Abstract
This article offers an analysis of the design and development of the Practice Research Collaborative on Organizational Supports (PRC-OS) within the International Community of Practice Research in Social Work (ICPR). The purpose is to address the question of how social work researchers build collaborative connections while strengthening the understanding of the relationship between social work research and social work practice to the benefit of service users. Theoretically, we draw upon the concept of community of practice (CoP) as the collaboratives include social work researchers who share interests in practice research, and who develop this knowledge as they think and learn together (Wenger, 1998).
Social work researchers with a special interest in organizational supports for practice research have for some time organized international research conferences such as the Society for Social Work & Research (SSWR) and the European Social Work Research Association (ESWRA), collaborating to explore issues to strengthen the intersection of practice research and organizational research. More recently, the ICPR invited scholars to develop collaboratives, termed Practice Research Collaboratives (PRCs), to engage around special topics between the ICPR's tri-annual international conferences on practice research. The rationale behind the international nature of the collaboratives and the establishment of such collaborations with participants from different countries is their potential to “(…) strengthen the agenda on impact and transformative change through studies on collaborative partnership and service-user engagement” (Julkunen et al., 2024, p. 2).
In the collaboratives, participants are encouraged to showcase their work in order to promote their research, enabling visibility and engagement. They should be inclusive and acknowledge diverse perspectives (https://www.icprsw.com/research-collaboratives). The international context of the PRCs facilitates for learning and sharing research experiences that exceeds the national or regional context, bringing in more diversity and complexity that shed new light on own research practice and social work in its national context.
Each PRC has one or more convenors; researchers in the PRC with responsibility for bringing the participants together, planning, and hosting the meetings. The intended target group was social work researchers, but an emerging question is whether the collaboratives should be developed to also include social work practitioners and service users.
The idea of CoPs as an arena for shared learning and knowledge has been used in developing reflective structures in social work practice and partnerships between scholars and agencies (Fouchè, 2015; Yliruka, 2011). Yet it remains unclear how communities exclusively consisting of social work researchers cooperate in sustaining their research practice (Bertotti & Fargion, 2023; Shaw, 2020). Also, there is a gap in the research on such communities within a transnational context.
This article aims to contribute to this gap by offering a case study of the PRC-OS that focuses on the process of sustained cooperation, informed by the following research questions: (1) What do the PRC-OS convenors do to facilitate sharing of research practices and interests?, (2) How is collective learning developed through engagement in this collaborative?, and (3) What are drivers and barriers for this collaborative to sustain its efforts?
The rationale behind our desire to investigate the academic communities of practice researchers is grounded in our hypothesis that the PRC-OS and other collaboratives potentially have an impact on social work practice. If our communities of research practice are helpful for improving sound research about social work, they will have an added value also for social work practice, as it will advance the knowledge production and its relevance for the practice field. Consequently, the research carried out will make a difference for both social work practitioners and service users. This aligns with the aims of practice research in social work; it shares a normative goal that it should benefit both social work practitioners and service users.
To explore our questions, we utilize a diverse set of data, including an auto-ethnographic analysis that reflects our positions as colleagues and coconvenors of this nascent collaborative. Our analysis reflects a historical account of the accomplishments of the PRC-OS's quarterly meetings since it was initiated in 2021 at the 5th ICPR conference in Melbourne, Australia, as well as a brief needs assessment in 2023 of PRC-OS members who attended its 1-day preconference at the 6th ICPR conference in Aalborg, Denmark.
Research and Theoretical Context of the Analysis
Collaborative research networks as part of academia facilitate support and the sharing of ideas, explore issues of mutual interest, utilize multiple and multidisciplinary perspectives and resources in order to promote the goal of increasing knowledge development, sharing, and productivity (Ward et al., 2021). While social network analysis can quantitatively measure academic collaborative relationships in terms of research articles and presentations (Ward et al., 2021), the use of a processual approach helps to describe key collaborative activities and how scholarly relationships are developed. The process approach is the focus of this article. In particular, we turn to the concept of “Community of Practice” (CoP), that refers to groups of people who share similar concerns, discuss and face similar challenges, and share an interest in a particular topic (Wenger, 1998). What they do together and what they learn together to become more confident and organized in their practice are important factors, including the negotiation of the meaning of experiences. CoPs take various forms depending on their context, but share common elements, including mutual engagement (how and what people do together as part of practice), joint enterprise (a set of problems and topics that they care about), and shared repertoire (the concepts and social artifacts that they create) (Wenger, 1998).
