sloping ever upward. Despite the pressures from within the discipline and those imposed by upper level university administrators, the writing, receipt, and execution of federally funded research grants is not an unalloyed benefit to social work faculty and other personnel involved in preparing grants, and some consequences may be positively harmful. In the following sections I present some possibly deleterious consequences of seeking federal grant funding, which are worthy of consideration by social work faculty contemplating preparing grant applications and by deans and directors who may considering ways to try and motivate their faculty to submit grants. WRITING GRANTS WASTES RESOURCES The most obvious waste of resources is in that a majority of federal research grant applications will not be funded. …

Improving the Annual Conference of the Society for Social Work and Research

Last week, I received an e-mail from the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) with a link to the preliminary agenda of the 14th Annual SSWR Conference in San Francisco. It is strange to think that only 60% of SSWR members had e-mail when the organization was founded in 1994 (Williams et al., 2008). It is even harder to imagine social work without the annual SSWR conference, an extraordinary professional development by any measure. When this editorial appears in the spring, planning for the 15th annual conference will be underway. Thus, it may be useful presently to offer a few recommendations for improving the conference based on my experience as program chair of the 11th annual conference and more recent developments. RECOMMENDATIONS Abstract Reviewer Selection The SSV4R Board should reconsider the current reviewer selection process. In 2007, if memory serves me correctly, approximately 200 reviewers were recruited to rate an average of 18 abstracts each. Reviewers were commonly drawn from the ranks of assistant professors (many of them newly minted) and even doctoral students. A large set of reviewers was recruited, so that no one reviewer was burdened with rating an excessive number of abstracts. Reviewers were unpaid and acknowledged only in a listing in the conference brochure and SSWR News. The abstract reviewer selection process for the 14th annual SSWR conference did not rely on doctoral students for reviews, and the majority of reviews were completed by professors (30.5%, N = 87) and associate professors (28.4%, N = 81). That said, the largest group of reviewers was comprised of assistant professors (36.5%, N = 104), with the remainder (4.6%, N = 13) consisting of apparently well-qualified research-involved people. Although the abstract reviewer selection process has improved in recent years, nearly 40% of abstracts continue to be rated by among the most inexperienced (and nontenured) researchers in the profession. It might make more sense, scientifically, to recruit a smaller set of abstract reviewers (perhaps limiting the reviewers to the 160 to 170 full and associate professors) who are indisputably drawn from among the most accomplished researchers in social work. These reviewers could be paid modestly for their work, as the National Institutes of Health does in symbolic recognition of their grant reviewers. Selection to the conference abstract review committee should represent a significant professional achievement and be recognized as such with a plaque, dinner, and specific ceremony at the conference. Criteria for service on the abstract review committee should be established by the SSWR Board, approved by the membership, and include parameters for such service (for example, length of appointment, number of times one may serve, and so forth). A committee of approximately 160 to 170 abstract reviewers could rate all conference abstracts within one month and might be willing to review a larger number of abstracts than previously if the experience was perceived as more professionally rewarding. This arrangement might increase the rigor, reliability, and validity of the conference abstract selection process. Conference Abstract Rating Process The current abstract rating process is flawed for methodological reasons. First, decisions about the relative merits of abstracts (that is, abstract ratings) are made by different reviewers with different rating propensities. A critical reviewer may rate all of her or his abstracts relatively poorly, with variation in ratings occurring within the very to poor range. Conversely, other raters invariably find virtues in the abstracts they review and rate them highly, the variation in their ratings tending to occur within the very good to excellent range. These rater biases are largely independent of abstract quality but are currently uncontrolled for in the annual conference abstract selection process. …

