the importance of research in social work practice

The link between social work research and practice

When thinking about social work, some may consider the field to solely focus on clinical interventions with individuals or groups.

There may be a mistaken impression that research is not a part of the social work profession. This is completely false. Rather, the two have been and will continue to need to be intertwined.

This guide covers why social workers should care about research, how both social work practice and social work research influence and guide each other, how to build research skills both as a student and as a professional working in the field, and the benefits of being a social worker with strong research skills. 

A selection of social work research jobs are also discussed.  

• Social workers and research
• Evidence-based practice
• Practice and research
• Research and practice
• Build research skills
• Social worker as researcher
• Benefits of research skills
• Research jobs

Why should social workers care about research?

Sometimes it may seem as though social work practice and social work research are two separate tracks running parallel to each other – they both seek to improve the lives of clients, families and communities, but they don’t interact. This is not the way it is supposed to work.

Research and practice should be intertwined, with each affecting the other and improving processes on both ends, so that it leads to better outcomes for the population we’re serving.

Section 5 of the NASW Social Work Code of Ethics is focused on social workers’ ethical responsibilities to the social work profession. There are two areas in which research is mentioned in upholding our ethical obligations: for the integrity of the profession (section 5.01) and for evaluation and research (section 5.02). 

Some of the specific guidance provided around research and social work include:

• 5.01(b): …Social workers should protect, enhance, and improve the integrity of the profession through appropriate study and research, active discussion, and responsible criticism of the profession.
• 5.01(d): Social workers should contribute to the knowledge base of social work and share with colleagues their knowledge related to practice, research, and ethics…
• 5.02(a) Social workers should monitor and evaluate policies, the implementation of programs, and practice interventions.
• 5.02(b) Social workers should promote and facilitate evaluation and research to contribute to the development of knowledge.
• 5.02(c) Social workers should critically examine and keep current with emerging knowledge relevant to social work and fully use evaluation and research evidence in their professional practice.
• 5.02(q) Social workers should educate themselves, their students, and their colleagues about responsible research practices.

Evidence-based practice and evidence-based treatment

In order to strengthen the profession and determine that the interventions we are providing are, in fact, effective, we must conduct research. When research and practice are intertwined, this leads practitioners to develop evidence-based practice (EBP) and evidence-based treatment (EBT).

Evidence-based practice is, according to The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) , a process involving creating an answerable question based on a client or organizational need, locating the best available evidence to answer the question, evaluating the quality of the evidence as well as its applicability, applying the evidence, and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the solution. 

Evidence-based treatment is any practice that has been established as effective through scientific research according to a set of explicit criteria (Drake et al., 2001). These are interventions that, when applied consistently, routinely produce improved client outcomes. 

For example, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) was one of a variety of interventions for those with anxiety disorders. Researchers wondered if CBT was better than other intervention options in producing positive, consistent results for clients.

So research was conducted comparing multiple types of interventions, and the evidence (research results) demonstrated that CBT was the best intervention.

The anecdotal evidence from practice combined with research evidence determined that CBT should become the standard treatment for those diagnosed with anxiety. Now more social workers are getting trained in CBT methods in order to offer this as a treatment option to their clients.

How does social work practice affect research?

Social work practice provides the context and content for research. For example, agency staff was concerned about the lack of nutritional food in their service area, and heard from clients that it was too hard to get to a grocery store with a variety of foods, because they didn’t have transportation, or public transit took too long. 

So the agency applied for and received a grant to start a farmer’s market in their community, an urban area that was considered a food desert. This program accepted their state’s version of food stamps as a payment option for the items sold at the farmer’s market.

The agency used their passenger van to provide free transportation to and from the farmer’s market for those living more than four blocks from the market location.

The local university also had a booth each week at the market with nursing and medical students checking blood pressure and providing referrals to community agencies that could assist with medical needs. The agency was excited to improve the health of its clients by offering this program.

But how does the granting foundation know if this was a good use of their money? This is where research and evaluation comes in. Research could gather data to answer a number of questions. Here is but a small sample:

• How many community members visited each week and purchased fruits and vegetables? 
• How many took advantage of the transportation provided, and how many walked to the market? 
• How many took advantage of the blood pressure checks? Were improvements seen in those numbers for those having repeat blood pressure readings throughout the market season? 
• How much did the self-reported fruit and vegetable intake increase for customers? 
• What barriers did community members report in visiting and buying food from the market (prices too high? Inconvenient hours?)
• Do community members want the program to continue next year?
• Was the program cost-effective, or did it waste money by paying for a driver and for gasoline to offer free transportation that wasn’t utilized? What are areas where money could be saved without compromising the quality of the program?
• What else needs to be included in this program to help improve the health of community members?

How does research affect social work practice?

Research can guide practice to implement proven strategies. It can also ask the ‘what if’ or ‘how about’ questions that can open doors for new, innovative interventions to be developed (and then research the effectiveness of those interventions).

Engel and Schutt (2017) describe four categories of research used in social work:

• Descriptive research is research in which social phenomena are defined and described. A descriptive research question would be ‘How many homeless women with substance use disorder live in the metro area?’
• Exploratory research seeks to find out how people get along in the setting under question, what meanings they give to their actions, and what issues concern them. An example research question would be ‘What are the barriers to homeless women with substance use disorder receiving treatment services?’
• Explanatory research seeks to identify causes and effects of social phenomena. It can be used to rule out other explanations for findings and show how two events are related to each other.  An explanatory research question would be ‘Why do women with substance use disorder become homeless?’
• Evaluation research describes or identifies the impact of social programs and policies. This type of research question could be ‘How effective was XYZ treatment-first program that combined housing and required drug/alcohol abstinence in keeping women with substance use disorder in stable housing 2 years after the program ended?’

Each of the above types of research can answer important questions about the population, setting or intervention being provided. This can help practitioners determine which option is most effective or cost-efficient or that clients are most likely to adhere to. In turn, this data allows social workers to make informed choices on what to keep in their practice, and what needs changing. 

How to build research skills while in school

There are a number of ways to build research skills while a student.  BSW and MSW programs require a research course, but there are other ways to develop these skills beyond a single class:

• Volunteer to help a professor working in an area of interest. Professors are often excited to share their knowledge and receive extra assistance from students with similar interests.
• Participate in student research projects where you’re the subject. These are most often found in psychology departments. You can learn a lot about the informed consent process and how data is collected by volunteering as a research participant.  Many of these studies also pay a small amount, so it’s an easy way to earn a bit of extra money while you’re on campus. 
• Create an independent study research project as an elective and work with a professor who is an expert in an area you’re interested in.  You’d design a research study, collect the data, analyze it, and write a report or possibly even an article you can submit to an academic journal.
• Some practicum programs will have you complete a small evaluation project or assist with a larger research project as part of your field education hours. 
• In MSW programs, some professors hire students to conduct interviews or enter data on their funded research projects. This could be a good part time job while in school.
• Research assistant positions are more common in MSW programs, and these pay for some or all your tuition in exchange for working a set number of hours per week on a funded research project.

How to build research skills while working as a social worker

Social service agencies are often understaffed, with more projects to complete than there are people to complete them.

Taking the initiative to volunteer to survey clients about what they want and need, conduct an evaluation on a program, or seeing if there is data that has been previously collected but not analyzed and review that data and write up a report can help you stand out from your peers, be appreciated by management and other staff, and may even lead to a raise, a promotion, or even new job opportunities because of the skills you’ve developed.

Benefits of being a social worker with strong research skills

Social workers with strong research skills can have the opportunity to work on various projects, and at higher levels of responsibility. 

Many can be promoted into administration level positions after demonstrating they understand how to conduct, interpret and report research findings and apply those findings to improving the agency and their programs.

There’s also a level of confidence knowing you’re implementing proven strategies with your clients. 

Social work research jobs

There are a number of ways in which you can blend interests in social work and research. A quick search on Glassdoor.com and Indeed.com retrieved the following positions related to social work research:

• Research Coordinator on a clinical trial offering psychosocial supportive interventions and non-addictive pain treatments to minimize opioid use for pain.
• Senior Research Associate leading and overseeing research on a suite of projects offered in housing, mental health and corrections.
• Research Fellow in a school of social work
• Project Policy Analyst for large health organization
• Health Educator/Research Specialist to implement and evaluate cancer prevention and screening programs for a health department
• Research Interventionist providing Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for insomnia patients participating in a clinical trial
• Research Associate for Child Care and Early Education
• Social Services Data Researcher for an organization serving adults with disabilities.
• Director of Community Health Equity Research Programs evaluating health disparities.

No matter your population or area of interest, you’d likely be able to find a position that integrated research and social work. 

Social work practice and research are and should remain intertwined. This is the only way we can know what questions to ask about the programs and services we are providing, and ensure our interventions are effective. 

There are many opportunities to develop research skills while in school and while working in the field, and these skills can lead to some interesting positions that can make a real difference to clients, families and communities. 

Drake, R. E., Goldman, H., Leff, H. S., Lehman, A. F., Dixon, L., Mueser, K. T., et al. (2001). Implementing evidence-based practices in routine mental health service settings. Psychiatric Services, 52(2), 179-182. 

Engel, R.J., & Schutt, R.K. (2017). The Practice of Research in Social Work. Sage.

National Association of Social Workers. (n.d). Evidence Based Practice. Retrieved from: https://www.socialworkers.org/News/Research-Data/Social-Work-Policy-Research/Evidence-Based-Practice

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Pursuit of Quality for Social Work Practice: Three Generations and Counting

Enola proctor.

Shanti K. Khinduka Distinguished Professor and director of the Center for Mental Health Services Research at Washington University in St. Louis

Social work addresses some of the most complex and intractable human and social problems: poverty, mental illness, addiction, homelessness, and child abuse. Our field may be distinct among professions for its efforts to ameliorate the toughest societal problems, experienced by society’s most vulnerable, while working from under-resourced institutions and settings. Members of our profession are underpaid, and most of our agencies lack the data infrastructure required for rigorous assessment and evaluation.

Moreover, social work confronts these challenges as it is ethically bound to deliver high-quality services. Policy and regulatory requirements increasingly demand that social work deliver and document the effectiveness of highest quality interventions and restrict reimbursement to those services that are documented as evidence based. Social work’s future, its very survival, depends on our ability to deliver services with a solid base of evidence and to document their effectiveness. In the words of the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (AASWSW; n.d.) , social work seeks to “champion social progress powered by science.” The research community needs to support practice through innovative and rigorous science that advances the evidence for interventions to address social work’s grand challenges.

My work seeks to improve the quality of social work practice by pursuing answers to three questions:

• What interventions and services are most effective and thus should be delivered in social work practice?
• How do we measure the impact of those interventions and services? (That is, what outcomes do our interventions achieve?)
• How do we implement the highest quality interventions?