Learning, thinking, and knowing are situated in social practice and are products of relations among people who engage in activities in the context of a socially and culturally structured context. Participation in a CoP involves the active construction of meaning, as it shapes and is informed by interwoven social identities around topics that the group identifies. Active participation and collaborative decision-making are encouraged. Shared knowledge is developed through sustained channels of dialogue that are supported by socially shaped norms (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Pyrko et al. (2017) argue that the trans-personal knowing process of thinking together cannot exist without developing and sustaining an invigorating dialogue over time.
A CoP develops in phases, and the first three are a committing phase (someone decides that a CoP is a good idea and initiates a start); the operating phase, which frames the CoP, members are recruited and roles negotiated; and the starting up (when members share knowledge, develop skills, and improve their practice). The process may be cyclical rather than linear (Wenger et al., 2002).
What happens in a CoP's operating phase may be approached as a trialogical learning process where the participants gain knowledge, become members of a community, and produce knowledge. Among the principles of trialogical learning is the fostering of a long-term process of knowledge advancement with shared objects (artifacts and/or practices) as well as the promotion of cross-fertilization of knowledge across communities and institutions (Paavola et al., 2011). Hemmings et al. (2013) find that a CoP evolves in steps that correspond with the members’ work at paradigm, methods, and technique levels, and in which knowledge acquisition happens through collegial instruction and sharing. For practice researchers, the paradigm level should include the shared epistemological position of recognizing professional and experiential service user knowledge and that research questions are derived from practice wisdom and raised in practice (Fouchè, 2015). The methods and technique level are carried out by building partnerships between academia and agencies as well as service users, and it should include collaboration and participative research designs and techniques. Members in a CoP can have different levels of expertise, and taking part can lead to a progression in the form of a “learning trajectory” (Wenger, 1998). For a community of researchers, such progression may lead to strengthened individual and collective epistemic agency. Epistemic agency traditionally describes the metacognitive skill that characterizes a research-minded practitioner; a scientific mindset, pragmatist attitude, and capable of using multidisciplinary research (Muurinen & Kääriäinen, 2022). However, we find that the concept also is useful for an analysis of how researchers may utilize, share, and enhance their knowledge and skills to gain further understanding or new insights in order to conduct valuable practice research.
In the present study, practice research in the profession of social work is the practice that can be developed and enhanced by the learning and sharing of experiences and ideas. We view the PRC-OS as a community of research practice (Hemmings et al., 2013) in which researchers seek to develop and strengthen their knowledge and expertise in conducting practice research to the benefit of local agendas, while also nurturing the broader practice research community.
Method
This study is an intrinsic case study as it is undertaken to learn about the PRC-OS (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The case study is a feasible approach when the goal is to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of an issue, event, or phenomenon of interest in its natural, real-life context (Yin, 2009). By presenting details and insights, the naturalistic design facilitates an analysis that also includes lessons learned (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). A case is defined by its scope, its beginnings, middles, and ends. This case includes the establishment of the PRC-OS, the multiple digital online meetings (2022–2024), and the planning and implementation of the 6th ICPR preconference in Aalborg, 2023. The epistemological approach is interpretative and pragmatic as it involves meaning-making of the natural context and processes that informed the PRC-OS with the goal of understanding the shared social meanings that develop in the context of the PRC-OS.
The data for this case study are diverse and consist of written documents, field notes, and participative observations. These include:
Information about the PRCs from the ICPR website. Rolling minutes from the PRC-OS's quarterly online meetings. Emails and drafts regarding the planning of the Aalborg preconference. Program notes and hand-outs for the preconference. Field notes from the preconference that reflect members’ participation and dialogues, as well as notes from the results of group work by the co-authors.