Publication Practices in Social Work

Publication practices in social work have long been regarded as problematic by social work scholars. Three recent critiques--The Miami on Publication Processes in Social (Schilling et al., 2005); The San Antonio Response to the Miami Statement (Holden et al., 2008); and Journal Publication Practices in Social Work, a report by the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) Presidential Task Force on Publications (PTFP) (2008)--have systematically explored and codified these complaints. Half of the 14 members of the group that produced the Miami (convened by Robert Schilling, PhD) and the six members of the San Antonio group (cochaired by Judith C. Baer, PhD, Gary Holden, PhD, and Bruce A. Thyer, PhD) also served on the 22-member SSWR PTFP (cochaired by Jeffrey M. Jenson, PhD and Anne E. Fortune, PhD). Although the three reports have much in common, this editorial focuses on PTFP recommendations for improving publication practices, because the PTFP report is the most comprehensive assessment of these issues and was published with the SSWR imprimatur. Readers should consult the Miami and the San Antonio Response for a number of interesting recommendations that were not incorporated in the final PTFP report. Published only recently, it is too soon to know in what ways and to what extent the recommendations embodied in the Miami Statement, the San Antonio Response, and the PTFP report will materially affect publication practices in social work. It is worrisome, however, that to date these important documents seem to have engendered little in the way of formal or informal reaction from social work scholars, publication houses, and other key stakeholders in the social work research dissemination enterprise. As a potential stimulant to future discussions, I offer my initial reactions to the PTFP proposals here. USEFUL RECOMMENDATIONS Most of the PTFP recommendations seem valid and useful: Journal editors should have primary responsibility for manuscript reviewer assignments; reviewers should possess the requisite expertise to provide insightful reviews of manuscripts in specific topical or methodological areas; processes and criteria used to guide selection of journal editors should be transparent; electronic submission and processing of social work research manuscripts should be normative; and journal editors should possess scholarly expertise and experience consistent with their editorial duties. POTENTIALLY USEFUL RECOMMENDATIONS (IF MODIFIED) Several of the PTFP recommendations are appealing but not fully articulated. For example, it is clearly desirable that assessing the length of time that is required to assign, review, and publish manuscripts in centralized and decentralized publishing models ... be collected and compared (p. 18) and that data assessing impact scores, journal submission and acceptance rates, and time to publication for social work ... be collected annually by an independent group of editors, scholars, and publishers as a way to help authors evaluate a journal's impact. (p. 22) However, these recommendations would more likely be acted on if the report specified who might fund the efforts, collect and analyze such data, and serve on an independent monitoring group of the type mentioned. It would also be especially useful if the report anticipated potential barriers to the completion of these activities, including those related to costs and political issues. Similarly, although most readers would likely agree that and directors in departments and schools of social work should provide leadership in efforts aimed at finding ways to reward faculty members who serve as editors or manuscript reviewers for scholarly journals (p. 22), this recommendation would be more useful if specific supports were delineated that deans might provide to faculty members serving social work and if potential constraints on the provision of such supports were identified. …

Establishing Evidence for Strengths-Based Interventions? Reflections from Social Work's Research Conference