This paper describes this work, demonstrates the substantive and methodological progression across the three questions, assesses what we have learned, and forecasts a research agenda for what we still need to learn. Given Aaron Rosen’s role as my PhD mentor and our many years of collaboration, the paper also addresses the role of research mentoring in advancing our profession’s knowledge base.

What Interventions and Services Are Most Effective?

Answering the question “What services are effective?” requires rigorous testing of clearly specified interventions. The first paper I coauthored with Aaron Rosen—“Specifying the Treatment Process: The Basis for Effectiveness Research” ( Rosen & Proctor, 1978 )—provided a framework for evaluating intervention effectiveness. At that time, process and outcomes were jumbled and intertwined concepts. Social work interventions were rarely specified beyond theoretical orientation or level of focus: casework (or direct practice); group work; and macro practice, which included community, agency-level, and policy-focused practice. Moreover, interventions were not named, nor were their components clearly identified. We recognized that gross descriptions of interventions obstruct professional training, preclude fidelity assessment, and prevent accurate tests of effectiveness. Thus, in a series of papers, Rosen and I advocated that social work interventions be specified, clearly labeled, and operationally defined, measured, and tested.

Specifying Interventions

Such specification of interventions is essential to two professional responsibilities: professional education and demonstrating the effectiveness of the field’s interventions. Without specification, interventions cannot be taught. Social work education is all about equipping students with skills to deliver interventions, programs, services, administrative practices, and policies. Teaching interventions requires an ability to name, define, see them in action, measure their presence (or absence), assess the fidelity with which they are delivered, and give feedback to students on how to increase or refine the associated skills.

To advance testing the effectiveness of social work interventions, we drew distinctions between interventions and outcomes and proposed these two constructs as the foci for effectiveness research. We defined interventions as practitioner behaviors that can be volitionally manipulated by practitioners (used or not, varied in intensity and timing), that are defined in detail, can be reliably measured, and can be linked to specific identified outcomes ( Rosen & Proctor, 1978 ; Rosen & Proctor, 1981 ). This definition foreshadowed the development of treatment manuals, lists of specific evidence-based practices, and calls for monitoring intervention fidelity. Recognizing the variety of intervention types, and to advance their more precise definition and measurement, we proposed that interventions be distinguished in terms of their complexity. Interventive responses comprise discrete or single responses, such as affirmation, expression of empathy, or positive reinforcement. Interventive strategies comprise several different actions that are, together, linked to a designated outcome, such as motivational interviewing. Most complex are interventive programs , which are a variety of intervention actions organized and integrated as a total treatment package; collaborative care for depression or community assertive treatment are examples. To strengthen the professional knowledge base, we also called for social work effectiveness research to begin testing the optimal dose and sequencing of intervention components in relation to attainment of desired outcomes.

Advancing Intervention Effectiveness Research

Our “specifying paper” also was motivated by the paucity of literature at that time on actual social work interventions. Our literature review of 13 major social work journals over 5 years of published research revealed that only 15% of published social work research addressed interventions. About a third of studies described social problems, and about half explored factors associated with the problem ( Rosen, Proctor, & Staudt, 2003 ). Most troubling was our finding that only 3% of articles described the intervention or its components in sufficient detail for replication in either research or practice. Later, Fraser (2004) found intervention research to comprise only about one fourth of empirical studies in social work. Fortunately, our situation has improved. Intervention research is more frequent in social work publications, thanks largely to the publication policies of the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research and Research on Social Work Practice .

Research Priorities

Social work faces important and formidable challenges as it advances research on intervention effectiveness. The practitioner who searches the literature or various intervention lists can find more than 500 practices that are named or that are shown to have evidence from rigorous trials that passes a bar to qualify as evidence-based practices. However, our profession still lacks any organized compendium or taxonomy of interventions that are employed in or found to be effective for social work practice. Existing lists of evidence-based practices, although necessary, are insufficient for social work for several reasons. First, as a 2015 National Academies Institute of Medicine (IOM) report—“Psychosocial Interventions for Mental and Substance Use Disorders: A Framework for Establishing Evidence-Based Standards” ( IOM, 2015 )—concluded, too few evidence-based practices have been found to be appropriate for low-resource settings or acceptable to minority groups. Second, existing interventions do not adequately reflect the breadth of social work practice. We have too few evidence-based interventions that can inform effective community organization, case management, referral practice, resource development, administrative practice, or policy. Noting that there is far less literature on evidence-based practices relevant to organizational, community, and policy practice, a social work task force responding to the 2015 IOM report recommended that this gap be a target of our educational and research efforts ( National Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work, 2016 ). And finally, our field—along with other professions that deliver psychosocial interventions—lacks the kinds of procedure codes that can identify the specific interventions we deliver. Documenting social work activities in agency records is increasingly essential for quality assurance and third-party reimbursement.

Future Directions: Research to Advance Evidence on Interventions

Social work has critically important research needs. Our field needs to advance the evidence base on what interventions work for social work populations, practices, and settings. Responding to the 2015 IOM report, the National Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work (2016) identified as a social work priority the development and testing of evidence-based practices relevant to organizational, community, and policy practice. As we advance our intervention effectiveness research, we must respond to the challenge of determining the key mechanisms of change ( National Institute of Mental Health, 2016 ) and identify key modifiable components of packaged interventions ( Rosen & Proctor, 1978 ). We need to explore the optimal dosage, ordering, or adapted bundling of intervention elements and advance robust, feasible ways to measure and increase fidelity ( Jaccard, 2016 ). We also need to conduct research on which interventions are most appropriate, acceptable, and effective with various client groups ( Zayas, 2003 ; Videka, 2003 ).

Documenting the Impact of Interventions: Specifying and Measuring Outcomes

Outcomes are key to documenting the impact of social work interventions. My 1978 “specifying” paper with Rosen emphasized that the effectiveness of social work practice could not be adequately evaluated without clear specification and measurement of various types of outcomes. In that paper, we argued that the profession cannot rely only on an assertion of effectiveness. The field must also calibrate, calculate, and communicate its impact.

The nursing profession’s highly successful campaign, based on outcomes research, positioned that field to claim that “nurses save lives.” Nurse staffing ratios were associated with in-hospital and 30-day mortality, independent of patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, or medical treatment ( Person et al., 2004 ). In contrast, social work has often described—sometimes advertised—itself as the low-cost profession. The claim of “cheapest service” may have some strategic advantage in turf competition with other professions. But social work can do better. Our research base can and should demonstrate the value of our work by naming and quantifying the outcomes—the added value of social work interventions.

As a start to this work—a beginning step in compiling evidence about the impact of social work interventions—our team set out to identify the outcomes associated with social work practice. We felt that identifying and naming outcomes is essential for conveying what social work is about. Moreover, outcomes should serve as the focus for evaluating the effectiveness of social work interventions.

We produced two taxonomies of outcomes reflected in published evaluations of social work interventions ( Proctor, Rosen, & Rhee, 2002 ; Rosen, Proctor, & Staudt, 2003 ). They included such outcomes as change in clients’ social functioning, resource procurement, problem or symptom reduction, and safety. They exemplify the importance of naming and measuring what our profession can contribute to society. Although social work’s growing body of effectiveness research typically reports outcomes of the interventions being tested, the literature has not, in the intervening 20 years, addressed the collective set of outcomes for our field.

Fortunately, the Grand Challenges for Social Work (AASWSW, n.d.) now provide a framework for communicating social work’s goals. They reflect social work’s added value: improving individual and family well-being, strengthening social fabric, and helping to create a more just society. The Grand Challenges for Social Work include ensuring healthy development for all youth, closing the health gap, stopping family violence, advancing long and productive lives, eradicating social isolation, ending homelessness, creating social responses to a changing environment, harnessing technology for social good, promoting smart decarceration, reducing extreme economic inequality, building financial capability for all, and achieving equal opportunity and justice ( AASWSW, n.d. ).

These important goals appropriately reflect much of what we are all about in social work, and our entire field has been galvanized—energized by the power of these grand challenges. However, the grand challenges require setting specific benchmarks—targets that reflect how far our professional actions can expect to take us, or in some areas, how far we have come in meeting the challenge.

For the past decade, care delivery systems and payment reforms have required measures for tracking performance. Quality measures have become critical tools for all service providers and organizations ( IOM, 2015 ). The IOM defines quality of care as “the degree to which … services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired … outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge” ( Lohr, 1990 , p. 21). Quality measures are important at multiple levels of service delivery: at the client level, at the practitioner level, at the organization level, and at the policy level. The National Quality Forum has established five criteria for quality measures: They should address (a) the most important, (b) the most scientifically valid, (c) the most feasible or least burdensome, (d) the most usable, and (e) the most harmonious set of measures ( IOM, 2015 .) Quality measures have been advanced by accrediting groups (e.g., the Joint Commission of the National Committee for Quality Assurance), professional societies, and federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. However, quality measures are lacking for key areas of social work practice, including mental health and substance-use treatment. And of the 55 nationally endorsed measures related to mental health and substance use, only two address a psychosocial intervention. Measures used for accreditation and certification purposes often reflect structural capabilities of organizations and their resource use, not the infrastructure required to deliver high-quality services ( IOM, 2015 ). I am not aware of any quality measure developed by our own professional societies or agreed upon across our field.

Future Directions: Research on Quality Monitoring and Measure Development

Although social work as a field lacks a strong tradition of measuring and assessing quality ( Megivern et al., 2007 ; McMillen et al., 2005 ; Proctor, Powell, & McMillen, 2012 ), social work’s role in the quality workforce is becoming better understood ( McMillen & Raffol, 2016 ). The small number of established and endorsed quality measures reflects both limitations in the evidence for effective interventions and challenges in obtaining the detailed information necessary to support quality measurement ( IOM, 2015 ). According to the National Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work (2016) , developing quality measures to capture use of evidence-based interventions is essential for the survival of social work practice in many settings. The task force recommends that social work organizations develop relevant and viable quality measures and that social workers actively influence the implementation of quality measures in their practice settings.

How to Implement Evidence-Based Care

A third and more recent focus of my work addresses this question: How do we implement evidence-based care in agencies and communities? Despite our progress in developing proven interventions, most clients—whether served by social workers or other providers—do not receive evidence-based care. A growing number of studies are assessing the extent to which clients—in specific settings or communities—receive evidence-based interventions. Kohl, Schurer, and Bellamy (2009) examined quality in a core area of social work: training for parents at risk for child maltreatment. The team examined the parent services and their level of empirical support in community agencies, staffed largely by master’s-level social workers. Of 35 identified treatment programs offered to families, only 11% were “well-established empirically supported interventions,” with another 20% containing some hallmarks of empirically supported interventions ( Kohl et al., 2009 ). This study reveals a sizable implementation gap, with most of the programs delivered lacking scientific validation.