Analysis
The analytic work was carried out in a mix of individual and team-based activities where we employed a reflexive thematic analysis, emphasizing critical self-reflection on our insider position to this particular PRC (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis provides a well-suited analytic tool to analyze diverse data sets. The first analytic steps involve close reading and coding of data (key words, phrases, and concepts), and the third step is grouping codes into potential themes that represent patterns of meaning. In the process, research questions and themes may evolve as the researcher actively engages with the data. In our team-based process, CoP emerged as a theoretical marker for how we gradually made sense of the data. This informed the next steps of the analysis, approaching the PRC-OS as a community of research practice. The CoP theory guided the analytic framework by focusing on the phases that a CoP develops in: committing, operating, and starting up (Wenger et al., 2002), where we investigated our three research questions in each phase. This enabled us to identify themes in each phase and whether those themes were identified across the phases.
The analysis resulted in three themes that represent patterns of meaning of the collaborative: learning by sharing, ethos of the group, organization and participation. The last step in the thematic analysis is to write up a narrative and argue for why these themes are significant in answering the research questions. The narrative of the PRC-OS is presented in the Results section.
We also reflected on our roles in the PRC-OS. As active members, we occupy an insider view vis-à-vis the evolution of the collaborative. To secure multiple reflections on our respective experiences, we framed and responded to questions on how we were included in the PRC-OS and why we wished to take part; what support it has provided us with; and thoughts about how the PRC-OS can sustain itself over time. Therefore, this study is also developed in the traditions of analytic auto-ethnography, which provides a systematic process to reflect on personal experiences while still producing valid and reliable findings (Anderson, 2006, p. 375).
Overall, this analytic work reflected an abductive process (Austin & McBeath, 2022) in which the co-authors engaged in sustained reflection upon theories, data, and old and current discussions of the PRC-OS. All participants in the PRC-OS were informed of the study and invited to take part. No institutional review board procedures were needed to conduct this study, as the data is open domain with no sensitive information.
Trustworthiness and Limitations of the Study
In this study, theory was used to understand the PRC-OS in a qualitative research context where meaning is identified as a way of providing important insight. By presenting findings in PRC-OS meetings, we provided an opportunity for others to inform our tentative interpretations. The questions of transparency and reflexivity are important, and as we are involved in the PRC-OS, we have given this attention by utilizing auto-ethnographic approaches.
The results are consistent with relevant theories on communities of practice, which gives the study a basis for some theoretical generalization (Malterud, 2001). The study can also be considered to have a certain pragmatic validity, as the results can provide a basis for the development of similar research collaboratives. The limitation of the study is that the data are based on written documents and our reflections on our roles as active PRC-OS members. Other PRC-OS members’ views are not investigated.
Results
The section presents the three themes that the data analysis resulted in, and how they align with the study's research questions. Sharing of practices and knowledge, values and ethos are important factors to develop the PRC-OS, as is also negotiations on participation and organization. These themes are intertwined and must be considered important factors that need continuous attention and negotiation in order for the collaborative to sustain and thrive.
What Do the PRC-OS Convenors Do to Facilitate Sharing of Research Practices and Interests?
The convenors hold a special position in the PRC-OS through all phases of its development. The committing phase (Wenger et al., 2002) and its overall initiative were led by distinguished scholars (whom Wenger et al. (2002) term “champions”) who secured both key support and grounding in the research field. The PRC-OS was established after the 5th ICPR Conference. Its basic aims were connected to ICPR's aim for all PRCs to provide networking opportunities among researchers who share a common interest in a specific area of practice research. The PRC-OS addresses the structural and organizational disconnects between research and practice and the extent to which research is used in practice. The PRC-OS has its own location on the ICPR's website where members, activities, and research literature are shared < icprsw.com > . The website is managed by the initiator and one member skilled in technical solutions.
