Response to Feldman: Minimal Penetration of Practice Relevant Research—Challenge Remains

Abstract

The social work profession has enhanced its research capabilities since the 1991 Task Force on Social Work Research. However, these impressive changes have not closed the research-practice gap or made substantial contributions to empirically supported social work practice knowledge. Modified challenges as presented by Feldman are offered along with suggested recommendations.

Consistent with Feldman's (in this issue) assessment, I concur that social work research has made major strides and accomplishments since the 1991 NIMH Task Force on Social Work Research Report. Feldman delineates three challenges: increasing the number of doctoral graduates in social work research; improving the quality of doctoral programs in social work research; and addressing research faculty shortfalls in BSW and MSW programs. I agree partially with his positions; however, they require further modifications. Moreover, I see them as interrelated to a larger challenge to the profession that David Austin laid down the gauntlet in 1998, which Feldman quoted, “The most critical issue for the future is to develop collaboration between social work researchers and social work practitioners in developing research dealing with evidence-based treatment and services, and in communicating the results of such research to the professional practice community (Austin, 1988, p.6).” Feldman acknowledges the challenge of enhancing the accessibility of research results to the social work practice community. But, in my view, the critical question is this: Is the research being produced of importance to the social work practitioner and is it framed in a manner that is usable to the practitioner, particularly, within the agency context? Before discerning how to communicate information, the issue of significance of the findings generated for the practitioners needs first to be addressed. Surprisingly, Feldman's article did not specify the gap between the relevance of research produced to practice as a challenge. This is essential to the profession and has been of concern for decades (Thyer, 2015) and around which there has been the least progress. This gap emanates from the three identified challenges, as well as what is valued for academic promotion and rewards. These challenges are interrelated significantly in terms of maintaining or subsequently diminishing the research and practice divide in social work.

Are Numbers the Issue?

Feldman outlined convincing evidence that the number of social work doctorates has declined, and this decrease has led to a lack of faculty available to teach social work research courses in the ever-increasing number of BSW and MSW programs. The situation is even more dire than the evidence presented, as he did not consider that a typical doctoral program has about 15.5% international students (Lee & Eads, 2020), some do obtain jobs at U.S. academic institutions, while others return to their home countries. Further, not all graduates seek or obtain an academic teaching position, as some choose to work in nonacademic settings, such as in research, policy, and administration (Lee & Eads, 2020). McGovern and Zimerman (2018) reported that, according to CSWE in 2015, only 30% of doctoral graduates pursue academic positions.

However, the even bigger issue is not the quantitative numbers, it is the characteristics of who and what is behind those numbers. Few schools, only 20%, have an admission criterion of holding an MSW degree, although “79% of newly enrolled doctoral students have an MSW” (McGovern & Zimerman, 2018). This still leaves 20% who do not. However, are these graduates with MSW degrees well inculcated in social work practice, although possessing a social work master's degree? Consistent with observations of others (Johnson & Munch, 2010) and my own from teaching Ph.D. research courses for the past 30 years and reviewing applicants’ resumes for job positions at my school and promotion evaluations of social work faculty elsewhere, many enter Ph.D. programs directly from the awarding of their master's degree or, at best, may have a year of post master's experience. While the 6–7 years of postmaster's experience before beginning doctoral education of the past, as noted by Feldman, may have been too long, this current limited, if any, post master's experience does not put these doctoral graduates in a position of teaching research methods that integrates well with social work practice nor are they eligible to teach social work practice courses. As evidenced by a survey of deans and directors of BSW and MSW CSWE-accredited programs over 20 years ago found a lack of applicants with the necessary requisite Ph.D. and MSW or BSW degree to teach research and policy courses. They did not note the lack of practice experience, as their focus was on teaching research and policy courses (Zastrow & Bremner, 2004). Therefore, more of the same kind of graduates is not the answer to addressing this challenge of meeting the shortfall of faculty to teach in BSW and MSW practice programs. With the growing number of DSW programs, a well-trained DSW graduate in the use of evidenced-based practice with at least 2 or more years of post-MSW experience (many with much more) may be a better solution. The new challenge will be ensuring the training of the DSW students in research methods and the use of empirical findings to inform practice. Recognizing that teaching research methods courses does not require practice experience by CSWE standards; however, those with such experience are in a much better position to teach and model delivering empirically supported practice and informing clinical decision-making. Master's-level students too often do not see the relevance of the required research courses, but this likely has to do with the way it is taught.

Is the Issue the Quality of Doctoral Programs in Social Work Research?

I do agree that what is taught to prepare doctoral students for conducting social work research is of the utmost importance. The evidence available seems to indicate that Ph.D. social work doctoral programs are training students well in statistics and basic quantitative methods, and somewhat in qualitative and mixed methods research. The GADE (Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education) 2020 survey report (Lee & Eads, 2020) assessed the average number of courses likely contributing to the development of research skills; the highest number were statistical courses with a mean of 2.32, followed by quantitative research methods with 1.91, qualitative with 1.40, mixed method with .96, policy with .96, and intervention with .83. However, very few programs indicated having courses on implementation/translational research, intervention design/research and even less, only two programs, indicated research to practice gap (Lee & Eads, 2020). These later courses are essential for bridging this divide between the relevance of research to practice, yet they are not seen as significant areas of training for Ph.D. students. When the deans and directors were asked an open-ended question on the emphasis in their doctoral program, the highest ranked focus that emerged thematically was research followed by teaching, leadership, and theory. Similarly, Franklin and colleagues (2022) conducted a study of curriculums of 84 GADE-affiliated social work Ph.D. programs and found that a mean of six research and statistics courses were offered in a curriculum. But very few had courses in intervention research, measurement, program evaluation, meta-analyses, or grant writing. These researchers indicated that Ph.D. programs teach little on the profession of social work and “in the construction of knowledge for social work practice” (Franklin et al., p. 124). Further, they found that trends showed little or no practice experience of students. They concluded that Ph.D. doctoral programs were not preparing students for “becoming scholars and stewards of the social work profession” (Franklin et al., 2022, p. 124).

