The Research-Practice Dialogue

["Karen Wade" <kwade@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I have followed, with keen interest, the unfolding of the tensions that exist between child welfare workers, their practice, and research regarding child welfare practice (and the people who conduct the research).  A new research organization is being launched whose mission it is to improve practice through practice-based research. In this model, researchers and practitioners together (as partners) define the questions for inquiry, and practitioners have major input in the design and implementation of such studies.

This was actually the brainchild of a rather visionary executive director of a large children/family services agency in Southern California. He was frustrated that there were no "centers" that addressed child maltreatment prevention and treatment where research generated state-of-the-art practice such as exists in the medical field. His analogy was City of Hope, a renowned cancer research and treatment center. The first step toward actualizing such a vision was to partner with a private, non-profit research organization with solid experience in "hands-on," community-based research in human services agencies and in evaluating their interventions. 

As the person charged (and honored) with the challenge of taking the concept into implementation, I must admit the above idyllic description of a research-practice partnership is just that: idyllic. We are not there, and we have a long way to go. We are in our infancy and on a seemingly vertical learning curve at times. But we are engaged in creating the dialogue, and eventually, we hope, to an advanced form of practice, and to a more practice-relevant approach to research. 

Following are a some reflections on what I've learned in the past 18 months regarding the research-practice dialogue. Fair warning, it's long. 

As a researcher speaking on my experience thus far with practitioners, I would concur that, as a group, there is not an overwhelming interest in research. In fact, I would say there can be very negative feelings toward researchers who are seen as the purveyors of more work for them, and, unfortunately, frequently with results that do not validate the fruits of their labors. When this happens, it's not uncommon to hear the position stated that our methods are not appropriate to, or not sensitive enough, to capture the effects of their work. Their experience, and "practice wisdom," from the 1:1 practitioner-client relationship, is that their work DOES make a difference in the lives of their clients. I would submit that they probably have a point. We do need to develop methods that better capture the impacts of the complex program systems and human interactions that characterize child welfare work. We must also equally acknowledge the very human tendency, in all professions, to b!
elieve that we are doing a good job and of finding evidence to support that belief. Social workers are not the only ones who feel defensive when their practices are questioned. 

While researchers have much to overcome in creating a partnership with practitioners (and I think researchers must do most of the reaching out), in any group of practitioners I've found there is usually one or two whose eyes light up at the mention of "and how do you think we can demonstrate the effectiveness of this program?". If you can overcome the very real hurdle of their time limitations to be available to work with you, you've found a partner-someone who can act as a cultural guide to the beliefs and values that guide existing practice.
 
Other critics of research on child welfare/social work practice might say that the studies in the child welfare field that are generated by academic researchers are more geared toward advancing theory, and to publication in academic journals (directed toward other academics), than to having practical relevance to practice.
This is logical since it's no secret where professional affirmation and advancement lies for academics. However, more effective means to disseminate research findings that do have practice relevance must be developed in formats that are digestible and helpful to the practitioner (and I concur that I've found practitioners to be more interested in "tell me what this means for me" than in the rationale behind our research design, methods, and our statistical analyses). Honoring this difference in perspective, and addressing it, will go a long way toward creating more helpful dialogue between researchers and practitioners. 

I concur with the notion that there must be a "culture change" in the child welfare profession if research is ever going to guide practice. That in itself is a complex topic. However, there must also be a "culture change" in the attitudes and practices of those who conduct research in this field. I can't tell you how often I hear researchers malign practitioners and their work, or speak of research on practice as somehow being "second class" research they prefer not to be associated with. To improve practice, we must also improve on our research models and methods. To improve our methods will require some creativity and "thinking outside the box" to obtain rigor while achieving relevance. To do this well we need practitioners as partners and we must find ways to engage them as such. 

Apologies if I've gone on too long here. While I'm engaged in this dialog with practitioners on a continuous basis, so far I've had little opportunity to process this thinking with other researchers. I would welcome further discussion on the topic on or off the list.

Best regards,
Karen

Karen Beck Wade, Ph.D.
Director, ChildStrength Research Project
A Partnership of WestEd and 
Children's Bureau of Southern California
4665 Lampson Ave.
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
Tel: 562-799-5139
Fax: 562-799-5151
kwade@wested.org