Similar quality gaps are apparent in other settings where social workers deliver services. Studies show that only 19.3% of school mental health professionals and 36.8% of community mental health professionals working in Virginia’s schools and community mental health centers report using any evidence-based substance-abuse prevention programs ( Evans, Koch, Brady, Meszaros, & Sadler, 2013 ). In mental health, where social workers have long delivered the bulk of services, only 40% to 50% of people with mental disorders receive any treatment ( Kessler, Chiu, Demler, Merikangas, & Walters, 2005 ; Merikangas et al., 2011 ), and of those receiving treatment, a fraction receive what could be considered “quality” treatment ( Wang, Demler, & Kessler, 2002 ; Wang et al., 2005 ). These and other studies indicate that, despite progress in developing proven interventions, most clients do not receive evidence-based care. In light of the growth of evidence-based practice, this fact is troubling evidence that testing interventions and publishing the findings is not sufficient to improve quality.

So, how do we get these interventions in place? What is needed to enable social workers to deliver, and clients to receive, high-quality care? In addition to developing and testing evidence-based interventions, what else is needed to improve the quality of social work practice? My work has focused on advancing quality of services through two paths.

Making Effective Interventions Accessible to Providers: Intervention Reviews and Taxonomies

First, we have advocated that research evidence be synthesized and made available to front-line practitioners. In a research-active field where new knowledge is constantly produced, practitioners should not be expected to rely on journal publications alone for information about effective approaches to achieve desired outcomes. Mastering a rapidly expanding professional evidence base has been characterized as a nearly unachievable challenge for practitioners ( Greenfield, 2017 ). Reviews should critique and clarify the intervention’s effectiveness as tested in specific settings, populations, and contexts, answering the question, “What works where, and with whom?” Even more valuable are studies of comparative effectiveness—those that answer, “Which intervention approach works better, where, and when?”

Taxonomies of clearly and consistently labeled interventions will enhance their accessibility and the usefulness of research reports and systematic reviews. A pre-requisite is the consistent naming of interventions. A persistent challenge is the wide variation in names or labels for interventive procedures and programs. Our professional activities are the basis for our societal sanction, and they must be capable of being accurately labeled and documented if we are to describe what our profession “does” to advance social welfare. Increasingly, and in short order, that documentation will be in electronic records that are scrutinized by third parties for purposes of reimbursement and assessment of value toward outcome attainment.

How should intervention research and reviews be organized? Currently, several websites provide lists of evidence-based practices, some with links, citations, or information about dissemination and implementation organizations that provide training and facilitation to adopters. Practitioners and administrators find such lists helpful but often note the challenge in determining which are most appropriate for their needs. In the words of one agency leader, “The drug companies are great at presenting [intervention information] in a very easy form to use. We don’t have people coming and saying, ‘Ah, let me tell you about the best evidence-based practice for cognitive behavioral therapy for depression,’” ( Proctor et al., 2007 , p. 483). We have called for the field to devise decision aids for practitioners to enhance access to the best available empirical knowledge about interventions ( Proctor et al., 2002 ; Proctor & Rosen, 2008 ; Rosen et al., 2003 ). We proposed that intervention taxonomies be organized around outcomes pursued in social work practice, and we developed such a taxonomy based on eight domains of outcomes—those most frequently tested in social work journals. Given the field’s progress in identifying its grand challenges, its associated outcomes could well serve as the organizing focus, with research-tested interventions listed for each challenge. Compiling the interventions, programs, and services that are shown—through research—to help achieve one of the challenges would surely advance our field.

We further urged profession-wide efforts to develop social work practice guidelines from intervention taxonomies ( Rosen et al., 2003 ). Practice guidelines are systematically compiled, critiqued, and organized statements about the effectiveness of interventions that are organized in a way to help practitioners select and use the most effective and appropriate approaches for addressing client problems and pursuing desired outcomes.

At that time, we proposed that our published taxonomy of social work interventions could provide a beginning architecture for social work guidelines ( Rosen et al., 2003 ). In 2000, we organized a conference for thought leaders in social work practice. This talented group wrestled with and formulated recommendations for tackling the professional, research, and training requisites to developing social work practice guidelines to enable researchers to access and apply the best available knowledge about interventions ( Rosen et al., 2003 ). Fifteen years later, however, the need remains for social work to synthesize its intervention research. Psychology and psychiatry, along with most fields of medical practice, have developed practice guidelines. Although their acceptance and adherence is fraught with challenges, guidelines make evidence more accessible and enable quality monitoring. Yet, guidelines still do not exist for social work.

The 2015 IOM report, “Psychosocial Interventions for Mental and Substance Use Disorders: A Framework for Establishing Evidence-Based Standards,” includes a conclusion that information on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions is not routinely available to service consumers, providers, and payers, nor is it synthesized. That 2015 IOM report called for systematic reviews to inform clinical guidelines for psychosocial interventions. This report defined psychosocial interventions broadly, encompassing “interpersonal or informational activities, techniques, or strategies that target biological, behavioral, cognitive, emotional, interpersonal, social, or environmental factors with the aim of reducing symptoms and improving functioning or well-being” ( IOM, 2015 , p. 5). These interventions are social work’s domain; they are delivered in the very settings where social workers dominate (behavioral health, schools, criminal justice, child welfare, and immigrant services); and they encompass populations across the entire lifespan within all sociodemographic groups and vulnerable populations. Accordingly, the National Task Force on Evidence Based Practice in Social Work (2016) has recommended the conduct of more systematic reviews of the evidence supporting social work interventions.

If systematic reviews are to lead to guidelines for evidence-based psychosocial interventions, social work needs to be at the table, and social work research must provide the foundation. Whether social work develops its own guidelines or helps lead the development of profession-independent guidelines as recommended by the IOM committee, guidelines need to be detailed enough to guide practice. That is, they need to be accompanied by treatment manuals and informed by research that details the effect of moderator variables and contextual factors reflecting diverse clientele, social determinants of health, and setting resource challenges. The IOM report “Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust” sets criteria for guideline development processes ( IOM, 2011 ). Moreover, social work systematic reviews of research and any associated evidence-based guidelines need to be organized around meaningful taxonomies.

Advancing the Science of Implementation

As a second path to ensuring the delivery of high-quality care, my research has focused on advancing the science of implementation. Implementation research seeks to inform how to deliver evidence-based interventions, programs, and policies into real-world settings so their benefits can be realized and sustained. The ultimate aim of implementation research is building a base of evidence about the most effective processes and strategies for improving service delivery. Implementation research builds upon effectiveness research then seeks to discover how to use specific implementation strategies and move those interventions into specific settings, extending their availability, reach, and benefits to clients and communities. Accordingly, implementation strategies must address the challenges of the service system (e.g., specialty mental health, schools, criminal justice system, health settings) and practice settings (e.g., community agency, national employee assistance programs, office-based practice), and the human capital challenge of staff training and support.

In an approach that echoes themes in an early paper, “Specifying the Treatment Process—The Basis for Effectiveness Research” ( Rosen & Proctor, 1978 ), my work once again tackled the challenge of specifying a heretofore vague process—this time, not the intervention process, but the implementation process. As a first step, our team developed a taxonomy of implementation outcomes ( Proctor et al., 2011 ), which enable a direct test of whether or not a given intervention is adopted and delivered. Although it is overlooked in other types of research, implementation science focuses on this distinct type of outcome. Explicit examination of implementation outcomes is key to an important research distinction. Often, evaluations yield disappointing results about an intervention, showing that the expected and desired outcomes are not attained. This might mean that the intervention was not effective. However, just as likely, it could mean that the intervention was not actually delivered, or it was not delivered with fidelity. Implementation outcomes help identify the roadblocks on the way to intervention adoption and delivery.

Our 2011 taxonomy of implementation outcomes ( Proctor et al., 2011 ), became the framework for two national repositories of measures for implementation research: the Seattle Implementation Research Collaborative ( Lewis et al., 2015 ) and the National Institutes of Health GEM measures database ( Rabin et al., 2012 ). These repositories of implementation outcomes seek to harmonize and increase the rigor of measurement in implementation science.

We also have developed taxonomies of implementation strategies ( Powell et al., 2012 ; Powell et al., 2015 ; Waltz et al., 2014 , 2015) . Implementation strategies are interventions for system change—how organizations, communities, and providers can learn to deliver new and more effective practices ( Powell et al., 2012 ).

A conversation with a key practice leader stimulated my interest in implementation strategies. Shortly after our school endorsed an MSW curriculum emphasizing evidence-based practices, a pioneering CEO of a major social service agency in St. Louis met with me and asked,

Enola Proctor, I get the importance of delivering evidence based practices. My organization delivers over 20 programs and interventions, and I believe only a handful of them are really evidence based. I want to decrease our provision of ineffective care, and increase our delivery of evidence-based practices. But how? What are the evidence-based ways I, as an agency director, can transform my agency so that we can deliver evidence-based practices?

That agency director was asking a question of how . He was asking for evidence-based implementation strategies. Moving effective programs and practices into routine care settings requires the skillful use of implementation strategies, defined as systematic “methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of a clinical program or practice into routine service” ( Proctor et al., 2013 , p. 2).

This question has shaped my work for the past 15 years, as well as the research priorities of several funding agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the World Health Organization. Indeed, a National Institutes of Health program announcement—Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health ( National Institutes of Health, 2016 )—identified the discovery of effective implementation strategies as a primary purpose of implementation science. To date, the implementation science literature cannot yet answer that important question, but we are making progress.

To identify implementation strategies, our teams first turned to the literature—a literature that we found to be scattered across a wide range of journals and disciplines. Most articles were not empirical, and most articles used widely differing terms to characterize implementation strategies. We conducted a structured literature review to generate common nomenclature and a taxonomy of implementation strategies. That review yielded 63 distinct implementation strategies, which fell into six groupings: planning, educating, financing, restructuring, managing quality, and attending to policy context ( Powell et al., 2012 ).

Our team refined that compilation, using Delphi techniques and concept mapping to develop conceptually distinct categories of implementation strategies ( Powell et al., 2015 ; Waltz et al., 2014 ). The refined compilation of 73 discrete implementation strategies was then further organized into nine clusters:

• changing agency infrastructure,
• using financial strategies,
• supporting clinicians,
• providing interactive assistance,
• training and educating stakeholders,
• adapting and tailoring interventions to context,
• developing stakeholder relationships,
• using evaluative and iterative strategies, and
• engaging consumers.