I recently attended Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) annual conference in San Francisco. As a new assistant professor developing a research agenda focused on work practice with children and families from a perspective, I was anxious to attend sessions presenting research regarding interventions. When I received conference schedule, I reviewed titles of presentations, ready with my highlighter pen to identify any topic related to research informing practice. As I reviewed almost 300 titles of conference presentations, I was surprised to find only two sessions contained term strengths in title. I then reviewed poster sessions to discover that not one poster session referred specifically to the or strengths-based in title. I felt a bit concerned that more titles did not reflect research regarding practice. Understanding that perspective is a paradigm based on principles addressing a variety of constructs, I expanded my search to look for titles using other terms that may reflect principles without actually using strengths in title. I looked for words alluding to concept of such as assets and I then searched for concepts that describe processes identified within perspective such as and coping. Finally, I also looked for terms reflecting specific previously identified in literature such as social support, appraisal, making, and spirituality. As I expanded my search in these ways, I did find an increase in number of sessions related to this topic. Specifically, out of 359 sessions reviewed, 47 presentations or posters did refer to these concepts in their abstracts, suggesting just over 10 percent of presentations may represent research that could inform practice even if this connection was not directly stated. As I reviewed these 47 in greater detail, I discovered that 18 of sessions explored protective factor of support specifically, whereas 15 tested more expansive models of risk and protection. Six of abstracts considered strength of spirituality, and another six looked at a variety of other specific protective factors. Only two of abstracts I reviewed presented research evaluating effectiveness of intervention. As I returned from this trip, I reflected on meaning of this experience. I wondered, does a dearth of sessions directly asserting their connection to perspective suggest this paradigm is losing emphasis in work? Do SSWR reviewers not value abstracts submitted regarding research based on perspective? Or, are we not conducting kind of rigorous research expected at work's top research conference that informs this paradigm? These hypotheses have personal implications for a young researcher seeking to build a research agenda on this paradigm. More significantly, these questions also have implications for our field. What does it mean for work that we are presenting theoretical material regarding principles consistently in classroom if there is limited current evidence to support its application? As a sincere advocate of principles of perspective, even making previous statement is difficult for me. Prior to seeking my PhD, I was a work practitioner working with children and families for over 10 years. I support practice because I saw these principles work in practice (Lietz, 2004, 2007a). When I moved from a practitioner to a clinical supervisor, I applied these ideas by creating a model of supervision and again, my own observations suggested this was a useful strategy. When I moved from practice to research, I conducted research to test and explore construct of resilience for high-risk families. …

A Historical Account of the Society for Social Work and Research: Presidential Perspectives on Advances in Research Infrastructure

The Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) was founded in 1994 to provide a meeting ground and support organization for individual social workers who engage in research. Over its first 14 years, SSWR has grown from a modest-sized organization that hosted an initial conference to a large and influential force that sponsors a wildly successful yearly conference. SSWR's annual conference now showcases a portfolio of awards, including a travel scholarship for a doctoral student, a named lecture, and a very competitive abstract submission process. Funding for research by social workers has grown over the years, and SSWR, in association with the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR), has become a regular provider of educational opportunities about funding sources. This article presents perspectives from the first seven presidents of the organization, who describe the growing richness and diversity of SSWR's membership and projects and the increasing visibility of research conducted by social workers. KEY WORDS: infrastructure; organization; research; SSWR ********** The Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) was founded as a membership organization in 1994 to support social workers interested in research. To preserve the history of SSWR, this article presents sections contributed by the first seven presidents, each describing, often from a personal point of view, how their efforts helped to build the organization and to contribute to the current research infrastructure in social work. PRESIDENTIAL PERSPECTIVES Janet B. W. Williams, Founding President, 1994-1996 It was 1992. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)Task Force Report on Social Work Research (1991) had just been presented to the National Advisory Mental Health Council of NIMH. The report clearly acknowledged the significance of social work research by recognizing the breadth of critical problems with which social work deals and the increasing need for all human services to demonstrate the effectiveness of the services they provide. This report provided the stimulus and led to the funding that supported the establishment in 1992 of the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR). IASWR was created by five leading social work organizations: Baccalaureate Program Directors (BPD), National Association of Deans and Directors (NADD), Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE), Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), and NASW. SSWR was conceived in direct response to the NIMH Task Force Report conclusion that [t]hroughout the profession there is insufficient organizational support for research development. As a research social worker who was not embedded in a school of social work, I had always felt somewhat professionally isolated and hungry for interaction with nay social work research colleagues. As a faculty member in a medical school department of psychiatry, I frequently attended conferences and meetings of research-oriented groups in psychiatry but knew of no similar groups in social work. Therefore, at a psychiatry research meeting shortly after the Task Force Report was issued, I discussed these thoughts with Dr. Alan Leshner, at the time the director of the National Institute on DrugAbuse (NIDA). He agreed to support the founding of such a group and to contribute to its first conference. In 1992, at an NIMH-sponsored conference in Washington, DC (Building Social Work Knowledge for Effective Mental Health Services and Policies), I presented a plan for a new membership organization that would provide social work researchers with a base: the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWFZ). At that conference, Betsy Vourlekis also presented a report on the development of the new IASWR, as she had been appointed head of the implementation committee. At the conclusion of the conference, Betsy approached me and asked if I would delay the initiation of efforts to establish a membership group until the new organizationally based IASWR was firmly off the ground. …