In neither of these studies could the quality of the courses be assessed. However, an examination of the scholarly productivity of social work doctoral students shows that the rates of publications exceeded that of the aspirational goals of GADE for doctoral students on the job market with four peer-reviewed and their peer-reviewed presentations went beyond these standards (Lightfoot, 2021). Given that these are peer-reviewed, it does provide some indication of the quality of the products resulting from the training that they received. These achievements seem to demonstrate that Ph.D. graduates are well prepared in statistical analysis and basic research methods. But it is unclear whether these doctoral students are prepared to teach master's and bachelor's-level research courses that train practitioners to use and consume empirical evidence to support their future clinical practice. Further, they are unable to fill faculty shortfalls in BSW and MSW programs, due to their lack of practice experience.

Primary Challenge: Social Work Research-Practice Divide

The primary challenge, in my view, is filling the social work research-practice divide. While Ph.D. graduates are well-trained in research and statistics, they are not necessarily able to develop or pose research hypotheses and questions of relevance to the real world of policy or practice nor are they capable of fulfilling the knowledge base of the social work practicing profession due to the lack of macro/micro practice experience (Johnson & Munch, 2010). In addition, they are unable to formulate recommendations that emerge from their findings that are feasible, practicable, and relevant to practice settings. Consequently, they lack the ability to translate research results in ways that are meaningful and beneficial to practitioners or policymakers (Teater, 2017, p. 548). Even for those who do have the requisite practice experience, there is little incentive in academia to engage in practice research, as there are few, if any, rewards within the academic environment for engagement in research that makes professional contributions, as the necessary activities to undertake practice research are seen as service rather than scholarship (Teater, 2017). Academic scholars who judge other faculty for promotion and tenure are enamored with the h-index, as noted by Feldman, which is a metric of citations among other academics, not about the consumption of research by practitioners (Feldman, in press; Teater, 2017). Advancement decisions in academia rely heavily on such metrics, as they are an indication of the influence that a faculty's research has on other investigators and on scientific knowledge base, “not on the practice community” (Teater, 2017, p. 549). Furthermore, social work practice research involves activities such as program evaluations, needs assessments and program development, implementation, and quality improvement efforts, that are seen as producing products that are unpublishable or, if publishable, in lower impact journals that do not have the ability to garner grant funding, particularly from preferred funding sources, such as NIH. Collaborative partnerships and coproduction of knowledge have been found to have the potential to enhance the relevance and use of research findings by practitioners (Denvall & Skillmark, 2021). However, these are time-consuming endeavors that require achieving a trusting relationship with providers and administrators, which is frequently built on past positive collaborations that are likely more difficult to develop by those who lack the knowledge and skills and are unfamiliar with these organizational cultures as well as uninformed regarding practitioners daily clinical activities and pressures (Denvall & Skillmark, 2021).

To begin to fill this divide, there needs to be changes in standards for admission to Ph.D. programs, training in both Ph.D. and DSW programs, and criteria for promotion and tenure decisions. Students need to enter a Ph.D. program with a grounding in the practice environment, so that they are in a position to ask research questions that will contribute to the practice knowledge base of the profession. DSW graduates have the knowledge, interest, and commitment to fill the gap, but are unlikely to be prepared to conduct the necessary research. Ph.D. graduates likely have methodological and statistical skills, although at times lack the willingness to collaborate with DSWs or the general practice community, given the disincentives of the academy. Further, three areas that should be infused into both doctoral training programs are intervention research, implementation science, and quality improvement, as these methods have the greatest potential to bridge the research and practice worlds to enhance the quality of services for social work. Research on social work interventions is essential for building the evidence base of social work. In addition, as Cabassa (2016) notes, implementation science affords the means to comprehend “the uptake, use and sustainability of empirically supported interventions, practice innovations, and social policies in practice” (p.48) and consequently, the ability to fill the gap between research and practice. Quality improvement is the continuous means to applying systematic efforts to improve the manner of care in which services are delivered to enhance efficiency and effectiveness of outcomes to achieve equity and health of a specified population in a designated setting, not for the intended purpose of building knowledge (Backhouse & Ogunlayi, 2020). There also needs to be a recognition and acknowledgement of misalignment between research and quality improvement methods (Hirschhorn et al., 2018). These areas do not require further methods training per se but substantive knowledge of the frameworks, theories, applications, ethics, and significance of these domains to the social work profession. The challenge is to compensate for the lack of social work faculty having the expertise to teach these courses. But the employment of interdisciplinary faculty will require training in the use of a social work lens to impart information in these domains.

Conclusion

Social work researchers are currently better equipped than in the past to publish in high impact journals, obtain well-regarded grants, be members of national review committees, and members of journal editorial boards, to name a few criteria required to successfully compete in the broader scientific community. However, the goal of improving social workers research capabilities has not translated to enhancing empirical support of professional practice as much as required nor close the gap between research and practice.