A review of social work practice research in Hong Kong identified 969 articles published over 50 years. Four main areas of their content were analyzed: (a) authorship, (b) practice area, (c) target clientele, and (d) research method. Our results showed that academics had produced most of the research publications (81%). The most common practice areas were children and youth (20%), mental health (19%), family (19%), and the elderly (11%). Youth (22%), the elderly (14%), and family and parents (14%) were the top three client groups. The majority of the methods (47%) used were quantitative, comprising mostly correlational methods (41%). The future development of Hong Kong’s social work practice research should build on current achievements and promote more practitioner–researcher collaboration.
AaronsG. A.FettesD. L.SommerfeldD. H.PalinkasL. A. (2012). Mixed methods for implementation research: Application to evidence-based practice implementation and staff turnover in community-based organizations providing child welfare services. Child Maltreatment, 17, 67–79.
2.
AustinM. J. (in press). Identifying the conceptual foundations of practice research. In JoubertL.WebberM. (Eds.), Handbook on practice research (Chapter 1). London, England: Routledge.
3.
Bailey-DempseyC.ReidW. J. (1996). Intervention design and development: A case study. Research on Social Work Practice, 6, 208–228.
4.
BronsteinL. R.KovacsP. J. (2013). Writing a mixed methods report in social work research. Research on Social Work Practice, 23, 354–360.
5.
BrownL. B. (1982). An empirical approach to school social work practice. In ConstableR. T.FlynnJ. P. (Eds.), School social work: Practice and research perspectives (pp. 180–187). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
6.
ChanT. M. S. (2013). Family therapy in Macau: Development, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Family Therapy, 35, 441–448.
7.
ChanT. M. S. (2018). A work-individual-family inquiry on mental health and family responsibilities of dealers employed in the Macau gaming industry. Journal of Family Therapy, 40, 428–446.
8.
ChanT. M. S.KwokC. L.SiuJ. Y. (2015). The Macau family-in-transition: The perceived impact of casino employment on family relationships among dealer families. The Open Family Studies Journal, 7, 86–95.
9.
ChanT. M. S.LeeW. L. F. (2013). A study on sexual attitudes and behaviors of young people in Shanghai. Journal of Youth Studies, 16, 150–161. (In Chinese)
10.
ChandraY.LiangS. (2017). Social enterprise as a mechanism of youth empowerment. The Hong Kong Journal of Social Work, 51, 115–144.
11.
ChiI. (2005). Social work in China: Guest editorial for the special issue. International Social Work, 48, 371–379.
12.
ChinC. S.CiroD.FisherM.JiC.BegumR.RahimA.…WuF. K. Y. (2017). ICPR 2017—The Fourth International Conference on Practice Research: Overview. Social Dialogue, 5, 47–49.
13.
DinklageS. A. (1967). Helping people in groups in a family service agency. Hong Kong Journal of Social Work, 1, 1–6.
14.
DoddS.EpsteinI. (2012). Practice-based research in social work: A guide for reluctant researchers. New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
DriskoJ. (2014). Split or synthesis: The odd relationship between clinical practice and research in social work and in social work education. Clinical Social Work Journal, 42, 182–192.
16.
EpsteinI. (2001). Using available information in practice based research: Mining for silver while dreaming of gold. Social Work in Health Care, 33, 15–32.
17.
EpsteinI. (2015). Building a bridge or digging a pipeline? Clinical data mining in evidence-informed knowledge building. Research on Social Work Practice, 25, 499–506.
18.
EpsteinI.FisherM.JulkunenI.UggerhojL.AustinM. J.SimT. (2015). The New York statement on the evolving definition of practice research designed for continuing dialogue: A bulletin from the 3 rd International Conference on Practice Research (2014). Research on Social Work Practice, 25, 711–714.
FookJ. (2001). Identifying expert social work. In ShawI.GouldN. (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work (pp. 116–131). London, England: Sage.
21.
FranklinC. G. (1999). Research or practice: Better than you think?Social Work in Education, 21, 3–9.
22.
HaroldR. D.MercerL. R.ColarossiL. G. (1997). Eco maps: A tool to bridge the practice-research gap. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 24, 29–44.
23.
Helsinki Forum Group. (2014). Helsinki statement on practice research in social work. Nordic Social Work Research, 4, 7–13.
24.
HoldenG.BarkerK.Covert-VailL.RosenbergG.CohenS. A. (2008). Does social work abstracts work?Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 487–499.
25.
HudginsC. A.Allen-MearesP. (2000). From the editor: Translational research: A new solution to an old problem?Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 2–5.
26.