These taxonomies of implementation strategies position the field for more robust research on implementation processes. The language used to describe implementation strategies has not yet “gelled” and has been described as a “Tower of Babel” ( McKibbon et al., 2010 ). Therefore, we also developed guidelines for reporting the components of strategies ( Proctor et al., 2013 ) so researchers and implementers would have more behaviorally specific information about what a strategy is, who does it, when, and for how long. The value of such reporting guidelines is illustrated in the work of Gold and colleagues (2016) .

What have we learned, through our own program of research on implementation strategies—the “how to” of improving practice? First, we have been able to identify from practice-based evidence the implementation strategies used most often. Using novel activity logs to track implementation strategies, Bunger and colleagues (2017) found that strategies such as quality improvement tools, using data experts, providing supervision, and sending clinical reminders were frequently used to facilitate delivery of behavioral health interventions within a child-welfare setting and were perceived by agency leadership as contributing to project success.

Second, reflecting the complexity of quality improvement processes, we have learned that there is no magic bullet ( Powell, Proctor, & Glass, 2013 ). Our study of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs clinics working to implement evidence-based HIV treatment found that implementers used an average of 25 (plus or minus 14) different implementation strategies ( Rogal, et al., 2017 ). Moreover, the number of implementation strategies used was positively associated with the number of new treatment starts. These findings suggest that implementing new interventions requires considerable effort and resources.

To advance our understanding of the effectiveness of implementation strategies, our teams have conducted a systematic review ( Powell et al., 2013 ), tested specific strategies, and captured practice-based evidence from on-the-ground implementers. Testing the effectiveness of implementation strategies has been identified as a top research priority by the IOM (2009) . In work with Charles Glisson in St. Louis, our 15-agency-based randomized clinical trial found that an organizational-focused intervention—the attachment, regulatory, and competency model—improved agency culture and climate, stimulated more clinicians to enroll in evidence-based-practice training, and boosted clinical effect sizes of various evidence-based practices ( Glisson, Williams, Hemmelgarn, Proctor, & Green, 2016a , 2016b ). And in a hospital critical care unit, the implementation strategies of developing a team, selecting and using champions, provider education sessions, and audit and feedback helped increase team adherence to phlebotomy guidelines ( Steffen et al., in press ).

We are also learning about the value of different strategies. Experts in implementation science and implementation practice identified as most important the strategies of “use evaluate and iterative approaches” and “train and educate stakeholders.” Reported as less helpful were such strategies as “access new funding streams” and “remind clinicians of practices to use” ( Waltz et al., 2015 ). Successful implementers in Veterans Affairs clinics relied more heavily on such strategies as “change physical structures and equipment” and “facilitate relay of clinical data to providers” than did less successful implementers ( Rogal et al., 2017 ).

Many strategies have yet to be investigated empirically, as has the role of dissemination and implementation organizations—organizations that function to promote, provide information about, provide training in, and scale up specific treatments. Most evidence-based practices used in behavioral health, including most listed on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration National Registry of Promising and Effective Practices, are disseminated and distributed by dissemination and implementation organizations. Unlike drugs and devices, psychosocial interventions have no Federal Drug Administration-like delivery system. Kreuter and Casey (2012) urge better understanding and use of the intervention “delivery system,” or mechanisms to bring treatment discoveries to the attention of practitioners and into use in practice settings.

Implementation strategies have been shown to boost clinical effectiveness ( Glisson et al., 2010 ), reduce staff turnover ( Aarons, Sommerfield, Hect, Silvosky, & Chaffin, 2009 ) and help reduce disparities in care ( Balicer et al., 2015 ).

Future directions: Research on implementation strategies

My work in implementation science has helped build intellectual capital for the rapidly growing field of dissemination and implementation science, leading teams to distinguish, clearly define, develop taxonomies, and stimulate more systematic work to advance the conceptual, linguistic, and methodological clarity in the field. Yet, we continue to lack understanding of many issues. What strategies are used in usual implementation practice, by whom, for which empirically supported interventions? What strategies are effective in which organizational and policy contexts? Which strategies are effective in attaining which specific implementation outcomes? For example, are the strategies that are effective for initial adoption also effective for scale up, spread, and sustained use of interventions? Social workers have the skill set for roles as implementation facilitators, and refining packages of implementation strategies that are effective in social service and behavioral health settings could boost the visibility, scale, and impact of our work.

The Third Generation and Counting

Social work faces grand, often daunting challenges. We need to develop a more robust base of evidence about the effectiveness of interventions and make that evidence more relevant, accessible, and applicable to social work practitioners, whether they work in communities, agencies, policy arenas, or a host of novel settings. We need to advance measurement-based care so our value as a field is recognized. We need to know how to bring proven interventions to scale for population-level impact. We need to discover ways to build capacity of social service agencies and the communities in which they reside. And we need to learn how to sustain advances in care once we achieve them ( Proctor et al., 2015 ). Our challenges are indeed grand, far outstripping our resources.

So how dare we speak of a quality quest? Does it not seem audacious to seek the highest standards in caring for the most vulnerable, especially in an era when we face a new political climate that threatens vulnerable groups and promises to strip resources from health and social services? Members of our profession are underpaid, and most of our agencies lack the data infrastructure required for assessment and evaluation. Quality may be an audacious goal, but as social workers we can pursue no less. By virtue of our code of ethics, our commitment to equity, and our skills in intervening on multiple levels of systems and communities, social workers are ideally suited for advancing quality.

Who will conduct the needed research? Who will pioneer its translation to improving practice? Social work practice can be only as strong as its research base; the responsibility for developing that base, and hence improve practice, is lodged within social work research.

If my greatest challenge is pursuing this quest, my greatest joy is in mentoring the next generation for this work. My research mentoring has always been guided by the view that the ultimate purpose of research in the helping professions is the production and systemization of knowledge for use by practitioners ( Rosen & Proctor, 1978 ). For 27 years, the National Institute of Mental Health has supported training in mental health services research based in the Center for Mental Health Services Research ( Hasche, Perron, & Proctor, 2009 ; Proctor & McMillen, 2008 ). And, with colleague John Landsverk, we are launching my sixth year leading the Implementation Research Institute, a training program for implementation science supported by the National Institute of Mental Health ( Proctor et al., 2013 ). We have trained more than 50 social work, psychology, anthropology, and physician researchers in implementation science for mental health. With three more cohorts to go, we are working to assess what works in research training for implementation science. Using bibliometric analysis, we have learned that intensive training and mentoring increases research productivity in the form of published papers and grants that address how to implement evidence-based care in mental health and addictions. And, through use of social network analysis, we have learned that every “dose” of mentoring increases scholarly collaboration when measured two years later ( Luke, Baumann, Carothers, Landsverk, & Proctor, 2016 ).

As his student, I was privileged to learn lessons in mentoring from Aaron Rosen. He treated his students as colleagues, he invited them in to work on the most challenging of questions, and he pursued his work with joy. When he treated me as a colleague, I felt empowered. When he invited me to work with him on the field’s most vexing challenges, I felt inspired. And as he worked with joy, I learned that work pursued with joy doesn’t feel like work at all. And now the third, fourth, and fifth generations of social work researchers are pursuing tough challenges and the quality quest for social work practice. May seasoned and junior researchers work collegially and with joy, tackling the profession’s toughest research challenges, including the quest for high-quality social work services.

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this paper was supported by IRI (5R25MH0809160), Washington University ICTS (2UL1 TR000448-08), Center for Mental Health Services Research, Washington University in St. Louis, and the Center for Dissemination and Implementation, Institute for Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis.

This invited article is based on the 2017 Aaron Rosen Lecture presented by Enola Proctor at the Society for Social Work and Research 21st Annual Conference—“Ensure Healthy Development for All Youth”—held January 11–15, 2017, in New Orleans, LA. The annual Aaron Rosen Lecture features distinguished scholars who have accumulated a body of significant and innovative scholarship relevant to practice, the research base for practice, or effective utilization of research in practice.

