There is a paradox in social work research. Evidence is generated in the belief that it will inform social work practice, though research findings are rarely implemented in full. This paper explores how engaging with service users and citizens in the research and implementation processes may assist with research implementation.
Method
A case study method is used in which four examples of the implementation of practice research conducted in Australia, Finland and Norway in the fields of social inclusion in the disability sector; bereavement care; child welfare; and youth transitions are presented. These case studies are thematically analyzed using a collaborative narrative analytical method.
Results
Three common themes emerged: the unpredictable and dynamic outcomes of the implementation processes; a long-term commitment to co-creation; and the vitality of lived experience which enhances research implementation.
Conclusion
A research agenda arising from the limitations of this study and gaps in our knowledge is presented.
AaltioE. (2022). Effectiveness of the Finnish systemic practice model for children’s social care. A realist evaluation. University of Jyväskylä].
2.
AhujaL.PriceA.BramwellC.BriscoeS.ShawL.NunnsM.O’RourkeG.BaronS.AndersonR. (2022). Implementation of the making safeguarding personal approach to strengths-based adult social care: Systematic review of qualitative research evidence. The British Journal of Social Work, 52(8), 4640–4663. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcac076
3.
AlbersB.MetzA.BurkeK.BührmannL.BartleyL.DriessenP.VarsiC. (2021). Implementation support skills: Findings from a systematic integrative review. Research on Social Work Practice, 31(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731520967419
4.
ArendtH. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.
5.
AustinM. J.CarnochanS. (2020). Practice research in the human services: A university-agency partnership model. Oxford University Press.
6.
BakhtinM. (1984). Problems of Dostoyesky’s poetics (C. Emerson Trans.). University of Minnesota.
7.
BoultonR.SemkinaA.JonesF.SevdalisN. (2025). Expanding the pragmatic lens in implementation science: Why stakeholder perspectives matter. Implementation Science Communications, 6(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00730-z
CabassaL. J. (2016). Implementation science: Why it matters for the future of social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(sup1), S38–S50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1174648
10.
CallonM.LawJ.RipA. (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. Macmillan.
11.
EikelandO. (2015). Praxis-Retrieving the roots of action research. In BradburyH. (Ed.), The sage handbook of action research (3rd ed., pp. 381–391). Sage.
FouchéC.ChubbL. A. (2020). Results to practice. Navigating complexities to create meaningful impact. In JoubertL.WebberM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of social work practice research (pp. 455–466). Routledge.
14.
GambrillE. (2006). Evidence-based practice and policy: Choices ahead. Research on Social Work Practice, 16(3), 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731505284205
15.
GrahamI. D.LoganJ.HarrisonM. B.StrausS. E.TetroeJ.CaswellW.RobinsonN. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map?Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.47
16.
GreenwoodD. J.LevinM. (2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change (2nd ed.). Sage.
17.
HalåsC. T. (2021). The dialogue café as a participatory method in research-potentials and challenges. In Wulf-AndersenT.FollesøR.OlsenT. (Eds.), Involving methods in youth research: Reflections on participation and power (pp. 155–183). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75941-4_7
18.
HalåsC. T.MevikK.FollesøR.JacobsenT. U. i. N. (2015). Ungdom i Svevet (2011-15) Tilbakeblikk på fire år som nasjonal satsing. Universitetet i Nordland.
19.
HorwitzS. M.HurlburtM. S.Goldhaber-FiebertJ. D.PalinkasL. A.Rolls-ReutzJ.ZhangJ.FisherE.LandsverkJ. (2014). Exploration and adoption of evidence-based practice by US child welfare agencies. Children and Youth Services Review, 39, 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.10.004
20.
HughesM.WhitakerL.RugendykeB. (2021). “Yesterday I couldn’t see. Tomorrow’s sun shines now”: Sharing migrant stories through creative arts to foster community connections and wellbeing. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 42(5), 541–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2021.1971170
21.
IsokuorttiN. (2023). Understanding implementation in child and family social work: Process evaluation of the Systemic Practice Model in Finland. Helsinki Practice Research Publications 1/2023 [PhD thesis, University of Helsinki]. Helsinki. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/357419
22.
JoubertL.HampsonR.HockingA.BraddyL.LudbrookC.CreavenF.ConnollyS.AibinuI.WankeK. (2024). The 5 + 1 practice research model in health social work: The “eye of the storm”. Research on Social Work Practice, 34(6), 676–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315241229427
23.
JulkunenI.MauriD.RuchG.IsokuorttiN. (2023). Connecting social work research with policy and practice: Issues of people, power and politics. European Social Work Research, 1(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1332/cikv6449
24.
KristensenC. L.NissenM. A. (2024). Enactments of evidence-based programs in social work – The gap between ideal and practice in the context of Norway. Nordic Social Work Research, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2024.2317218
25.
KulmalaM.VenäläinenS.HietalaO.NikulaK.KoskivirtaI. (2024). Lived experience as the basis of collaborative knowing. Inclusivity and resistance to stigma in co-research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 16094069241236271. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241236271
26.
LahtinenP.MännistöL.RaivioM. (2017). Kohti suomalaista systeemistä lastensuojelun toimintamallia. Keskeisiä periaatteita ja reunaehtoja. Työpaperi 7/2017. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-302-827-2
27.
MalmivaaraA. (2022). Vaikuttavuus sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollossa. Duodecim.
28.
McAuliffeD.BoddyJ.ChenowethL. (2024). The road to social work and human service practice (7th ed.). Cengage.
29.
MeadowsD. H. (2008). Thinking in systems. A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
30.
MitchellP. F. (2011). Evidence-based practice in real-world services for young people with complex needs: New opportunities suggested by recent implementation science. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(2), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.10.003
31.
MoranN.WebberM.Dosanjh KaurH.MorrisD.NgamabaK.NunnV.ThomasE.ThompsonK. (2020). Co-producing practice research – the connecting people implementation study. In JoubertL.WebberM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of social work practice research (pp. 353–367). Routledge.
32.
MuurinenH.SatkaM. (2020). Pragmatist knowledge production in practice research. In JoubertL.WebberM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of social work practice research (pp. 126–136). Routledge.
33.
PalinkasL. A.HeA. S.Choy-BrownM.HertelA. L. (2017). Operationalizing social work science through research–practice partnerships. Research on Social Work Practice, 27(2), 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731516666329
34.
PetreliusP.YlirukaL.MönkkönenK. (2025). Towards collaborative and innovative practice improvement paradigm in child protection? In SerbatiS.MarthinsenE.FeatherstoneB. (Eds.), Sense and sensibility in social work with families and children (pp. 93–113). Policy Press.
PowellB. J.WaltzT. J.ChinmanM. J.DamschroderL. J.SmithJ. L.MatthieuM. M.ProctorE. K.KirchnerJ. E. (2015). A refined compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science, 10(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1
37.
RemyM. L.BlijlevenP. S.CoetzerJ. A.BondarenkoN. (2024). Facilitators and barriers for implementation of community-based mental health interventions in western and Eastern Europe—A systematic literature review. European Journal of Social Work, 27(4), 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2023.2229047
38.
RiessmanC. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage.
39.
RoehrB. (2010). More stakeholder engagement is needed to improve quality of research, say US experts. BMJ, 341, c4193. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4193
40.
RushE.ShortM.BurninghamG.CartledgeJ. (2020). Philosophy and ethics: Sustaining social inclusion in the disability sector. In CrispB. R.TaketA. (Eds.), Sustaining social inclusion (pp. 203–217). Routledge.
41.
RushE.ShortM.DuncombeR. (2025). Addressing complex ethical decisions in social work and human services in an unequal world. In BiakadyR. (Ed.), Social work education in an unequal world (pp. 389–410). Oxford University Press.
42.
RussE.PetrakisM.WhitakerL.FitzroyR.ShortM. (2025). Co-operative inquiry: Qualitative methodology transforming research ‘about’ to research ‘with’ people. Qualitative Research, 25(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941241234272
43.
RzepnickiT. L.McCrackenS. G.BriggsH. E. (2012). From task-centered social work to evidence-based and integrative practice: Reflections on history and implementation. Lyceum Books.
44.
SabriB.YoungN.CardenasI.EmezueC. N.PatchM. (2026). Integrating implementation science in interpersonal violence research and practice: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators of implementation. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 27(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241305567
45.
SamsonsenV.Aasheim GreveR.ChristiansenØJørgensenT. (2025). Social workers’ experiences of the use of experts in child protection cases: A comparative study from Norway and England. European Journal of Social Work, 28(2), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2024.2364268
46.
ShermanR. E.AndersonS. A.Dal PanG. J.GrayG. W.GrossT.HunterN. L.LaVangeL.Marinac-DabicD.MarksP. W.RobbM. A.ShurenJ.TempleR.WoodcockJ.YueL. Q.CaliffR. M. (2016). Real-World evidence — what is it and what can it tell us?New England Journal of Medicine, 375(23), 2293–2297. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb1609216
47.
ShortM.DempseyK.AcklandJ.RushE.HellerE.DwyerH. (2018). What is a person? Deepening students’ and colleagues’ understanding of person-centredness.. Advances in Social Work & Welfare Education, 20(1), 139–156. https://journal.anzswwer.org/index.php/advances/article/view/155
48.
StrehlenertH.Hedberg RundgrenE.SjunnestrandM.HassonH. (2024). Fidelity to and adaptation of evidence-based interventions in the social work literature: A scoping review. The British Journal of Social Work, 54(3), 1356–1376. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcad170
Van DiemenM.HockingA.LudbrookC.KerridgeG.PeirisC.JoubertL. (2024). Complicated bereavement approach in acute health: A precinct model. A report for stakeholders. Department of Social Work, University of Melbourne.
51.
WebberM.NgamabaK.MoranN.PinfoldV.BoehnkeJ. R.KnappM.HendersonC.RehillA.MorrisD. (2021). The implementation of connecting people in community mental health teams in England: A quasi-experimental study. The British Journal of Social Work, 51(3), 1080–1100. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcaa159
52.
WesterbackF.MurtonenE.MetzJ.JI. (2020). Co-creation in research with young people. In JoubertL.WebberM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of social work practice research (pp. 382–395). Routledge.
53.
WhitakerL.HughesM.RugendykeB. (2018). ‘I would call it a social capital building exercise’: The nature of networks that enable women with a refugee background to access sustainable employment in regional Australia. Journal of Social Inclusion, 9(2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.36251/josi.138
54.
WhitakerL.HughesM.RugendykeB. (2021). Capturing practice wisdom: Advancing the empowerment of women from refugee and migrant backgrounds. The British Journal of Social Work, 51(4), 1296–1313. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab038
55.
YinR. K. (2018). Case study research and applications. Design and methods. Sage.