The results of the thematic analysis show how sharing, learning, organization, participation, and the obligation to secure and develop an ethos of such a collaborative are topics that the convenors have a special commitment to. This is reflected in the autoethnographic notes on why we wanted to take part in the PRC-OS: I was interested in small-scale networking with other, like-minded scholar-researchers (…). I am always interested in finding ways to grow knowledge development-and-sharing initiatives, particularly when they are focused on social and organizational justice, seek to empower women and non-traditional leaders, and deliberately explore non-traditional approaches to knowledge production. (participant A) I wished to take part because I see it as a good way of keeping track with new research, learn and hopefully also share own reflections, especially when it comes to involvement of other stakeholders; users, practitioners, leaders. (participant B)
This commitment to facilitate sharing and learning is especially reflected in the convenors’ role in the operating phase (Wenger et al., 2002) when they were assigned the task of implementing the Aalborg preconference. The program was planned and discussed during the fall of 2022 through digital online meetings and emailing among the three conveners (McBeath, Muurinen, and Natland). The preconference aimed to provide a space for practice researchers to reflect upon evolving definitions of the concept of organizational supports for practice research, and to facilitate for critical dialogue about opportunities and challenges when engaging in practice research studies with different stakeholders. The involvement of service users was given special attention.
To approach these topics, three different approaches were planned. The first component was time to explore a set of working definitions of what constitutes organizational supports with regard to the key stakeholders of practitioners, service users, and researchers. A planned, short presentation (McBeath) based on a handout of illustrative definitions of organizational support was utilized to expand the definition. The second component explored how to build an archive of cases that features the launching of practice research projects with organizational supports. A modified fish bowl technique was for Muurinen and McBeath to share experiences in launching practice research collaborations in Finland and China, respectively. The third topic was to explore different approaches to involving service users as another way to expand organizational support for practice research. While the first two components of the preconference were designed to promote reflections and new thinking among the participants, the third component involved dividing the participants into smaller groups for 30 min, assigning one participant to take notes in order to capture both reflections and personal experiences with practice research.
How Is Collective Learning Developed Through Engagement in the Collaborative?
The answer to this question is mainly reflected in the phase of starting up (Wenger et al., 2002) of the PRC-OS. The collaborative is composed of research academics interested in enhancing and conducting practice research with a strong focus on organized knowledge sharing and co-learning with others. We, as authors, became a part of the network soon after its establishment. Wyder and Muurinen joined after a public call for members, whereas McBeath and Natland were invited by the founder of the PRC-OS as they had previously worked together. The PRC-OS thus reflected a desire to have a communal space to explore and share ideas around alternative and new ways to engage and enhance practice research that drew us to the collaborative, as reflected in another auto-ethnographical note: (…) as I sit in the practice-based research space, it can be difficult to find colleagues that grapple with the same issues. I am always interested in hearing about the different projects and how people tackle some of the issues in practice. (participant D)
The analysis especially highlights two main areas where engagement in the collaborative can develop and thrive: preconferences and online meetings.
The Aalborg Preconference
At the preconference, about 20 individuals participated. They were all academic researchers, faculty members in social work educational programs and research centers, but also from associated disciplines and professions such as nursing and applied sociology. They were mainly from the global North countries. The preconference was carried out as planned. The dialogue between Muurinen and McBeath reflected the sharing of concrete results from their research and the creation of space for participants to dialogue and reflect on ways to handle organizational barriers to leading practice research. Considerable time was devoted to eliciting comments, reflections, and discussions from the participants, convened by Natland. In the third component, two small group discussions generated several issues related to the impact of the research-practice gap that included:
The perception that research may not always be relevant to practice. Many practitioners may find research findings difficult to translate into actionable steps that fit the unique needs of their clients or communities. It is a challenge for practitioners to take part in participatory practice research due to a lack of time, resources, or lack of interest or support from their organizations. Different organizational cultures and priorities regarding research output—delivering of care to clients versus creating research reports or publications.
The discussions of participants illustrate diverse definitions of organizational supports—namely, the nature of agency leadership, availability of time, access to resources, and the nature of local partnerships—with regard to the constraints that are faced while carrying out practice research in agency settings.
Participants also reflected upon how the preconference was one way to engage in a process that could show a way forward to continue the efforts to generate questions from practice and collaborating on different projects. Valuing the process of engaging in self-reflection, participants also suggested that the PRC-OS facilitated what they called a “critical friend” to help with learning about what others have done to promote practice research in different practice environments.
Online Meetings
The collaborative meets in online meetings 3–4 times a year. The minutes show how the first meetings gave space for all members to introduce themselves and their research interests. Rolling minutes were shared on the emailing list shortly after the meetings, so that those not present could stay abreast of evolving conversations. New information and publications were requested so that members could share evolving content through the website. Planned presentations and sharing of experiences of organizational opportunities and challenges related to conducting practice research were on the agenda in these meetings. This resulted in an initiative to develop an article that reflected the efforts of several PRC-OS members (Austin et al., 2024). This co-production consisted of presenters who wished to take part in the development of the article, and who sent their presentation in the form of a vignette, as well as the lead authors who coordinated the writing process and crafted a manuscript that was distributed to all for commenting before journal submission.
After the Aalborg preconference, the PRC-OS continued with its regular meetings. It has continued to schedule new presentations on the research experiences of the participants. Following the topic on organizational supports for launching practice research (Austin et al., 2024), the next meeting focused on the dissemination of practice research, which led the presenters to revise their presentations into vignettes for a codeveloped manuscript. It was at the same time decided that the forthcoming meeting should focus on conducting practice research, also to be considered for a manuscript. Three manuscripts are in the process of writing and discussed in these meetings, as is also the decision to write this current article. The responsibility of organizing the Aalborg preconference paved the way for us as co-authors to meet, know each other better, and deepen our interest in analyzing our experiences.
Another interesting result of sharing research experiences is mentioned in the auto-ethnographical notes: Some of the presentations I have heard I have adapted, and we are trying to implement it in our service. One of the things we will be implementing in our service is from one of the presentations around using theory in practice and how to do this. (participant D)
What Are Drivers and Barriers for the Collaborative to Sustain Its Efforts?
By June 21, 2023, 35 researchers have signed on as members of the PRC-OS. A driver for the PRC-OS reflected in the minutes is that the responsibility of leading meetings is being shared with other persons in the collaborative, helping to create a pipeline of future leaders. The meetings always end with an agreement and plan regarding who will present at the next meeting. This way of organizing is a conscious choice to secure participation and responsibility for the PRC-OS as a space of learning and develop as practice researchers.
The minutes show that eight to 10 members attended the meetings consistently, despite the meetings generally being scheduled either very late or very early in the day for members who had to operate across multiple time zones. The need to increase members and participation in the collaborative, including increased diversity among the participants, remains an ongoing topic. In discussions on recruitment and involvement, it was suggested that the qualifications for participation should be minimal regarding the depth and breadth of research experience, but commitment to the collaborative was viewed as essential.
A related point of discussion involves a consideration of barriers to participation, and the identification and the use of strategies for recruiting participants from different parts of the globe.
The importance of finding new projects to work on together has been discussed regularly as a driver for the PRC-OS to sustain. A main concern has been the lack of financial support for the ICPR collaboratives.
Discussion
The aim of this exploratory study was to identify interest in the PRC-OS by answering the three research questions focusing on what we as convenors do to facilitate for sharing of research practices; participants’ development of learning through engagement, and identifying drivers and barriers for the collaborative to sustain. Approaching the PRC-OS through the lens of a CoP facilitated this sense-making, as our findings show how the PRC-OS aligns with the main principles of a CoP as a space for regular interaction, sharing, and learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Our data covers the start and the operating phase of the PRC-OS, and indicates a cyclical process (Wenger et al., 2002) as issues of content, activities, participation, and roles are discussed regularly.
The reflexive thematic analysis resulted in the themes learning by sharing, ethos of the group, organization and participation as significant for answering the research questions about the conveners’ role, the participants’ engagement, and barriers and drivers for the collaborative to sustain. The presentation of results above showed how these themes have relevance across data and the research questions. In order to grasp the complexity of the dataset, the following discussion will be structured to communicate these results and to tie them back to the theoretical framework.
The Convenors’ and the Participants’ Roles and Engagement: Learning by Sharing
The PRC-OS has been initiated and nurtured as a growing arena for discourses about the organizational context of practice research and ways to advance collaboration with the practice field. The written documents as invitations and hand-outs for conferences, the topics discussed in the Aalborg preconference, and webinar presentations of research are all examples of shared objects that facilitate shared knowledge processes in a trialogical learning cycle (Paavola et al., 2011).
As regards the Aalborg preconference, the topics for discussion were developed in a way that parallels a research cycle. The planning started by posing questions for participants to investigate, gathering data about their understandings of the status quo of practice research challenges, and then generating topics that need more inquiry to advance understanding and problem-solving. As presented above, the participants shared an interest in the intertwined topics of organizational practice and social work practice. This indicated an initial sense at the paradigm level (Hemmings et al., 2013) as theories and literature relevant to social work provided a common reference point for the dialogues. In addition, practices were shared, including examples from own research and reflections on how challenges can be met. The shared learning and bonding in the preconference marked a turning point for the establishment and development of the PRC-OS. A significant knowledge object (Paavola et al., 2011) was established: the special interest in how to transfer experiences and knowledge into concrete social work practice.
Concrete outputs of original knowledge development, synthesis, and sharing include published articles and manuscripts-in-progress, as well as adaptation of research methods in order to implement into local projects. We see this as a clear indicator of the collaborative's capability to produce knowledge that both enhances the participants’ epistemic agency, as well as contributes to the wider international academic audience of practice researchers in social work.
The Ethos of the Convenors and the Group
Relations in the PRC-OS are formed around research practice (Degn et al., 2017). A group's social identity is formed by the processes of socialization, and for the PRC-OS, this may happen in at least two spaces: international conferences and online meetings. The possibility to meet in a virtual community is a necessity for international bonding to take place and potentially a lower threshold for taking part. When members experience that their participation is helping to create a space for the expression of ideas, listening to others, and learning from this dialogue, a communicative space is created (Kemmis, 2001). The shared interest in service user involvement and the desire to produce knowledge about social work practice that impacts its end-users, reflects how the PRC-OS is grounded in social work values such as human relationships, integrity, and competence. This is reflected also in the auto-ethnographical notes, where an overall theme is that being part of the collaborative allows us to broaden our perspectives and being exposed to different ways of doing practice research and to learn how social work practice may differ depending on national and local contexts, cultural, societal, and in policy.
The PRC-OS should be encouraged as an “emergent and continuous process where people think together regularly,” which defines both the core and the scope of the collaborative (Pyrko et al., 2017, pp. 403–405). This can lead to the development of mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998). We believe that the PRC-OS can influence the development of the field of practice research both internationally and locally. The significance of relations, dialogues, communicative spaces, and social work values defines the evolving ethos of the group.
Drivers and Barriers: Organization and Participation
The PRC-OS is marked by a low degree of formalized entry-level requirements and informal inclusion criteria. Further, it facilitates inexpensive strategies for organizing and sharing knowledge. The possibility of performing as an online community is crucial for the important CoP principle of creating a regular rhythm (Wenger et al., 2002). Such low-cost spaces for reflection are important for professional development as practice researchers, particularly when few financial incentives and other resources may be available.
CoPs differ from many formally structured organizational learning situations in the degree of formalization regarding the orientation of the group and the formalization of the relationships. CoPs tend to define their own purpose as they evolve a richer understanding of practice (Degn et al., 2017). The focus in a CoP may emerge from dialogical work and careful negotiation, each of which requires the encouragement of active participants and decision-making by the members. Researchers in the PRC-OS are not subject to hierarchical management, and we as researchers bring our own respective approaches to knowledge development and sharing in social work. Building and adhering to the ethos of the group is an important aspect of this contribution.
The PRC-OS is informed from “within,” not from above, as there is a fluid movement from being a new peripheral member to becoming more actively involved by leading tasks and activities while concurrently more established members lessen their involvement as co-leads while still participating. Such reciprocal labor contributes to the ongoing coconstruction of the community. This aligns with the processual perspective on how a CoP must come to life from the transpersonal process of thinking together, rather than a community being set up first. It can be “cultivated but not managed” (Pyrko et al., 2017, p. 405). This does not contradict that the “bottom-up” approach also must be supported and encouraged from above for it to be sustained, as evidenced by the institutional patronage of the advisory board of the ICPR. The advisory board welcomes new collaboratives and sets up specific criteria to be acknowledged as a collaborative. However, the activities must and do come from within.
Some critical points should be mentioned. Degn et al. (2017) underscore the importance of analyzing the working and authority relations in a group. A CoP should be free to define its own processes and routines, and authority relations are said to emerge through interaction. It is important to reflect on whether such relations impact on the relations and the work activities of the group, and in what ways (Degn et al., 2017, pp. 234–235). Related to this is the issue of representation and active participation. Even if the inclusion criteria of the PRC-OS are wide, there may be reasons for not participating. In the Aalborg preconference, there was little diversity regarding what parts of the world the researchers came from. Lund et al. (2016) refer to scholars who have critically examined the role of North–South work relationships and find that uneven work relationships exist due to material and resource unevenness. Bertotti and Fargion (2023) discuss how social work is unevenly developed in different parts of the world and how this impacts its level of knowledge development. The PRC-OS needs to pay attention to this by critically reflecting on which voices and which persons are not in attendance. The agreement at the paradigmatic level (Hemmings et al., 2013) that we noted as significant for the collaborative, may also be interpreted as reflecting that not all voices are present. Therefore, it is important to recruit more participants from other parts of the world than the Global North and West, thereby adding diverse perspectives and new explorations of forms of practice research and organizational practices. Adding to this is the question of also social workers and service users should also be invited into these collaboratives? Given the ethos of a CoP and the PRC's special link to social work, one could expect them to be acknowledged as co-researchers and participants. This is a topic that needs to be elaborated on to decide on a desired future composition.
Conclusion and Applications to Practice
The aim of the present article was to explore how social work researchers build collaborative connections while strengthening understanding of the relationship between social work research and social work practice to the benefit of service users. The rationale behind our desire to conduct a case study of one particular research collaborative, the PRC-OS, was grounded in our hypothesis that it potentially has implications for strengthening social work practice. The study's results show that the PRC-OS has performed promisingly in order to build a functioning space for collaboration, signified by a special ethos of communication and recognition, as well as concrete outputs regarding the dissemination of research in a transnational context. We believe that collaboration between researchers has the potential to increase epistemic agency, which in turn will advance the knowledge production and its relevance for the practice field.
A community of practice can be a supportive space to engage, provide, and receive peer support from colleagues with shared interests and to explore alternative and new methods for conducting practice research. The community should be approached as a dynamic and evolving form. This does not diminish the importance of organizational contextual factors such as formal resources and informal supports, as well as clear roles and responsibilities.
This study can be applied to social work practice both indirectly and directly: communities of research practice are important in order to contribute to the enhancement of practice research and its translation to practice, which in turn may increase social workers’ professional practice, consequently improving the services for the end-users who are the target group of practice research. Directly, social workers may also find this study helpful in establishing and engaging in arenas for shared learning and critical reflection to enhance own professional practice. However, this study's theoretical approach and the acknowledgment of a processual understanding of communities of practice, identified questions with a future focus: A future agenda should focus questions on how we together can facilitate the development of communities for engaging in collective sense-making and provide an avenue for integrating practitioners and service users into our collaboratives.
This study has limitations as it is an exploratory qualitative study of one research collaborative, and we cannot claim the results to be transferred to all collaboratives. However, the study has some pragmatic validity as our discussion seeks to inform both our academic peers in this particular and other practice research collaboratives. Further research should include an expanded number of collaboratives, including views from all participants. This could be helpful to develop a shared set of values and expectations for each collaborative, as well as expanded collaboration between collaboratives.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We are thankful that PRC-OS participant Ralph Hampson, University of Melbourne (AUS), in an early phase of this study, cleaned the notes from the Aalborg preconference, making them available for our data analysis.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.