Developing Research Infrastructure: The Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research

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. …

Advances and Challenges in Preventing Childhood and Adolescent Problem Behavior

Prevention has recently been heralded as an effective way to reduce the adverse effects associated with childhood and adolescent problem behavior. Bolstered by new evidence indicating that empirically based curricula can prevent or delay the onset of problems such as drug use or delinquency, many communities have strengthened their commitment to providing prevention programs in local neighborhoods and schools (Gottfredson & Wilson, 2003). This renewed interest in strategies aimed at preventing childhood and adolescent problems follows a period of unprecedented advancement in the general field of prevention (Greenberg, 2004; Hawkins, Catalano, & Arthur, 2002). Prevention has changed significantly in the past several decades. In 1984, I was a doctoral student at the University of Washington studying the etiology, prevention, and treatment of juvenile delinquency and substance abuse. During my studies at the School of Social Work, I was fortunate to work on a federally funded intervention trial led by Professors J. David Hawkins and Richard f. Catalano of the Social Development Research Group (SDRG). When I began my doctoral training, SDRG was a small group of committed researchers interested in identifying risk and protective factors associated with the onset and persistence of childhood and adolescent antisocial behavior. Knowledge of risk and protective traits, guided by theoretical constructs from the social development model of antisocial behavior (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996), was being used by SDRG members to design and test interventions for high-risk children and families in longitudinal controlled trials. Today SDRG is composed of a nationally recognized community of scholars who have made significant contributions to understanding the developmental processes leading to antisocial conduct and to developing and testing prevention programs aimed at interrupting these processes. As a testament to this progress, I am pleased to publish in this issue the Aaron Rosen Lecture presented by J. David Hawkins at the 2005 meeting of the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR). Recent advances and current challenges in prevention are chronicled in the following section and in remarks to the SSWR membership offered by Professor Hawkins. PREVENTION: AN ABBREVIATED HISTORY School and community prevention programs in the United States date back at least 40 years. Early efforts can be traced to the 1960s, when intervention approaches based on information dissemination and fear-arousal approaches were implemented in many of the nation's schools. These strategies stressed the adverse consequences and dramatized the dangers of drug use and delinquent conduct in an attempt to discourage young people from participating in problem behaviors. Experts agree that conveying information about the consequences and risks associated with problem behaviors such as delinquency and drug use is an important component of prevention programs. However, the effects of knowledge-based or fear-arousal techniques were largely unsuccessful in changing attitudes, intentions, or individual behaviors in children and youths (Bangert-Drowns, 1988; Moskowitz, 1989; Tobler, 1986). Affective education strategies and alternative programs and structured activities for children and youths took center stage in the late 1970s. Affective education was designed to increase responsible decision-making skills and enhance self-esteem. In this model, students were exposed to problem-solving and experiential activities based on the assumption that effective decision-making skills would deter involvement in antisocial behavior. Unfortunately, early affective education programs did not prevent or reduce antisocial behavior itself (Botvin & Griffin, 2003). Alternative programming was based on a belief that extracurricular activities could serve as a deterrent to antisocial behavior. This assumption implied that students who participated in after-school programs such as sports, arts, academic tutoring, or community activities would avoid involvement in problems like delinquency and drug use. …

Ethical Beliefs of Social Work Researchers

The purpose of this study is to examine the beliefs of social work researchers about ethical practices. Surveys were mailed to a random sample of 240 members of the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) to elicit their views about ethical practices in social work research. Responses from 160 members (67% response rate) yielded information regarding the appropriateness of dual relationships, authorship practices, informed consent procedures, and other conduct in social work research. Age, gender, educational level, years of social work research experience, and current teaching of social work research were related to respondents' ethical views about practices with students and sexual relationships with research subjects. The need for additional resources on ethics in social work research is highlighted.

