This article reports reflections from an international conference on evaluation as a tool in the development of social work discourse. The conference was organized with the purpose of presenting the state of the art to the Swedish social work research community. In this article, a number of major issues that were discussed at the conference are reported, including evaluation paradigms and preoccupations, the relationship between the social research community and practitioners, and some of the methods of evaluation research. The authors assess their understanding of the outcomes of the conference from national perspectives, and attempt to discuss similarities and differences between Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albaek, E. (1995) ‘“Between Knowledge and Power”: Utilization of Social Science in Public Policy Making’, Policy Sciences28: 79–100.
2.
Albaek, E. (1996) ‘Why All This Evalulation? “Theoretical Notes and Empirical Observations on the Functions and Growth of Evaluation with Denmark as an Illustrative Case”’, The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation11(2): 1–84.
3.
Austin, D. (1992) ‘Findings of the NIMH Task Force on Social Work Research’, Research on Social Work Practice2(3): 312312.
4.
Bäck-Wiklund, M. (1993) Vetenskap och Politik i Socialt Arbete. Göteborg: Institutionen för Socialt Arbete, Göteborgs Universitet.
5.
Barnes McGuire, J. , A. Stein and W. Rosenburg (1996) ‘Evidence-Based Medicine and Child Mental Health Services’, Children and Society11: 89–96.
6.
Booth, B. , J. Clordy, L. G. Smith and G. R. Smith (1998) ‘Outcomes Assessment: A Continuous Model of Evolution Designed for Routine Practice’, Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare7(2): forthcoming.
7.
Boruch, R. (1994) ‘The Future of Controlled Randomized Experiments: a Briefing’, Evaluation Practice15: 1313.
8.
Boruch, R. , P. Solomon, J. Draine and W. Rasanjali (1998) ‘Connections and Disconnections Among Design Based Evolutions: Process Studies, Experiments, and Quasi-Experiments’, Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare7(2): forthcoming.
9.
Cheetham, J. (1997a) ‘Evaluating Social Work: Progress and Prospects’, Research on Social Work Practice7(3): 291–310.
10.
Cheetham, J. (1997b) ‘The Evaluation of Social Work: Priorities, Problems and Possibilities’, in J. Cheetham and M. Kazi (eds) The Working of Social Work. London: Jessica Kingsley.
11.
Cheetham, J. and N. Deakin (1997) ‘Assessing the Assessment: Some Reflections on the 1996 Higher Education Funding Council, Research Assessment Exercise’, British Journal of Social Work27: 435–442.
12.
Cheetham, J. , R. Fuller, G. McIvor and A. Petch (1992) Evaluating Social Work Effectiveness. Buckingham and Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
13.
Connell, J. , A. Kubisch, L. Schon and C. Weiss (eds) (1995) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods and Contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
14.
Connor, A. (1993) Monitoring and Evaluation Made Easy. London: HMSO.
15.
Everitt, A. and P. Hardiker (1996) Evaluating for Good Practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
16.
Fook, J. (ed.) (1996) The Reflective Social Worker, NSW: Allen and Unwin.
17.
Fuller, R. and A. Petch (1996) Practitioner Research: The Reflective Social Worker. Buckingham and Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
18.
Hess, P. and E. J. Mullen (eds) (1995) Practitioner–Researcher Partnerships: Building Knowledge from, in, and for Practice. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers Press.
19.
Hokenstad, M. C. , S. K. Khinduka and J. Midgley (1993) Profiles in International Social Work.Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers Press.
20.
Mullen, E. J. and J. Magnabosco (eds) (1997) Outcomes Measurement in the Human Services: Cross-cutting Issues and Methods. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers Press.
21.
National Science Board (1996) Science & Engineering Indicators (NSB 96–21). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
22.
Neill, J. and J. Williams (1992) Leaving Hospital: Elderly People and their Discharge to Community Care. London: HMSO.
23.
Nocon, A. and H. Qureshi (1996) Outcomes of Community Care for Users and Carers. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
24.
Philipson, J. and J. Williams (1995) Action on Hospital Discharge. London: National Institute for Social Work.
25.
Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith.
26.
Schon, D. (1995) ‘Reflective Inquiry in Social Work Practice’, in P. Hess and E. J. Mullen (eds) (1995) Practitioner–Researcher Partnerships: Building Knowledge from, in, and for Practice. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers Press.
27.
Scriven, M. (1998) ‘The New Science of Evaluation’, Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare7(2): forthcoming.
28.
SFR (1994) Projektkataloger: Rörande Beviljade Forskningsanslag 1991–94; Rörande Barn och Familj, Handikapp, Missbruk, Socialtjänst, Äldre, Stockholm.
29.
Shaw, I. (1996) Evaluating in Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.
30.
Shaw, I. (forthcoming) ‘Practising Evaluating’, in J. Cheetham and M. Kazi (eds) The Working of Social Work. London: Jessica Kingsley.
31.
SOU (1974) 1974: 39 Socialvården—Mål Och Medel. Principbetänkande av Socialutredningen. Stockholm.
32.
SOU (1994) 1994: 139 Ny Socialtjänstlag. Huvudbetänkande av Socialtjänstkommittén.Stockholm.
33.
Task Force on Social Work Research (1991)Building Social Work Knowledge for Effective Services and Policies. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers Press.
34.
Tengvald, K. (1995) Kompetens och Kunskapsutveckling. Bilaga 7 i SOU 1995: 5858.
35.
Tengvald, K. (1996) ’Developing Personal Social Services—the Need for User/Client Outcome oriented Assessments’. Paper presented at the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research Conference on Developing Quality in Personal Social Services, Helsinki.
36.
Zimbalist, S. E. (1977) Historic Themes and Landmarks in Social Welfare Research. New York: Harper and Row.