• Aarons GA, Sommerfield DH, Hect DB, Silvosky JF, Chaffin MJ. The impact of evidence-based practice implementation and fidelity monitoring on staff turnover: Evidence for a protective effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2009; 77 (2):270–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013223 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (AASWSW) Grand challenges for social work (n.d.) Retrieved from http://aaswsw.org/grand-challenges-initiative/
• Balicer RD, Hoshen M, Cohen-Stavi C, Shohat-Spitzer S, Kay C, Bitterman H, Shadmi E. Sustained reduction in health disparities achieved through targeted quality improvement: One-year follow-up on a three-year intervention. Health Services Research. 2015; 50 :1891–1909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12300 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bunger AC, Powell BJ, Robertson HA, MacDowell H, Birken SA, Shea C. Tracking implementation strategies: A description of a practical approach and early findings. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2017; 15 (15):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0175-y . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans SW, Koch JR, Brady C, Meszaros P, Sadler J. Community and school mental health professionals’ knowledge and use of evidence based substance use prevention programs. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2013; 40 (4):319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-012-0422-z . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraser MW. Intervention research in social work: Recent advances and continuing challenges. Research on Social Work Practice. 2004; 14 (3):210–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731503262150 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Glisson C, Schoenwald SK, Hemmelgarn A, Green P, Dukes D, Armstrong KS, Chapman JE. Randomized trial of MST and ARC in a two-level evidence-based treatment implementation strategy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2010; 78 (4):537–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019160 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glisson C, Williams NJ, Hemmelgarn A, Proctor EK, Green P. Increasing clinicians’ EBT exploration and preparation behavior in youth mental health services by changing organizational culture with ARC. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2016a; 76 :40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2015.11.008 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glisson C, Williams NJ, Hemmelgarn A, Proctor EK, Green P. Aligning organizational priorities with ARC to improve youth mental health service outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2016b; 84 (8):713–725. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000107 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gold R, Bunce AE, Cohen DJ, Hollombe C, Nelson CA, Proctor EK, DeVoe JE. Reporting on the strategies needed to implement proven interventions: An example from a “real-world” cross-setting implementation study. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2016; 91 (8):1074–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.03.014 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenfield S. Clinical practice guidelines: Expanded use and misuse. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2017; 317 (6):594–595. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.19969. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hasche L, Perron B, Proctor E. Making time for dissertation grants: Strategies for social work students and educators. Research on Social Work Practice. 2009; 19 (3):340–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731508321559 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Medicine (IOM), Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Medicine (IOM) Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Medicine (IOM) Psychosocial interventions for mental and substance use disorders: A framework for establishing evidence-based standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015. https://doi.org/10.17226/19013 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaccard J. The prevention of problem behaviors in adolescents and young adults: Perspectives on theory and practice. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. 2016; 7 (4):585–613. https://doi.org/10.1086/689354 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Kessler RC, Chiu WT, Demler O, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2005; 62 (6):617–627. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.617 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohl PL, Schurer J, Bellamy JL. The state of parent training: Program offerings and empirical support. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services. 2009; 90 (3):248–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3894 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kreuter MW, Casey CM. Enhancing dissemination through marketing and distribution systems: A vision for public health. In: Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E, editors. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis CC, Stanick CF, Martinez RG, Weiner BJ, Kim M, Barwick M, Comtois KA. The Society for Implementation Research collaboration instrument review project: A methodology to promote rigorous evaluation. Implementation Science. 2015; 10 (2):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0193-x . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lohr KN. Medicare: A strategy for quality assurance. I. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1990. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luke D, Baumann A, Carothers B, Landsverk J, Proctor EK. Forging a link between mentoring and collaboration: A new training model for implementation science. Implementation Science. 2016; 11 (137):1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0499-y . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DA, Straus SS. A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: A tower of Babel? Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (16) doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-16. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Megivern D, Striley CW, Cabasa LJ, Munson MR, Dickey B. Quality of care in the social services: Research agenda and methods. Social Work Research. 2005; 29 (3):181–191. doi.org/10.1093/swr/29.3.181. [ Google Scholar ]
• McMillen JC, Raffol M. Characterizing the quality workforce in private U.S. child and family behavioral health agencies. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2016; 43 (5):750–759. doi: 10.1007/s10488-0150-0667-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Megivern DA, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Striley CW, Cabassa LJ, Munson MR. Quality of care: Expanding the social work dialogue. Social Work. 2007; 52 (2):115–124. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/52.2.115 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merikangas KR, He J, Burstein M, Swendsen J, Avenevoli S, Case B, Olfson M. Service utilization for lifetime mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: Results of the National Comorbidity Survey Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A) Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2011; 50 (1):32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2010.10.006 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute of Mental Health. Psychosocial research at NIMH: A primer. 2016 Retrieved from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-priorities/psychosocial-research-at-nimh-a-primer.shtml .
• National Institutes of Health. Dissemination and implementation research in health (R01) 2016 Sep 14; Retrieved from https://archives.nih.gov/asites/grants/09-14-2016/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-16-238.html .
• National Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work. Unpublished recommendations to the Social Work Leadership Roundtable 2016 [ Google Scholar ]
• Person SD, Allison JJ, Kiefe CI, Weaver MT, Williams OD, Centor RM, Weissman NW. Nurse staffing and mortality for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction. Medical Care. 2004; 42 (1):4–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000102369.67404.b0 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powell BJ, McMillen C, Proctor EK, Carpenter CR, Griffey RT, Bunger AC, York JL. A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Medical Care Research and Review. 2012; 69 (2):123–157. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077558711430690 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powell BJ, Proctor EK, Glass JE. A systematic review of strategies for implementing empirically supported mental health interventions. Research on Social Work Practice. 2013; 24 (2):192–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731513505778 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Kirchner JE. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science. 2015; 10 (21):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor EK, Knudsen KJ, Fedoravicius N, Hovmand P, Rosen A, Perron B. Implementation of evidence-based practice in community behavioral health: Agency director perspectives. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2007; 34 (5):479–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-007-0129-8 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Baumann AA, Mittman BS, Aarons GA, Brownson RC, Chambers D. The Implementation Research Institute: Training mental health implementation researchers in the United States. Implementation Science. 2013; 8 (105):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-105 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor EK, Luke D, Calhoun A, McMillen C, Brownson R, McCrary S, Padek M. Sustainability of evidence-based healthcare: Research agenda, methodological advances, and infrastructure support. Implementation Science. 2015; 10 (88):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0274-5 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor EK, McMillen JC. Quality of care. In: Mizrahi T, Davis L, editors. Encyclopedia of Social Work. 20. Washington, DC, and New York, NY: NASW Press and Oxford University Press; 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.33 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen CJ. Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implementation Science. 2012; 8 (139):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor EK, Rosen A. From knowledge production to implementation: Research challenges and imperatives. Research on Social Work Practice. 2008; 18 (4):285–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731507302263 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor EK, Rosen A, Rhee C. Outcomes in social work practice. Social Work Research & Evaluation. 2002; 3 (2):109–125. [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor EK, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Hensley M. Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011; 38 (2):65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rabin BA, Purcell P, Naveed S, Moser RP, Henton MD, Proctor EK, Glasgow RE. Advancing the application, quality and harmonization of implementation science measures. Implementation Science. 2012; 7 (119):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-119 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogal SS, Yakovchenko V, Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Kirchner JE, Proctor EK, Chinman MJ. The association between implementation strategy use and the uptake of hepatitis C treatment in a national sample. Implementation Science. 2017; 12 (60) http://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0588-6 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosen A, Proctor EK. Specifying the treatment process: The basis for effectiveness research. Journal of Social Service Research. 1978; 2 (1):25–43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v02n01_04 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosen A, Proctor EK. Distinctions between treatment outcomes and their implications for treatment evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1981; 49 (3):418–425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.49.3.418 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosen A, Proctor EK, Staudt M. Targets of change and interventions in social work: An empirically-based prototype for developing practice guidelines. Research on Social Work Practice. 2003; 13 (2):208–233. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049731502250496 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Steffen K, Doctor A, Hoerr J, Gill J, Markham C, Riley S, Spinella P. Controlling phlebotomy volume diminishes PICU transfusion: Implementation processes and impact. Pediatrics (in press) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Videka L. Accounting for variability in client, population, and setting characteristics: Moderators of intervention effectiveness. In: Rosen A, Proctor EK, editors. Developing practice guidelines for social work intervention: Issues, methods, and research agenda. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2003. pp. 169–192. [ Google Scholar ]
• Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, Kirchner JE. Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC): Protocol for a mixed methods study. Implementation Science. 2014; 9 (39):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-39 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, Kirchner JE. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implementation Science. 2015; 10 (109):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang PS, Lane M, Olfson M, Pincus HA, Wells KB, Kessler RC. Twelvemonth use of mental health services in the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2005; 62 (6):629–640. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.629. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang PS, Demler O, Kessler RC. Adequacy of treatment for serious mental illness in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92 (1):92–98. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.92.1.92 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zayas L. Service delivery factors in the development of practice guidelines. In: Rosen A, Proctor EK, editors. Developing practice guidelines for social work intervention: Issues, methods, and research agenda. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2003. pp. 169–192. https://doi.org/10.7312/rose12310-010 . [ Google Scholar ]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Social work research and its relevance to practice: "The gap between research and practice continues to be wide"

The social work profession requires a body of scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of interventions; yet, the social work scientific community could benefit from strengthening its contribution to the profession’s body of evidence. Through twenty qualitative interviews with social work professors who are employed at four-year academic institutions (referred to as “social work academics”), this study explored how academics define social work research and how they perceive research to inform practice. The data were analyzed along the six steps of thematic analysis, resulting in 13 themes and six sub-themes in relation to the definition of research activity and social work research, the extent to which research informs practice, and the barriers and facilitators to research informing practice. The findings revealed that social work continues to lack a clear definition of research and produces research that only minimally influences practice, often due to the pressure for social work academics to research and publish in support of their career trajectory within academia versus writing for practitioners. The social work profession should take action to address and further research the research-practice disconnect by establishing a clear definition and aims of social work research, and training academics in effective research-to-practice translational methods.

Related Papers

The Journal of practice teaching & learning

Mari K Suonio

International Journal of Social Welfare

Elaine Sharland , Mel Gray

Lennart Nygren

Australian Social WorkAustralian Social Work

A central question in the research utilisation literature is what happens to research evidence once it is produced. In social work, this has frequently translated to questions of whether and how social workers use research in practice. Despite these questions, relatively little is known about the ways in which research comes to be used in social work practice. This paper reports on a study of research utilisation in social work, which examined researchers’ perceptions of the factors impacting on research use in social work. The specific focus of this study was on the impact of interaction between researchers and practitioners on research use in practice. The study replicated a scale used in prior studies on knowledge utilisation to collect data from 60 Australian researchers publishing in social work journals, all of whom reported some level of research use by practitioners. Key variables were coproduction, engagement, and research utilisation. Implications for future use of the survey instrument for the measurement and implementation of research use in social work are discussed.

British Journal of Social Work

Shereen Hussein

There is evidence that variable access to training, support mechanisms and resources limits social work research capacity. A survey circulated to UK social work academics in 2008 was completed by 249 respondents (response rate 33 per cent). A sub-sample of twenty-nine respondents was selected for follow-up telephone interview. Both interview and survey data revealed respondents’ enthusiasm for undertaking research but highlighted the practical difficulties they faced in terms of relief from teaching responsibilities; access to research funding; and a comparatively limited infrastructure for social work research. Suggestions for improvements included assistance with developing and submitting bids, mentoring, and greater access to research and practice networks.

Angela Everitt

The paper is centred in three intertwined issues concerning Social Work research: the research-minded practitioner; evaluating for good practice; researching as a practitioner. In the attempt to shape the development of social work research, relations between theory and practice were analyzed, taking the experience of practitioners in education as influential for Social Work. The processes advocated here are complex and not likely to have easy answers or procedural manuals. Reflective critical questioning, tentativeness and uncertainty are critical features for a Social Work researcher

Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work

Laura A . Chubb

Barbra Teater , Michelle Lefevre

The research activity of social work academics in the UK has been of interest and concern amongst academics and research funders. Multiple initiatives have been implemented to develop social work research activity, yet research by social work academics remains limited, hindered by lack of time, support infrastruc-tures, funding and training. Through the use of a mixed-methods cross-sectional survey (N ¼ 200) and follow-up individual interviews (N ¼ 11), this study reports on the factors that were found to contribute to or impede the amount of time that social work academics reported spending on research. Findings: The results from the survey indicated that 73% of respondents were research active. Bivariate analysis revealed that academics spent less time on research and teaching, and more time on administration than expected by their employing universities. Multivariate analysis found that less time spent on administration and teaching, more university supports, and being from a pre-1992 university predicted more time spent on research. Applications: The findings indicate that the administrative burdens associated with teaching and assessment in social work education result in academics struggling to fit research into their busy lives, despite initiatives to raise the profile and productivity of

Jane Maidment

Recent research in New Zealand (Beddoe, 2010) and elsewhere (Joubert, 2006) has documented low levels of confidence amongst social work graduates in conducting applied social research. This article will examine the reasons why research literacy amongst students and graduates appears to be at a low ebb, and will report on the early developmental phases of a field education model being piloted in Christchurch, New Zealand, to promote knowledge and skill development in practice research. The process used for planning a suite of practice research placements is outlined, together with examining the application of the communities of practice model for facilitating this intervention. Practical strategies for including research learning objectives and activities are provided, with the view to encouraging routine inclusion of different tasks associated with systematic inquiry into all field placements. The evaluation design for the group of practice research placements is outlined with consi...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Child <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&amp;"/> Family Social Work

Madeleine Stevens

Bruce Thyer

The British Journal of Social Work

Jane Shears

Journal of Social Work

Vyomesh Thanki

European Journal of Social Work

Anna Meeuwisse

Walter Lorenz

Journal of Teaching in Social Work

Irwin Epstein

Barbra Teater

Stephen A Webb

Jane Gilgun

Ilse Julkunen

Liza Lorenzetti

International Journal of Human Sciences Research

Francisco Branco

Social Work Research

European Social Work Research

Journal of Social Work Education

Mike Massey

Christine Bigby , Clare Tilbury

Mayra Lopez-Humphreys

Social Work Review

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Social Work Research Methods That Drive the Practice

Social workers advocate for the well-being of individuals, families and communities. But how do social workers know what interventions are needed to help an individual? How do they assess whether a treatment plan is working? What do social workers use to write evidence-based policy?