The Society for Social Work and Research at 10 Years of Age and Counting: An Idea Whose Time Had Come

Since its founding in 1994, the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) has grown dramatically, in large part because of its annual conference featuring the best in social work research. SSWR’s growth has also given rise to an appreciation for greater diversity in methods. Although disparities in research infrastructure (and procurement of funding) persist, SSWR continually seeks ways to provide training and support to help level the playing field. As SSWR begins a second decade, the board will embark on a strategic planning agenda dedicated to building on and expanding organizational strengths. These include the promotion of rigorous practice-relevant research at SSWR’s annual conference, support for doctoral students and early career scholars, strong advocacy for expanded research funding and training opportunities, and productive partnerships with other professional organizations. SSWR was founded as an idea whose time had come, and its relevance continues to grow.

Evidence for practice: Challenges, opportunities, and access

In this issue's lead article, Aaron Rosen addresses the challenges and promise of implementing evidence-based practice in routine practice. This article provides readers with content first presented in the inaugural Aaron Rosen lecture, delivered at the 2002 meeting of the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR). This lecture provides a forum for a scholarship to advance the field in terms of integration of practice and research. The Society's decision that Professor Rosen himself should deliver the first lecture further signals his legacy of scholarship on research for practice. Given the importance of the lecture's focus and its congruence with the purpose of this journal, Social Work Research welcomes papers from subsequent Rosen lectures at the SSWR. Professor Rosen's article identifies two challenges inherent in the application of research to professional practice: (1) the problems we tackle professionally so closely resemble those we face in our personal lives that we risk approaching professional tasks habitually rather than on the basis of empirical evidence, and (2) applying generalizations from research is inherently challenging. Rosen proposes that practicing on the basis of evidence requires the development and dissemination of research findings in ready-for-application practice guidelines, decision-support protocols to guide practitioners in selecting and applying such guidelines, and evaluation procedures that are practice-friendly. Rosen's analysis and suggestions reflect the multiple players involved in the production, dissemination, packaging, and use of research for practice. Who are the players in the challenge of increasing evidence-based practice, and are their respective roles and responsibilities? There are producers and consumers of research, and the social work discourse has traditionally focused on researchers and practitioners as key players in the quest for evidence-based practice. Researchers, of course, select topics for their scholarship, and the research-practice gap has long been attributed (and often justly so) to the focus of research on topics that seem irrelevant to practice. Clearly, we need more research that addresses concerns of the social work profession, the social problems it addresses, and the social programs and policies through which it strives for effect. Auslander's article in this issue focuses on a new and innovative social program for older adults--the supportive community. Supportive communities can occur naturally, or they can be structured through social programs. Guided by the Andersen model of service use, Auslander addresses the questions, Why do people join supportive communities? and what influences their use of the services available through such communities? Findings point to the importance of need and enabling factors that can be influenced to help facilitate service use. Hoping and expecting that practice will be based on research does not mean that all research will, or should, have an impact on practice. Some research will have impact only over the long haul, shaping theory that in turn informs hypotheses for further study. Addressing the very practice-relevant problem of homelessness, Eyrich, Pollio, and North tested prevailing theories about social networks. This study used a large sample of people experiencing homelessness, randomly selected from shelters and day centers and recruited systematically from city streets. People who experienced long-term homelessness had smaller family support networks and perceived that they could not count on family and friends for help. The study's findings both confirm and fail to support prevailing theories. For example, the data do not support the popular notion that individuals experiencing homelessness are socially isolated. Respondents reported substantial contact with family and friends, and very few homeless people had no such contact. …