HungS. L.NgS. L.FungK. K. (2010). Functions of social work supervision in Shenzhen: Insights from the cross-border supervision model. International Social Work, 53, 366–378.
27.
JohnsonM.AustinM. J. (2006). Evidence-based practice in social service. Administration in Social Work, 30, 75–104.
28.
JoubertL.HockingA. (2015). Academic practitioner partnerships: A model for collaborative practice research in social work. Australian Social Work, 68, 352–363.
29.
JulkunenI.UggerhojL. (2016). Negotiating practice research. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 36, 6–10.
30.
LairdJ. (1995). Family-centered practice in the postmodern era. Families in Society, 76, 150–162.
31.
LamC. W.ChuC. K. (2014). The value of a social worker—Muse or professional. Sham Shui Po, Hong Kong: Arcadia Press.
32.
LandsverkJ.BrownC. H.ChamberlainP.PalinkasL.OgiharaM.CzajaS.…HorwitzS. (2012). Design and analysis in dissemination and implementation research. In BrownsonR. C.ColditzG. A.ProctorE. K. (Eds.), Translating science to practice (pp. 225–260). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33.
LauY. K. (2008). Family-centered practice with non-attending students in Hong Kong. International Journal on School Disaffection, 6, 5–8.
34.
LawA. K. C.GuJ. X. (2008). Social work education in mainland China: Development and issues. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 2, 1–12.
35.
LeungJ. (2002). The advent of managerialism in social welfare: The case of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Journal of Social Work, 36, 61–81.
36.
LingH. W. H. (2018). Volunteering and participation in community service among secondary school students in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Journal of Social Work, 52, 87–98.
37.
MokH. F. (1999). Policy of Hong Kong youth: An interpretation of hegemony. In LeeK. C.ChuiW. S.LeungL. C.ChanK. W. (Eds.), New social policy (pp. 357–373). Sha Tin, Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.
38.
PalinkasL. A.AaronsG. A.HorwitzS.ChamberlainP.HurlburtM.LandsverkJ. (2011). Mixed method designs in implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38, 44–53.
39.
ProctorE. K. (2003). Developing knowledge for practice: Working through “trench-bench” partnerships. Social Work Research, 27, 67–69.
40.
ProctorE. K.LandsverkJ.AaronsG.ChambersD.GlissonC.MittmanB. (2009). Implementation research in mental health services: An emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 36, 24–34.
41.
RahmanA.ApplebaumR. (2010). What’s all this about evidence-based practice? The roots, the controversies, and why it matters. Journal of the American Society on Aging, 34, 6–12.
42.
RubinA. (1985). Practice effectiveness: More grounds for optimism. Social Work, 30, 469–476.
43.
SimT. (2016). International practice research conference (ICPR): Moving east. Research on Social Work Practice, 26, 730–732.
44.
SimT.AustinM.AbdullahF.ChanT. M. S.ChokM.CuiK.OwR. (2019). The Hong Kong Statement on Practice Research 2017: Contexts and challenges of the far East. Research on Social Work Practice, 29, 3–6.
45.
SimT.ChanT. M. S.ChokM.CuiK.WangS. S.AbdullahF.WongK. (2018). Contextualising the development of practice research in Asia. China Journal of Social Work, 11, 116–131.
46.
SimT.LauV. C. (2017). The emergence of social work practice research in the Peoples’ Republic of China: A literature review. Research on Social Work Practice, 27, 8–18.
47.
The Salisbury Forum Group. (2011). The Salisbury statement. Social Work & Society, 9, 4–9.
48.
The Second International Conference on Practice Research Scientific Committee. (2014). Helsinki statement on practice research in social work. Nordic Social Work Research, 4, 7–13.
49.
TsuiM. S.CheungF. C. (2000). The nature of social work administration: Exploration, reflection and insight. In HoK. L.WongS. B. (Eds.), Initial exploration of nature of social work in Chinese society (pp. 193–218). Hong Kong: Platform Culture Company. (In Chinese)
50.
TsuiM. S.CheungF. C. (2004). Gone with the wind: The impacts of managerialism on human services. The British Journal of Social Work, 34, 437–442.
51.
WangC. S. (2004). A comparative analysis of the professional development of social work in Taiwan and Hong Kong. National Taiwan University Social Work Review, 9, 137–182. (In Chinese)
52.
WongO. L.WanE. S. F.NgL. T. (2016). Family-centered care in adults’ mental health: Challenges in clinical social work practice. Social Work in Mental Health, 14, 445–64. doi:10.1080/15332985.2015.1038413
53.
YipK. S. (2002). The concept of mental health in Chinese Taoism. Hong Kong Journal of Mental Health, 31, 30–49. (In Chinese)