Social work involves research-informed practice and practice-informed research. At every level, social workers need to know objective facts about the populations they serve, the efficacy of their interventions and the likelihood that their policies will improve lives. A variety of social work research methods make that possible.

Data-Driven Work

Data is a collection of facts used for reference and analysis. In a field as broad as social work, data comes in many forms.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

As with any research, social work research involves both quantitative and qualitative studies.

Quantitative Research

Answers to questions like these can help social workers know about the populations they serve — or hope to serve in the future.

• How many students currently receive reduced-price school lunches in the local school district?
• How many hours per week does a specific individual consume digital media?
• How frequently did community members access a specific medical service last year?

Quantitative data — facts that can be measured and expressed numerically — are crucial for social work.

Quantitative research has advantages for social scientists. Such research can be more generalizable to large populations, as it uses specific sampling methods and lends itself to large datasets. It can provide important descriptive statistics about a specific population. Furthermore, by operationalizing variables, it can help social workers easily compare similar datasets with one another.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative data — facts that cannot be measured or expressed in terms of mere numbers or counts — offer rich insights into individuals, groups and societies. It can be collected via interviews and observations.

• What attitudes do students have toward the reduced-price school lunch program?
• What strategies do individuals use to moderate their weekly digital media consumption?
• What factors made community members more or less likely to access a specific medical service last year?

Qualitative research can thereby provide a textured view of social contexts and systems that may not have been possible with quantitative methods. Plus, it may even suggest new lines of inquiry for social work research.

Mixed Methods Research

Combining quantitative and qualitative methods into a single study is known as mixed methods research. This form of research has gained popularity in the study of social sciences, according to a 2019 report in the academic journal Theory and Society. Since quantitative and qualitative methods answer different questions, merging them into a single study can balance the limitations of each and potentially produce more in-depth findings.

However, mixed methods research is not without its drawbacks. Combining research methods increases the complexity of a study and generally requires a higher level of expertise to collect, analyze and interpret the data. It also requires a greater level of effort, time and often money.

The Importance of Research Design

Data-driven practice plays an essential role in social work. Unlike philanthropists and altruistic volunteers, social workers are obligated to operate from a scientific knowledge base.

To know whether their programs are effective, social workers must conduct research to determine results, aggregate those results into comprehensible data, analyze and interpret their findings, and use evidence to justify next steps.

Employing the proper design ensures that any evidence obtained during research enables social workers to reliably answer their research questions.

Research Methods in Social Work

The various social work research methods have specific benefits and limitations determined by context. Common research methods include surveys, program evaluations, needs assessments, randomized controlled trials, descriptive studies and single-system designs.

Surveys involve a hypothesis and a series of questions in order to test that hypothesis. Social work researchers will send out a survey, receive responses, aggregate the results, analyze the data, and form conclusions based on trends.

Surveys are one of the most common research methods social workers use — and for good reason. They tend to be relatively simple and are usually affordable. However, surveys generally require large participant groups, and self-reports from survey respondents are not always reliable.

Program Evaluations

Social workers ally with all sorts of programs: after-school programs, government initiatives, nonprofit projects and private programs, for example.

Crucially, social workers must evaluate a program’s effectiveness in order to determine whether the program is meeting its goals and what improvements can be made to better serve the program’s target population.

Evidence-based programming helps everyone save money and time, and comparing programs with one another can help social workers make decisions about how to structure new initiatives. Evaluating programs becomes complicated, however, when programs have multiple goal metrics, some of which may be vague or difficult to assess (e.g., “we aim to promote the well-being of our community”).

Needs Assessments

Social workers use needs assessments to identify services and necessities that a population lacks access to.

Common social work populations that researchers may perform needs assessments on include:

• People in a specific income group
• Everyone in a specific geographic region
• A specific ethnic group
• People in a specific age group

In the field, a social worker may use a combination of methods (e.g., surveys and descriptive studies) to learn more about a specific population or program. Social workers look for gaps between the actual context and a population’s or individual’s “wants” or desires.

For example, a social worker could conduct a needs assessment with an individual with cancer trying to navigate the complex medical-industrial system. The social worker may ask the client questions about the number of hours they spend scheduling doctor’s appointments, commuting and managing their many medications. After learning more about the specific client needs, the social worker can identify opportunities for improvements in an updated care plan.

In policy and program development, social workers conduct needs assessments to determine where and how to effect change on a much larger scale. Integral to social work at all levels, needs assessments reveal crucial information about a population’s needs to researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders. Needs assessments may fall short, however, in revealing the root causes of those needs (e.g., structural racism).

Randomized Controlled Trials

Randomized controlled trials are studies in which a randomly selected group is subjected to a variable (e.g., a specific stimulus or treatment) and a control group is not. Social workers then measure and compare the results of the randomized group with the control group in order to glean insights about the effectiveness of a particular intervention or treatment.

Randomized controlled trials are easily reproducible and highly measurable. They’re useful when results are easily quantifiable. However, this method is less helpful when results are not easily quantifiable (i.e., when rich data such as narratives and on-the-ground observations are needed).

Descriptive Studies

Descriptive studies immerse the researcher in another context or culture to study specific participant practices or ways of living. Descriptive studies, including descriptive ethnographic studies, may overlap with and include other research methods:

• Informant interviews
• Census data
• Observation

By using descriptive studies, researchers may glean a richer, deeper understanding of a nuanced culture or group on-site. The main limitations of this research method are that it tends to be time-consuming and expensive.

Single-System Designs

Unlike most medical studies, which involve testing a drug or treatment on two groups — an experimental group that receives the drug/treatment and a control group that does not — single-system designs allow researchers to study just one group (e.g., an individual or family).

Single-system designs typically entail studying a single group over a long period of time and may involve assessing the group’s response to multiple variables.

For example, consider a study on how media consumption affects a person’s mood. One way to test a hypothesis that consuming media correlates with low mood would be to observe two groups: a control group (no media) and an experimental group (two hours of media per day). When employing a single-system design, however, researchers would observe a single participant as they watch two hours of media per day for one week and then four hours per day of media the next week.

These designs allow researchers to test multiple variables over a longer period of time. However, similar to descriptive studies, single-system designs can be fairly time-consuming and costly.

Learn More About Social Work Research Methods

Social workers have the opportunity to improve the social environment by advocating for the vulnerable — including children, older adults and people with disabilities — and facilitating and developing resources and programs.

Learn more about how you can earn your  Master of Social Work online at Virginia Commonwealth University . The highest-ranking school of social work in Virginia, VCU has a wide range of courses online. That means students can earn their degrees with the flexibility of learning at home. Learn more about how you can take your career in social work further with VCU.

From M.S.W. to LCSW: Understanding Your Career Path as a Social Worker

How Palliative Care Social Workers Support Patients With Terminal Illnesses

How to Become a Social Worker in Health Care

Gov.uk, Mixed Methods Study

MVS Open Press, Foundations of Social Work Research

Open Social Work Education, Scientific Inquiry in Social Work

Open Social Work, Graduate Research Methods in Social Work: A Project-Based Approach

Routledge, Research for Social Workers: An Introduction to Methods

SAGE Publications, Research Methods for Social Work: A Problem-Based Approach

Theory and Society, Mixed Methods Research: What It Is and What It Could Be

READY TO GET STARTED WITH OUR ONLINE M.S.W. PROGRAM FORMAT?

Bachelor’s degree is required.

VCU Program Helper

This AI chatbot provides automated responses, which may not always be accurate. By continuing with this conversation, you agree that the contents of this chat session may be transcribed and retained. You also consent that this chat session and your interactions, including cookie usage, are subject to our privacy policy .

Internet Explorer is no longer supported by Microsoft. To browse the NIHR site please use a modern, secure browser like Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Microsoft Edge.

Bridging the gap between research and practice in social work

Published: 03 August 2022

Lyn Romeo, Chief Social Worker for Adults at the Department of Health and Social Care, discusses the top 10 priorities for social work research and highlights opportunities for the sector to engage and make the most of research.

I’m a strong advocate for research in social work. The importance of gaining insight from the field and the individuals within it, to inform policy and practice should not be underestimated. The NIHR-funded  Connecting People Intervention study is a great example of providing evidence-informed guidance for practitioners to support people to connect with others .

Recently, in my Chief Social Worker’s Annual Report , I highlighted one of my priorities is to promote and advise on investment in research, particularly to continue addressing the top 10 priorities for social work research identified by James Lind Alliance (JLA). By integrating research into all aspects of social work, I hope to see research as a key driver in the continuous improvement of social work practice.

This will require close working between researchers with research expertise and knowledge of how to secure research funding, and social workers who understand the challenges of carrying out research in practice. This will help projects get underway and will be vital in shaping and using the findings.

Top 10 research priorities for social work

Back in 2018, social workers and people who need or use social care services identified the  top 10 research priorities in adult social work in England.

These priorities highlighted important areas within social work, including supporting the wellbeing of people using services and carers , communication between workers and people using services ( particularly those with difficulty communicating, such as those with dementia and learning difficulties ) and the impact of the Care Act .

In the four years since we identified the research key priorities, there’s certainly been change. As we begin to adjust to COVID-19 and implement social care reform , I believe this is a moment in time to think and do things differently. With research taking its place complementing other forms of practice improvement and practice-based knowledge, we can continue to be determined in our ambitions for improving social work.

Progress so far

Earlier this year, King’s College London  published a report that explored which of the top 10 priority questions the JLA identified had been addressed. For all the top 10 research priorities, research was found that either partially, or fully addressed, the research question.

This is great progress - yet of course there is still a considerable way to go to address these questions fully. I hope now that we can continue to build upon the great research that is being carried out and develop a thriving research culture.

Opportunities to engage

The NIHR has reaffirmed its commitment to social care and social work research and there has never been more opportunities to get involved with research.

For researchers, NIHR and other funders have been increasing their funding and support for social work research, meaning there are a number of  funding opportunities available – notably Research for Social Care (RfSC) round 5 is open to applications now (deadline for applications September 2022) and would welcome applications which address the JLA top 10 priority questions.

Whilst I encourage social workers who want to get involved in and lead research to do, I also realise that not all practitioners need to be able to do research. The profession can benefit from a spirit of ‘research-mindedness’, that could include being involved in identifying and scoping research questions, sitting on funding panels to influence which studies get funded, being involved in delivering research, or using the evidence generated by research. The NIHR website has further details about how you can get involved in research .

I look forward to seeing exciting and innovative research that address the issues that matter most to social workers, building a culture where research is at the centre of social work practice and can contribute towards our ambition to serve people to have the best possible lives.

Lyn Romeo, Chief Social Worker for Adults at the Department of Health and Social Care

Increasing access to Parkinson’s clinical trials through primary care recruitment

How we've succeeded in recruiting older hospital patients onto our trial

Knowledge mobilisation is everyone’s business

Professor Kara Hanson: Equitable partnerships and capacity strengthening

How playing a game can help spread awareness of dementia inequalities

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

So why is research important to social work?

As social workers, we train to be able to see the multitude of invisible lines within the systems that hold our lives together, or divide us. We learn to recognize the disconnects, and to help our clients figure out how to reconnect the dots. We view the world through a lens of person-in-environment, that is to say, we seek to understand the context in which our clients live.

The social sciences have an inherent obligation not only to keep abreast of current relevant research, but also to be competent enough to apply new treatments and insights within their practice. Social workers are truly dedicated professionals who have to complete a minimum number of continuing education credits to continue practicing. We don’t get to pick and choose the individuals we help, which is why we have to constantly develop our cultural competencies to identify the strengths of those we are helping. So, research is important to social work because it helps us be effective!

According to the NASW, research in social work helps us:

• Assess the needs and resources of people in their environments
• Evaluate the effectiveness of social work services in meeting peoples needs
• Demonstrate relative costs and benefits of social work services
• Advance professional education in light of changing contexts for practice
• Understand the impact of legislation and social policy on the clients and communities we serve (Retrieved from http://www.socialworkpolicy.org/research)

I still do not know what my research question will be for my senior thesis, but I am beginning to pare down some topics that interest me such as:

• Effects of childhood trauma
• The school-to-prison pipeline
• Trauma-informed therapies within prisons
• Effectiveness of prison diversion programs

8 thoughts on “ So why is research important to social work? ”

try explaining in detail

article quite informing for an amateur in research

In doing any of interventions;evidence based is needed. Not intuition,you need to do assessment of the problem before intervention.Then again you need to to evaluation on the service you provided if has positive impact to your client.

It is a very informative piece of work

try explaining in detail the points listed as to where the nexus between Research and Social work lie

are there means to conduct dual research projects with your institutions?

Akulu muziika zithu zonse ap tisamachiteso kuvutika iyayi 😏😏

CCleaner (Crap Cleaner) yasir252 is a freeware system optimization, privacy, and cleaning tool. It removes unused files from your system allowing Windows

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Pursuing Justice for Children with Disabilities: Exploring the Risks of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) and Advancing the Field

• Published: 14 August 2024

Cite this article

• Gal Friedman-Hauser   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0004-7009-1072 1 &
• Ma’ayan Jacobson   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0009-9011-9809 1  

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ( 2006 ) asserts that individuals with disabilities are entitled to effective and equal access to justice. This is especially critical for children with disabilities, many of whom are non-verbal and who face compounded marginalization due to their disability and status as minors. These children often experience greater challenges in providing court testimony yet are at higher risk of abuse, underscoring the crucial importance of their testimonies in legal proceedings. Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) methods have been developed to support individuals with disabilities in expressing themselves. This commentary, viewed through a social work lens, examines the application of AAC for children with disabilities, evaluating both the benefits and limitations of these methods. It advocates for the use of empirically supported AAC approaches and cautions against those lacking empirical validation or discredited. A particular focus is placed on facilitated communication (FC), an AAC tool that has been empirically invalidated and associated with significant risks yet continues to be used despite widespread scholarly and organizational opposition. The commentary concludes with recommendations for advancing the field of AAC, emphasizing the importance of implementing and promoting only evidence-based AAC methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Data Availability

Data sharing does not apply to this study as no new data was generated or analyzed, and there is no raw or processed data.

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (1993). Facilitated communication. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Policy_Statements/2008/Facilitated_Communication.aspx

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2024). Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) . American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). Retrieved March 3, 2024, from https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/professional-issues/augmentative-and-alternative-communication/

Amery, R., Wunungmurra, J. G., Raghavendra, P., Bukuḻatjpi, G., Baker, R. D., Gumbula, F., Barker, R., Theodoros, D., Amery, H., Massey, L., & Lowell, A. (2022). Augmentative and alternative communication for Aboriginal Australians: Developing core vocabulary for Yolŋu speakers. Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 38 (4), 209–220.

Google Scholar  

Bebko, J. M., Perry, A., & Bryson, S. (1996). Multiple method validation study of facilitated communication: II. Individual differences and subgroup results. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26 (1), 19–42.

Biggs, E. E., Carter, E. W., & Gilson, C. B. (2018). Systematic review of interventions involving aided AAC modeling for children with complex communication needs. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 123 (5), 443–473.

Borgestig, M., Sandqvist, J., Parsons, R., Falkmer, T., & Hemmingsson, H. (2016). Eye gaze performance for children with severe physical impairments using gaze-based assistive technology – A longitudinal study. Assistive Technology, 28 (2), 93–102.

Boynton, J. (2012). Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 3–13.

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2012). Reliability of children’s testimony in the era of developmental reversals. Developmental Review, 32 (3), 224–267.

Braman, B. J., Brady, M. E., Linehan, S. L., & Williams, R. E. (1995). Facilitated communication for children with autism: An examination of face validity. Behavioral Disorders, 21 (1), 110–118.

Brasier, L. L., & Wisely, J. (2014). Jury awards $3M to Wendrows in wrongful prosecution case. Detroit Free Press . Retrieved September 5, 2023, from https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2014/11/06/jury-awards-wendrow-millions-oakland/18611789/

Brumberg, J. S., Pitt, K. M., Mantie-Kozlowski, A., & Burnison, J. D. (2018). Brain–computer interfaces for augmentative and alternative communication: A tutorial. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0244

Burroughs, M. D., & Tollefsen, D. (2016). Learning to listen: Epistemic injustice and the child. Episteme, 13 (3), 359–377.

Cederborg, A.-C., & Lamb, M. E. (2006). How does the legal system respond when children with learning difficulties are victimized? Child Abuse & Neglect, 30 (5), 537–547.

Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language.

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1 (8), 138–167.

Crossley, R., & McDonald, A. (1980). Annie’s coming out . Penguin.

Cummins, R. A., & Prior, M. P. (1992). Autism and assisted communication: A response to Biklen. Harvard Educational Review, 62 , 228241.

Davis, M., & Modell, S. J. (2010). Children with disabilities: Victimization, sexuality and communication. Injury Prevention, 16 (Suppl 1), A95–A95.

Doak, J., & Doak, L. (2017). Non-verbal victims in the adversarial criminal process: Communication, competency, and credibility. The Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 68 (4), 451–468.

Eberlin, M., McConnachie, G., Ibel, S., & Volpe, L. (1993). Facilitated communication: A failure to replicate the phenomenon. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23 (3), 507–530.

Edelson, S. M., Rimland, B., Berger, C. L., & Billings, D. E. (1998). Evaluation of a mechanical hand-support for facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28 (2), 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026044716536

Article   Google Scholar  

Elsahar, Y., Hu, S., Bouazza-Marouf, K., Kerr, D., & Mansor, A. (2019). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) advances: A review of configurations for individuals with a speech disability. Sensors (basel, Switzerland), 19 (8), 1911.

Ganz, J. B., Katsiyannis, A., & Morin, K. L. (2017). Facilitated communication: The resurgence of a disproven treatment for individuals with autism. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54 (1), 52–56.

Gomstyn, A. (2012). Not just the Wendrows: Sex abuse cases dismissed after facilitated communication . ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wendrows-sex-abuse-cases-dismissed-facilitated-communication/story?id=15274276

Hall, S. E., & Riccio, C. A. (2012). Complementary and alternative treatment use for autism spectrum disorders. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 18 (3), 159–163.

Hemsley, B., Bryant, L., Schlosser, R. W., Shane, H. C., Lang, R., Paul, D., Banajee, M., & Ireland, M. (2018a). Systematic review of facilitated communication 2014–2018 finds no new evidence that messages delivered using facilitated communication are authored by the person with disability. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments , 3 .

Hemsley, B., Shane, H., Todd, J. T., Schlosser, R., & Lang, R. (2018b). It’s time to stop exposing people to the dangers of facilitated communication . The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-stop-exposing-people-to-the-dangers-of-facilitated-communication-95942

Hemsley, B., & Dann, S. (2014). Social media and social marketing in relation to facilitated communication: Harnessing the affordances of social media for knowledge translation. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 8 (4), 187–206.

Henry, L., Ridley, A., Perry, J., & Crane, L. (2011). Perceived credibility and eyewitness testimony of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55 (4), 385–391.

Hirshoren, A., & Gregory, J. (1995). Further negative findings on facilitated communication. Psychology in the Schools, 32 , 109–113.

Hudson, A., Melita, B., & Arnold, N. (1993). Brief report: A case study assessing the validity of facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23 (1), 165–173.

International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication. (2014). ISAAC position statement on facilitated communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30 (4), 357–358. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.971492

Jacobson, J. W., Foxx, R. M., & Mulick, J. A. (Eds.). (2005). Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities: Fad, fashion, and science in professional practice . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Jones, L., Bellis, M. A., Wood, S., Hughes, K., McCoy, E., Eckley, L., Bates, G., Mikton, C., Shakespeare, T., & Officer, A. (2012). Prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Lancet (london, England), 380 (9845), 899–907.

Judge, S., & Townend, G. (2013). Perceptions of the design of voice output communication aids. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 48 (4), 366–381.

Kan. (2021a). Ech nishmaot hamachshavot berosh shel yalda autistit shelo medaberet? | kan makshivim – lelo milim [How do the thoughts of a non-verbal girl with autism sound? Here we listen – without words]. [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved September 5, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqHMUOBZpGM&t=1s

Kan. (2021b). Le Tal yesh tismonet neurologit shemona’at mimena ledaber | kan makshivim – lelo milim [ Tal has a neurological syndrome that prevents her from speaking | Here we listen – without words ]. [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved September 5, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m55OHHYvLsY

Kezuka, E. (1997). The role of touch in facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27 (5), 571–593.

Klebanov, B., Friedman-Hauser, G., Lusky-Weisrose, E., & Katz, C. (2023). Sexual abuse of children with disabilities: Key lessons and future directions based on a scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25 (2), 1296–1314.

Light, J., McNaughton, D., & Caron, J. (2019). New and emerging AAC technology supports for children with complex communication needs and their communication partners: State of the science and future research directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 35 (1), 26–41.

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2005). Scientifically unsupported and supported interventions for childhood psychopathology: A summary. Pediatrics, 115 (3), 761–764.

Lilienfeld, S. O., Marshall, J., Todd, J. T., & Shane, H. C. (2014). The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated communication for autism as a case example. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 8 (2), 62–101.

Moorcroft, A., Scarinci, N., & Meyer, C. (2018). A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators to the provision and use of low-tech and unaided AAC systems for people with complex communication needs and their families. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 14 (7), 710–731.

Morrison, J., Forrester-Jones, R., Bradshaw, J., & Murphy, G. (2019). Communication and cross-examination in court for children and adults with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 23 (4), 366–398.

Mostert, M. P. (2001). Facilitated communication since 1995: A review of published studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31 , 287–313.

Mostert, M. P. (2010). Facilitated communication and its legitimacy—twenty-first century developments. Exceptionality, 18 (1), 31–41.

Muttiah, N., Seneviratne, A., Drager, K. D. R., & Panterliyon, N. A. (2022). Parent perspectives on augmentative and alternative communication in Sri Lanka. Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 38 (3), 173–183.

Nadan, Y., & Korbin, J. (2018). Cultural context, intersectionality, and child vulnerability. Childhood Vulnerability Journal, 1 (1), 5–14.

Newell, A. F. (2011). Design and the digital divide: Insights from 40 years in computer support for older and disabled people. In R. M. Baecker (ed.), Synthesis Lectures on Assistive, Rehabilitative, and Health-Preserving Technologies, 1 (1), 1–195.

O’Neill, T., Light, J., & Pope, L. (2018). Effects of interventions that include aided augmentative and alternative communication input on the communication of individuals with complex communication needs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61 (7), 1743–1765.

Orlievsky, D., Martín, R. P., Borda, D., Bitting, C., & Astorga, M. (2021). Language habilitation through typing program for nonspeaking and minimally speaking people with autism: The Phaedrus Approach. In N.L. Papaneophytou & U.N. Das. (Eds.), Emerging Programs for Autism Spectrum Disorder Improving Communication, Behavior, and Family Dynamics , 337–354.

People v. Miller. (1988). 530 N.Y.S.2d 490. City Ct. Rochester Cty. https://casetext.com/case/people-v-miller-805

Price, J. R. (2013). Preservice knowledge and training in autism spectrum disorders. Perspectives on Issues in Higher Education, 16 (2), 71–80.

Probst, P. (2005). Ein integratives Literatur-Review zur Wirksamkeit der gestützten Kommunikation (FC) bei nichtsprechenden autistischen und intelligenzgeminderten Personen [Communication unbound—or unfound? An integrative review on the effectiveness of facilitated communication (FC) in nonverbal persons with autism and mental retardation]. Zeitschrift Für Klinische Psychologie, Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 53 , 93–128.

Reiter, S., Bryen, D. N., & Shachar, I. (2007). Adolescents with intellectual disabilities as victims of abuse. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 11 (4), 371–387.

Roane, H. S., Kadey, H. J., & Sullivan, W. E. (2019). Evaluation of word recognition following typing produced through facilitated communication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52 (4), 1107–1112.

Schlosser, R. W., Balandin, S., Hemsley, B., Iacono, T., Probst, A. P., & Von Tetzchner, S. (2014). Facilitated communication and authorship: A systematic review. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30 (4), 359–368.

Schlosser, R., & Wendt, O. (2008). Facilitated communication is contraindicated as a treatment choice; A meta-analysis is still to be done1. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2 (2), 81–83.

Shane, H. C., & Kearns, K. (1994). An examination of the role of the facilitator in “facilitated communication” 1 . American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 3 (3), 48–54.

Simpson, R. L., & Myles, B. S. (1995). Effectiveness of facilitated communication with children and youth with autism. Journal of Special Education, 28 (4), 424–439.

Singh, S. J., Diong, Z. Z., & Kamal, R. M. (2020). Malaysian teachers’ experience using augmentative and alternative communication with students. Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 36 (2), 107–117.

Stalker, K., & McArthur, K. (2012). Child abuse, child protection and disabled children: A review of recent research. Child Abuse Review, 21 (1), 24–40.

Stalker, K., Taylor, J., Fry, D., & Stewart, A. B. (2015). A study of disabled children and child protection in Scotland – A hidden group? Children and Youth Services Review, 56 , 126–134.

Sullivan, P. M., & Knutson, J. F. (2000). Maltreatment and disabilities: A population-based epidemiological study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24 (10), 1257–1273.

Taylor, J., Stalker, K., Fry, D., & Stewart, A. (2014). Disabled children and child protection in Scotland: An investigation into the relationship between professional practice, child protection and disability . Scottish Government.

Todd, J. T. (2012). The moral obligation to be empirical: Comments on Boynton’s “Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator.” Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 36–57.

Trudeau, N., Sutton, A., & Morford, J. (2014). A study of developmental changes in interpretation and construction of graphic AAC symbol sequences through systematic combination of input and output modalities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30 , 187–199.

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

United Nations. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. (2006). Treaty series, 2515 , 3. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Ch_IV_15.pdf

Waller, A. (2019). Telling tales: Unlocking the potential of AAC technologies. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 54 (2), 159–169.

White, R., Bornman, J., Johnson, E., & Msipa, D. (2021). Court accommodations for persons with severe communication disabilities: A legal scoping review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27 (3), 399–420.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Haruv Institute, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Gal Friedman-Hauser & Ma’ayan Jacobson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gal Friedman-Hauser .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Friedman-Hauser, G., Jacobson, M. Pursuing Justice for Children with Disabilities: Exploring the Risks of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) and Advancing the Field. Int. Journal on Child Malt. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-024-00213-z

Download citation

Accepted : 02 August 2024

Published : 14 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-024-00213-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Children with disabilities
• Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)
• Facilitated communication (FC)
• Children in legal proceedings
• Child maltreatment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

share this!

August 12, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

One way social work researchers can better understand community needs—and move the field forward

by Matt Shipman, North Carolina State University

Researchers are calling on the social work community to begin incorporating a methodology called "discrete choice experiments" (DCEs) into their research, to better understand the needs and preferences of key stakeholders. This technique is well established in other fields but is rarely used in social work.

The paper, " How to Use Discrete Choice Experiments to Capture Stakeholder Preferences in Social Work Research ," is published in the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research .

"Social workers need to engage with a wide variety of stakeholders, from policy makers to the people who use social services ," says Alan Ellis, an associate professor of social work at North Carolina State University and corresponding author of a paper introducing social work researchers to the DCE methodology.

"But social work, as a research discipline, has not identified a standard technique for eliciting the preferences of those stakeholders—even though this is a critical issue," Ellis says.

"Although traditional survey methods can be used to evaluate stakeholder perspectives, the DCE is one of several methodologies that were specifically designed to assess the degree to which people prioritize one thing over another. In this paper, we propose that social work researchers adopt DCEs as a robust tool for capturing stakeholder preferences on any number of issues."

In a DCE, researchers ask participants to complete a series of choice tasks: hypothetical situations in which each participant is presented with alternative scenarios and selects one or more.

"For example, social work researchers may want to know how parents and other caregivers prioritize different aspects of mental health treatment when choosing services for their children," Ellis says. "A DCE can explore this question by presenting scenarios that include different types of mental health care providers, treatment methods, costs, locations and so on. Caregivers' stated choices in these scenarios can provide a lot of information about their priorities."

DCEs were first developed by marketing researchers and are now widely used in fields ranging from transportation to health care.

"We know that DCEs effectively capture preferences on a wide variety of subjects," Ellis says. "We simply want to begin using them more consistently to address issues that are important to stakeholders in social work.

"From a pure research standpoint, having a better understanding of stakeholder needs and preferences can move the field forward by helping us develop better research questions and better studies," says Ellis. "Beyond that, having a better understanding of our clients' preferences and goals will make us better social workers. Adopting DCEs can strengthen the link between social work research and practice—and ground our research , policy, and practice in the values that are important to the people we serve.

"I'm optimistic that DCEs could help us collaborate with stakeholders to effect positive change."

The paper was co-authored by Qiana Cryer-Coupet of Georgia State University, Bridget Weller of Wayne State University, Kirsten Howard and Rakhee Raghunandan of the University of Sydney, and Kathleen Thomas of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Provided by North Carolina State University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Scientist performs the first nonlinear study of black hole mimickers

19 minutes ago

Exploring the structures of xenon-containing crystallites

49 minutes ago

Rising mercury pollution in soil could be related to climate change, study suggests

A first definitive demonstration of nonthermal particle acceleration in magnetorotational turbulence

Scientists cook up a plan to save freshwater crocodiles from toxic cane toads

13 hours ago

Climate change raised the odds of unprecedented wildfires in 2023–24, say scientists

14 hours ago

Advanced microscopy method reveals hidden world of nanoscale optical metamaterials

15 hours ago

New interpretation of runic inscription reveals pricing in Viking Age

AI, computation, and the folds of life: Supercomputers help train a software tool for the protein modeling community

16 hours ago

'Mirror' nuclei help connect nuclear theory and neutron stars

Relevant physicsforums posts, biographies, history, personal accounts.

12 hours ago

Is "applausive" implied terminology?

Cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better, "trolling" in new england, for ww2 buffs.

Aug 13, 2024

Why are ABBA so popular?

Aug 11, 2024

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Related Stories

Working the quads for better eHealth: Combining four areas of stakeholder relationships

Aug 8, 2024

Study outlines factors that help engage nonresident fathers in child welfare efforts

Aug 9, 2021

Social workers debunk the myths about how they help patients heal

Mar 29, 2024

Behavioral and computational study shows that social preferences can be inferred from decision speed alone

Jun 20, 2024

Study highlights complexity of public responses to corporate crises

Feb 12, 2020

Study identifies ways to better help children experiencing homelessness

Feb 6, 2024

Recommended for you

Findings suggest empowering women is key to both sustainable energy and gender justice

18 hours ago

Exploring the evolution of social norms with a supercomputer

Aug 9, 2024

Study shows people associate kindness with religious belief

Research demonstrates genetically diverse crowds are wiser

TikToks—even neutral ones—harm women's body image, but diet videos had the worst effect, study finds

Aug 7, 2024

Study finds seasonal shifts in moral values

Aug 6, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter