Navigating the “crossroads”: Critical realism as the middle path in critical social work research

Abstract

Summary

This article navigates the critical crossroads facing contemporary social work, characterized by the schism between the “Empirical Highway” and “Postmodern/Critical Off-Ramp.” By exploring the evolution of scientific thought and its influence on social work—noting the adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, the article advocates for critical realism. This promising metatheory offers a “middle path,” avoiding the well-trodden routes of empirical rigidity and postmodern relativist turn. Critical realism elevates social work to its highest potential, harmonizing with the field's core values to catalyze profound transformation and fulfill its most ambitious ideals.

Findings

Critical realism synthesizes various research methods within a unified metatheoretical framework, effectively transcending traditional divides such as individual versus structural changes and quantitative versus qualitative methodologies. Rather than eclectically merging research paradigms, critical realism offers a distinctive perspective that acknowledges the inherent partiality and fallibility of all knowledge. This not only fosters collaboration across diverse research traditions but also significantly reshapes the worldview of social workers.

Applications

Adopting critical realism steers social work onto a transformative, emancipatory path, providing practitioners with tools to analyze and address both individual and structural realities. This approach champions high-impact research that is methodologically rigorous and aligned with social work's goals, focusing on actionable strategies to significantly improve the lives of equity-deserving groups by tackling the structural and underlying root causes of issues, not just effects. This ensures that social work research and practice drive meaningful and enduring policy and societal change.

Introduction: The crossroads

Social work stands at a pivotal crossroads, confronted with a moment of profound inflection that mirrors the transformative shifts of the late twentieth century (Allan et al., 2009; Delva & Abrams, 2022; Drake & Hodge, 2022). During this earlier period, the field, not unlike many other disciplines, gravitated toward theories, practices, and methodologies grounded in concrete, measurable evidence demonstrating the profession's effectiveness (Alderson, 2021; Mullaly, 2010). This evolution was driven by philosophical and paradigmatic shifts in academia and significant scientific and technological advancements that expanded research capabilities. More recently, these changes have been further cemented by public demands for enhanced accountability in governmental expenditures on health, social care, and community services—areas deeply intertwined with social work (Longo, 2017). This scrutiny emphasizes the desire for evidence-informed practices, ostensibly to safeguard the delivery of high-quality programs and services (Dietz, 2000; McNeece & Thyer, 2004; Rogowski, 2022).

The field's impasse reflects a profound ambivalence. On the one hand, there are both public and professional demands for the rigor of standardized measurements, which emphasize quantifiable data and tangible outcomes to assess changes and improvements over time. At the same time, there is a strong call for approaches that prioritize individuality, personalization, and the nuanced contexts of those served, employing methods that capture the rich lived experiences of individuals and recognize the human faces behind the numbers. This crossroads represents not merely a choice of methodologies but it embodies a deep philosophical challenge about the future trajectory of social work. As the field strives to address increasingly complex and multifaceted health and social issues, it must navigate these competing demands—balancing the push for empirical actions with the imperative to honor and integrate the personal stories and diverse voices of communities.

The dilemma, then, as framed by Drake and Hodge (2022) in their influential article, “Social Work at the Crossroads: The Empirical Highway or the Postmodern/Critical Off-Ramp?” involves a critical decision for social work. The authors employ the metaphor of the Empirical Highway and the Postmodern/Critical Off-Ramp to illustrate the divergent paths that social work research can take. The Empirical Highway represents the traditional route in social work, dominated by empirical and scientific methods that prioritize evidence-based practices, quantitative data, and measurable outcomes. This approach, akin to a well-traveled road, suggests a continuation of established methods that emphasize objectivity and replicability. Conversely, the Postmodern/Critical Off-Ramp symbolizes a significant departure from the main road. It represents the challenge of the foundational assumptions of empiricism, particularly the belief in an objective reality that can be fully comprehended through scientific methods. Instead, it underscores the socially constructed nature of knowledge, the power dynamics embedded in societal structures, and the significance of incorporating diverse, minoritized voices. This perspective advocates for a more reflective and critical examination of social issues, acknowledging and addressing systemic oppression and inequities.

The metaphor serves to underscore the tension between these two methodologies and a choice, as they attest, to continue the highway or take the off-ramp. This dichotomy not only reflects the dual potential of social work research to either reinforce existing power structures or challenge and transform them (Allan et al., 2009; Mullaly, 2010) but also reveals the limitations of a binary choice. While many other disciplines may comfortably progress along the empirical highway, social work faces unique challenges that render neither path—continuing straightforward nor diverting—ideal for its purposes. Instead, the field may find itself on a path to nowhere or veering toward a dead end (Delva & Abrams, 2022). This scenario underscores the risk of maintaining the status quo, which may inhibit the advancement and impact of social work research.

The central objective of this article is to resolve the ambivalence within social work, offering direction to move beyond the current impasse. To achieve this, the following sections will delve into how social work arrived at this crucial point, identifying the major influences shaping its path and proposing strategies for forward progression. The article is structured beginning with a retrospective analysis—the necessary examination of the development of scientific thought; then moves into a discussion on critical social work and high-impact research and, ultimately, proposes critical realist metatheory to move the field beyond traditional dichotomies. Critical realism advocates for a dialectical approach where various paradigms are not only more fully understood but also realized in their interrelationships. Importantly, critical realism does not merely merge, blend, or compromise among these perspectives.

The article initiates its discussion by examining the historical development of scientific paradigms, acknowledging that many are not familiar with the foundational narratives and forces that have sculpted contemporary research methodologies. This gap in knowledge affects how both established and emerging researchers discern quality in research and influences the criteria for evaluating what constitutes rigorous versus inadequate science. Likewise, this analysis elucidates the limitations inherent in the dominant dualistic framework and concurrently demonstrates how critical realism is adeptly suited to navigate the complexities of effective and meaningful critical social work research.

This historical grounding is not only essential but imperative as it provides social workers with critical insights that inform their daily practices and decision-making processes, enabling them to approach modern challenges with a well-informed perspective that appreciates the complexities of the profession's evolution. As a result, it emboldens readers not merely to take our assertions at face value but to engage critically and make informed decisions of their own. Embodying the adage that to navigate our future effectively, we must first thoroughly understand our past.

Rearview reflections: Understanding our scientific journey to navigate our future-forward

The evolution of scientific thought from the Renaissance through Postmodernity offers a crucial lens for understanding the ongoing debates in social work research regarding empirical versus postmodern/critical methodologies. The analysis presented in this section is informed by a synthesis of perspectives from numerous scholars whose work spans historical and contemporary insights. This includes, but is not limited to, the contributions of Alderson (2021), Allan et al. (2009), Bârsu (2017), Bates (1975), Bhaskar (2005, 2008), Corker and Shakespeare (2002), Drake and Hodge (2022), Freire (2000), Giddens (1990), Lorkowski and Pokorski (2022), Porpora (2015), and Thompson (2015). These references are consolidated here to streamline the narrative and minimize repetitive citations throughout the text.

The Renaissance, stretching from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century, marked a significant rebirth in European arts, culture, and intellectual pursuits. Figures such as Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo Galilei challenged the prevailing religious and philosophical orthodoxies, shifting the locus of knowledge control from the church to empirical and reasoned investigation. This movement laid the foundational groundwork for modern scientific inquiry. Following the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century introduced profound changes in the way humanity perceived the universe and its own place within it. This gave rise to the creation of new frameworks based on mathematical laws and empirical evidence. This period solidified the principles of the scientific method and rationality, further diminishing the role of the church in controlling scientific knowledge.

The Scientific Revolution established the foundations of what we recognize today as modern science, emphasizing observation, experimentation, and the questioning of established beliefs. The subsequent era of Modernity, commencing in the late seventeenth century, was marked by the rise of industrialization, secularization, rationalization, and the nation-state. This period championed reason, science, and objective knowledge, advancing the development of scientific disciplines through technological innovation and the institutionalization of science in universities and academies.

The Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason in the eighteenth century, placed emphasis on reason, analysis, and individualism over traditional authority lines. Philosophers such as Kant, Voltaire, and Rousseau discussed ideas related to freedom, democracy, and equality. They argued for the power of science to improve society and advocated for intellectual freedom from ecclesiastical and monarchical control. This era paved the way for revolutionary ideas in governance and human rights, solidifying the role of reason in human affairs.

In the mid-twentieth century, a fundamentally different intellectual tradition emerged in the form of Postmodernism, which evolved out of reactions to, and refutations of, the Enlightenment perspective. Characterized by skepticism, irony, and a rejection of grand narratives such as the linear progress of science and reason touted by modernity, Postmodernism foregrounds pluralism, relativism, and the notion that reality is socially constructed. This period marked a shift toward recognizing multiple viewpoints and critiquing the dominance of Western scientific methodologies. Proponents argued for the importance of exploring how minoritized knowledge systems, including Indigenous and Pagan knowledge, could offer valid perspectives. Notably, Postmodernism also emphasized the role of language and discourses in constructing social reality, highlighting the power dynamics that shape knowledge and its dissemination.

Integrating consciousness into the evolution of scientific thought

The development of ideas surrounding consciousness is particularly significant to the field, emerging as a response to the perceived limitations of methodologies fostered during the Scientific Revolution. While certain methods were deemed suitable for the natural sciences, they appeared markedly inadequate for the social sciences. This realization prompted a critical examination and expansion of these methods by theorists such as Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, and Paulo Freire. Karl Marx's concept of class consciousness was a critical response to the empirical methodologies prevalent at the time, which often failed to account for the social and economic disruptions spurred by industrialization and capitalism. Marx argued that the oppressed, due to their minoritized status, are uniquely equipped to recognize the oppressive mechanisms at play, a perspective often obscured by those in power.

This insight into the dynamics between the oppressor and oppressed underscored how perceptions shaped by one's social location can perpetuate systems of dominance and subjugation. Antonio Gramsci built on Marx's foundation by broadening the analysis to include cultural and ideological dimensions, introducing the concept of cultural hegemony. He illustrated how the ruling class extends its dominance not only through economic control but also through cultural and ideological influence, creating a consensus that normalizes and perpetuates the status quo.

Parallel to these developments, Freire critiqued traditional educational and social scientific methods through his concept of critical consciousness. Rooted in critical pedagogy, Freire's approach stressed the importance for the oppressed to gain a profound understanding of societal structures to expose the systemic deceptions concealing the true nature of their oppression. He advocated for an educational process that involves the oppressed actively engaging in questioning and transforming their social conditions.

An awareness of these foundational ideas is crucial, as it informs our comprehension of the broader implications of our methodologies as well as those employed by others. A concrete example is the concept of interest convergence. It illustrates that while certain policies may seem to advance social justice, they primarily benefit dominant groups, revealing that efforts intended to dismantle barriers might inadvertently reinforce them (Allan et al., 2009; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Rao, 2021). This underscores the imperative for social workers to critically examine both the underlying motives and the actual outcomes of actions purportedly aimed at aiding equity-deserving groups.

The historical trajectory of controlling knowledge—from the empirical rigor of the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution to the interpretative, critical perspectives emerging in Postmodernity—anchors the current debate in social work. This discussion is not merely about substituting statistics for stories but it delves into the significant contextual forces and philosophical underpinnings that shape perceptions, actions, and decision-making processes. Social workers are charged with actively educating and advocating—proselytizing—for a deeper understanding of systemic injustices and societal structures, both with their clients and within their own professional practices (Allan et al., 2009). This commitment demands more than a preference for certain research methods; it requires a dedicated engagement in transformative actions designed to challenge and dismantle the structures that perpetuate inequality and oppression.

While the narrative presented above might suggest a linear progression of scientific thought, it is crucial to recognize that these ideas are situated in a Euro-Western context and continue to evolve significantly. For instance, contemporary empiricism leverages prediction models, machine learning, and artificial intelligence that, while seemingly advanced, can inadvertently perpetuate inequities. Such models often operate under the guise of neutrality but can solidify existing biases, thereby harming rather than healing or liberating communities (Criado-Perez, 2019). This ongoing development and application underscore the need to critically assess and continually adapt our methodological approaches within social work. Now, the discussion transitions to the domain of critical social work anchored in this historical perspective. This shift mirrors the process of tracing one's genealogy, beginning with the ancestral generations and moving toward the immediate lineage. Analogously, just as understanding one's familial history provides insights into personal identity and life choices, grasping the evolution of the field is crucial for informing the development and direction of social work.

The emergence of critical social work: The Richmond–Addams divide

The discipline of social work is inherently complex and resists precise definitions. Although it is often encapsulated by overarching statements, the practical interpretation and application of these statements vary widely across the diverse settings in which social workers operate (Allan et al., 2009; Delva & Abrams, 2022). The field has also been characterized by a dichotomy between approaches focused on individual issues and those advocating for systemic reform. These splits underscore the multifaceted nature of social work, reflecting the broad spectrum of methodologies and ideologies that influence practice across different contexts.

Early twentieth-century figures Richmond and Addams epitomized this divide. Richmond's casework method emphasized modifying individual behaviors to fit societal norms, whereas Addams championed structural reforms such as minimum wage laws and child labor abolition to address the root causes of community issues. This ideological distinction highlighted a fundamental issue in social work regarding whether the focus should be on individual adaptation or on transforming societal structures (Allan et al., 2009).

Allan et al. (2009), Campbell and Baikie (2012), and Mullaly (2010) detail that the 1970s marked a pivotal era with the rise of a radical approach to social work, especially in North America and the Commonwealth countries. Influenced by Marxism and antipsychiatry, this movement critiqued traditional social work for perpetuating social control and upholding the status quo by blaming individual shortcomings for systemic failures. Traditional social workers were seen as “double agents” who, while serving clients, also maintained existing power structures by not challenging deeper societal issues. The radicals advocated for a paradigm that connected individual adversities with broader socioeconomic policies and pushed for significant structural changes. However, this focus was sometimes at the expense of addressing the immediate and personal needs of clients.

Responding to these critiques, the late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed the emergence of critical social work, which synthesized elements from feminist, socialist, and antioppressive ideologies. This approach critiqued both traditional and radical social work for their limitations, proposing a dual-focus strategy that addressed both individual needs and systemic challenges. Critical social work emphasizes the importance of understanding personal issues within a broader socioeconomic context and advocates for structural changes to resolve these issues.

Critical social work also scrutinizes conventional practices for the unrecognized power dynamics between social workers and clients, as well as the professional ideology that positions social workers in control over their clients. It advocates for a shift from viewing problems through the lens of individual pathology to understanding them as manifestations of oppression and inequality. Strategies such as consciousness-raising are employed to liberate clients by illuminating the structural origins of their personal difficulties and encouraging their participation in societal transformation.

The core assumptions of critical social work include the belief that domination is structurally instituted but personally experienced. It rejects fatalism, emphasizing that even seemingly powerless individuals can initiate personal and societal changes. Critical social work practices involve deconstructing dominant power structures, challenging established discourses, and fostering the development of new knowledge and systems that promote equity. Over the decades, critical social work has integrated modernist and postmodernist ideas, recognizing diverse sources of power and oppression. It now encompasses antiracist, culturally affirming, antioppressive, anticolonial, feminist, and structural approaches that aim for social change at both individual and societal levels (Allan et al., 2009; Campbell & Baikie, 2012; Mullaly, 2010).

Despite these advancements, critical social work faces ongoing criticism for potentially prioritizing collective action at the expense of individual client needs and maintaining a Western-centric approach that may not adequately address global injustices. However, it continues to contribute significantly to the social work field and to societal equity and justice. Critical social work serves as an integrative framework that reconciles individual-centric and structure-centric perspectives within the field. Having explored the prevailing divides, dualisms, and tensions in social work, informed by an understanding of the historical evolution of accepted scientific principles, the article now synthesizes these concepts in an examination of high-impact research. This segment is crucial for advancing the aims of critical social work, ensuring that research methodologies are not merely reflective of current practices but also transformative, actively contributing to the field's future direction.

The intentional focus on defining high-impact research in this article complements the earlier discussions on the history and conceptual foundations of critical social work. This focus underscores the essential task of critically examining our research practices and the assumptions they are built upon. Critical consciousness, fundamental to critical social work, exposes the often-overlooked limitations and biases in traditional research methods, prompting a reassessment of how research aligns with the transformative objectives of the field. This next section highlights the importance and necessity of high-impact research, which transcends mere academic accolades or conventional metrics, aiming instead to produce knowledge that fosters emancipatory societal change. Understanding the full scope and implications of high-impact research is crucial for making informed decisions among competing research paradigms—the empirical highway, the theoretical off-ramp, and the critical realist middle path.

High-impact research

It is evident the dominant scientific norms in social work research have been profoundly influenced by Enlightenment ideals, which have shaped what is conventionally recognized as rigorous and credible science. These norms have become synonymous with conceptions of “research.” Itself. However, the perception of “normal” in this context often emerges not from inherent correctness but from repeated practices that foster familiarity, acceptance, and ubiquity. Over time, these norms and ideas about science and research in social work, strategically embedded in discourse, become integrated into mainstream or common thinking, often without sufficient scrutiny. Although science is praised for its self-correcting nature, the process of rectifying these misapplications has frequently been delayed and inadequate.

To effectively address society's pressing needs, high-impact research in social work must extend beyond traditional metrics such as citations or journal prestige. Although recognition in high-impact journals enhances research visibility, it is crucial to critically assess the broader social dynamics of knowledge creation. Drawing from Delva and Abrams (2022), two prolific social work scholars, high-impact research is distinguished by its capacity to generate actionable strategies that significantly improve the lives of minoritized and oppressed populations. They opine that it extends beyond the scope of implementation science, which is primarily defined by its focus on translating health research findings into practical applications in clinical and public health settings. Instead, high-impact research should tackle the root causes of pervasive issues rather than merely addressing the symptoms. This expanded focus necessitates a reappraisal of prevailing research methodologies that may restrict social workers to the role of technicians rather than emboldening them as agents of broad-based change.

Delva and Abrams (2022) highlight the growing acceptance of postmodern and critical theories within social work, acknowledging that while the field may not entirely abandon its deep-rooted empirical methodologies, a synthesis of these perspectives could significantly enhance practice. However, they contend that integrating these methods remains impractical, given their divergent ontological and epistemological foundations. This sets the stage for the introduction of, and need for, critical realism, a distinct metatheory that transcends the conventional dichotomies of research. Critical realism, grounded in a robust ontological framework, offers an alternative that appreciates the strengths of both empirical and postmodern/critical methodologies without merely blending them. In the following sections, this article will delve into how critical realism can provide a comprehensive approach, harnessing the best aspects of these methodologies to address and engage with the complexities of human experiences and social justice more effectively.

Crossing the divide: Critical realism as the middle path in unifying critical social work research

The dichotomy between the empirical highway and the postmodern off-ramp in social work research is emblematic of the broader paradigm wars that have long permeated the academic landscape (Bryman, 2006; Guba & Lincoln, 2005). This bifurcation reflects deep-seated philosophical divides that challenge the integration of vastly different research paradigms. The emergence of mixed methods research represents an attempt to bridge the divide between qualitative and quantitative paradigms, once seen as a potential resolution to the paradigm wars. This approach aims to integrate the strengths of both methodologies. However, it has faced substantial critique (Creswell, 2011; Giddings & Grant, 2007). Critics contend that mixed methods research can adopt an “anything goes” philosophy, leading to a mishmash of conflicting assumptions. Such eclecticism can result in what some scholars describe as incommensurate and sloppy science, where crucial philosophical underpinnings are often overlooked.

Miles and Huberman's (1994) proclamation that “epistemological purity doesn’t get research done” (p. 21) captures a pragmatic approach widely embraced within the mixed methods research community. This view is supported by Maxwell (2013) and Bryman (2006), who argue that strict adherence to paradigmatic considerations is both impractical and unnecessary following the so-called end of the paradigm wars. The emergence and critique of mixed methods research underscore the challenges of integrating these disparate approaches. Eminent scholars like Guba (1990) have argued vehemently against the possibility of reconciling these paradigms, suggesting that “accommodation between paradigms is impossible… We are led to vastly diverse, disparate, and totally antithetical ends” (p. 81). This assertion underscores the profound epistemological and ontological differences that define each paradigm, which are often seen as mutually exclusive or contradictory.

The issue at hand is not merely about methodological choice but about the philosophical integrity of the research process. Guba and Lincoln (2005) emphasize that a paradigm is not just a set of methodological preferences but a comprehensive worldview that guides the researcher's entire approach, including ontological and epistemological commitments. The failure to adequately address these foundational aspects can undermine the quality and validity of research findings. Indeed, such dismissals can oversimplify the complex interplay of methodological considerations that are crucial for high-impact social work research.

Critical realism: The possibility of paradigmatic peace

To date, we have faced a binary choice in social work research: either maintain distinct and opposing stances or disregard fundamental differences to amalgamate methodologies in a seemingly arbitrary manner in the name of advancing science. Neither approach meets the benchmark of high-impact research we aspire to, as both lack the necessary depth and comprehensiveness to effectively address complex social issues. This is the critical juncture—the very heart of the dilemma. Critical realism offers a middle path, opening possibilities for future directions. Through ontology, critical realism enables closer collaboration between the empirical and the postmodern/critical (Edwards et al., 2014). Instead of dichotomies, critical realism promotes dialectics (Alderson, 2021; Roberts, 2014; Sayer, 2000). Different paradigms are more fully understood and realized in a dialectical relationship; instead of being seen as self-sufficient, they are understood to be useful but incomplete, complementary, and partly in contradiction (Alderson, 2021; Archer et al., 2013; Bhaskar, 2005, 2008, 2009b).

Given the importance of this concept and recognizing that some readers may not be familiar with its philosophical origins, it is essential to briefly elaborate. In the context of critical realism, the term dialectic refers to the dynamic interaction and resolution of contradictions within a given system. This dialectical approach is fundamental to understanding the complexity and transformative potential of social phenomena as it emphasizes the process through which contradictions within social structures and human agency interact to produce new states or conditions.

Critical realism posits that social reality is shaped by a series of interactions between opposing forces, which often exist in a state of contradiction. These contradictions are not static or binary but are part of a continuous process of synthesis, where conflicting elements interact to create new forms or states. This process is crucial for understanding how change occurs within social systems—systems in which social workers are situated—and is a core aspect of critical realism's approach to social science.

As such, critical realism does not simply merge, blend, or compromise perspectives. Critical realism represents its own standpoint. It argues that all theories about the world are grounded in a particular perspective and worldview, and all knowledge is partial, incomplete, and fallible, thus accepting the possibility of valid alternative accounts of any phenomenon (Gorski, 2013; Sayer, 2000). Critical realist ontology acknowledges the methodological characteristics of both qualitative and quantitative research and can facilitate communication and cooperation between the two. Thus, it provides a philosophical stance that is compatible with elements of the empirical highway and the postmodern/critical off-ramp (Bhaskar, 2005; Crossley & Edwards, 2016; Mukumbang, 2021).

The conceptualizations of critical realism in this article are largely based on the writings of Bhaskar (2005, 2008, 2009a, 2009b). In contrast to other versions of realism, while bearing some similarities, they diverge considerably (Maxwell, 2012). The quintessential aspect of Bhaskarian critical realism, specifically relevant in high-impact critical social work research, is its doctrine that social research must be for human emancipation (Allan et al., 2009; Bhaskar, 2009b). Critical realism seeks understanding beyond the description of phenomena; instead, it is concerned with an explanation of phenomena and aspires to uncover the underlying generative mechanisms that manifest the problem under study, thus permitting social change (Alderson, 2021; Bhaskar & Hartwig, 2010; Gorski, 2013; Sayer, 2000).

Critical realism is a philosophy of science, a metatheory, which equates to a set of presuppositions about the nature of the world and knowledge (Bhaskar, 2008). Implicitly or explicitly, metatheory informs what you do, see, and the types of possible obtainable knowledge (Bhaskar & Danermark, 2006; Bryman, 2006; Mingers, 2000; Wynn & Williams, 2020). A metatheory overlaps with the term paradigm (Bates, 2005). Kuhn considered a paradigm to be the metatheory, the theory, the methodology, and the ethos, all combined. Therefore, a paradigm would have a broader meaning than a metatheory. At the same time, metatheory is core to any paradigm and is defining of a paradigm (Bates, 2005).

Critical realism provides a framework to examine complex issues through the three levels of reality. Referred to in the literature as stratified or depth ontology, critical realism makes a distinction between the empirical, the actual, and the real (Houston, 2010; Vincent & O’Mahoney, 2018), attempting to explain the relationship between social structure and human action (Porter, 1993), or in the case of the Richmond–Addams divide, the individual and the structural. The empirical level consists of experienced events, the actual level comprises all events, whether experienced or not, and the real level embraces the unseen mechanisms that generate events (Houston, 2010; Porter, 1993; Schiller, 2016). Critical realism is increasingly viewed as having the unique potential to effectively frame, identify, and understand complex phenomena—particularly those encountered in critical social work, which often presents some of the most intricate challenges (Schiller, 2016; Walsh & Evans, 2014).

It can enable this by examining how human agency, including individuals’ choices, meanings, understandings, reasons, creative endeavors, intentions and motivations, interacts with the enabling and constraining effects of social structures, such as social rules, enduring patterns in society, and “norms” (Amundson, 2000; Archer et al., 2013; Bhaskar, 2005, 2008; Gorski, 2013). Critical realism argues that understanding social phenomena requires comprehension of the interplay between these two central spheres (Bhaskar, 2005, 2008). For critical realism, the world is real; that is, there are real social structures, and yet individuals apply their social constructions and their meaning-making activity to their experience when confronted by these structures (Archer et al., 2013).

Critical realism describes the real intransitive world and a transitive representation of that world through the perceptions and theories we develop about it. A helpful metaphor, a map is not the territory it represents but provides a sense of the terrain. As our theories and perceptions become more sophisticated over time, the transitive view becomes closer to the intransitive world, though it will never be in direct correspondence. Rather, a more refined coherence develops as theory and analysis become more attuned to reality (Houston, 2005; Porter, 1993).

The critical realist holy trinity (Alderson, 2021; Bhaskar, 2005, 2008; Maxwell, 2012) is ontological realism: being is real, and the world exists and acts independently of our knowledge of it; epistemological relativism: knowledge is socially produced under specific social and linguistic conditions and is therefore changeable and fallible; and, judgemental rationality: it is possible to arrive at decisions between relative and competing beliefs or theories because not all interpretations are epistemically or morally equal and there can be rational grounds for preferring one to another. Stutchbury (2022) highlights the “critical” in critical realism, asserting that researchers must be critical of the theories they use and the explanations they propose. This metatheory aligns seamlessly with both critical social work and high-impact research, as it aims to drive transformative changes in the world, echoing the emancipatory ambitions prevalent in the discussions above (Houston, 2005; Watts & Hodgson, 2019; Williams, 2003).

The critical realist advantage offered to the current empirical highway/postmodern debate is facilitated by critical methodological pluralism with intensive and extensive research designs (Alderson, 2021; Bhaskar, 2005, 2008; Edwards et al., 2014; Zachariadis et al., 2013). Critical methodological pluralism is the theories, concepts, and assumptions that determine a conscious choice of design and methods, recognizing that all methods are not equally suitable (Bhaskar, 2005, 2008; Edwards et al., 2014; Zachariadis et al., 2013). Critical realist ontology and stratified reality require different methods to explore different features of a phenomenon.

It may be helpful here to draw upon Giddings and Grant (2007) to further clarify the distinction between methodology and methods. Methodology encompasses the theoretical assumptions and values that underpin a specific research approach and are inherently tied to a particular paradigm. In contrast, methods are the practical tools employed for data collection and analysis and are typically a-paradigmatic. The confusion between these two concepts and the resultant paradigmatic crossing without careful consideration can lead to methodological inconsistencies and a lack of coherence in research studies.

Additionally, as the name suggests, critical methodological pluralism is critical, first in the sense that it opposes an unreflecting use of methods. Second, the methodological approach is founded on critical realism's conception of ontology (Bhaskar, 2005; Khazem, 2018). While critical realism states that combining methods in practical research is beneficial and necessary, it admonishes methodological relativism (Bhaskar, 2005). All methods are not considered equally suitable for which the foundation of suitability is in the relationship between metatheory and method (Bhaskar, 2005), thus identifying the limitation in current dichotomous debates as argued in detail above. The risk in methodological relativism is that conclusions may be inappropriately drawn from applying a particular method separate from a clear ontological base (Bhaskar, 2005). Despite researchers’ desires for a strictly pragmatic attitude to research practice, critical realism is adamant that the ontological is inescapable (Alderson, 2021; Bhaskar, 2005, 2008; Elder-Vass, 2022; Sayer, 2000).

The choice of method in critical realism typically rests on the distinction between extensive and intensive research designs. Extensive research searches for large numbers of observations that can identify significant relationships and is used primarily for descriptive or taxonomic purposes such that quantitative data are appropriate (Bhaskar, 2005, 2008; Edwards et al., 2014). Intensive methods, however, are concerned with causality—the nature of objects, which determines what a certain object can and cannot do (Bhaskar, 2005, 2008; Edwards et al., 2014) and what makes things happen in specific circumstances—intricacies of context, time and space, through examining the qualitative nature of phenomena (Ackroyd & Karlsson, 2014; Bhaskar, 2005; Edwards et al., 2014; Zachariadis et al., 2013).

Given the complexity of social work issues, it is challenging to study many cases, often forcing researchers to limit themselves to studying fewer cases more intensively. However, investigating how a mechanism works in a concrete situation involves tracing the causal power and describing the interaction between powers that produces a social phenomenon. As such, it becomes useful to discover how common a phenomenon is, considered in critical realism as “demi-regularities” (Ackroyd & Karlsson, 2014; Bhaskar, 2005; Edwards et al., 2014; Zachariadis et al., 2013). Mixing methods, not paradigms, allows for a more comprehensive understanding of complex social issues, helping to uncover underlying mechanisms and enhance explanatory power. By combining quantitative data with qualitative insights, critical social work researchers can conduct high-impact research to better address the diverse and intersecting factors that contribute to social inequality and injustice.

Critical Realism is particularly potent in its capacity to analyze, clarify, expand, validate, and justify theories pertinent to social work research. It equips scholars with a diverse array of tools, concepts, and theories, facilitating a deeper understanding of the social world and enhancing the efficacy of interventions aimed at addressing complex social issues (Alderson, 2021; Houston, 2010; Pilgrim, 2017; Porter, 1993). Most crucially, Critical Realism aligns with Karl Marx's assertion that the true challenge is not merely to interpret the world but to change it (Alderson, 2021; Engels et al., 2009). Thus, critical realism not only informs but also emboldens researchers to enact real-world changes, advocating for a research paradigm that prioritizes societal transformation over mere theoretical advancement.

This manuscript, while methodological and conceptual in nature, acknowledges the inherent irony that critical realism, fundamentally concerned with societal change, is here discussed primarily in theoretical terms. This focus may seem contradictory given critical realism's emphasis on practical impact beyond theoretical development. Nevertheless, the theoretical insights presented are vital for refining our approaches to achieve high-impact research. However, to bridge the gap between theory and practice and to highlight the real-world implications that are central to social work and critical realism, we provide three practical examples from published research in areas of interest to social workers below.

Example 1: Addressing racism in healthcare settings

Research conducted by Porter (1993) investigated the impact of racism on patient outcomes within healthcare settings to uncover how racial biases affect interactions between providers and patients, ultimately influencing patient care and health outcomes. Using a critical realist framework, researchers adopted a stratified view of reality. They examined not just the empirical data of patient complaints and provider attitudes but also actual discriminatory practices and the underlying institutional and social structures that enable these practices.

Through critical realism, the study identified specific institutional policies and prevailing cultural attitudes that perpetuated discriminatory behaviors. This approach allowed researchers to use abductive reasoning (the process of proposing plausible explanations for observed phenomena) to propose explanations for the persistence of racial disparities in health outcomes despite policies promoting equal treatment. Retroductive reasoning (a form of logical inference that seeks to identify the underlying mechanisms or conditions necessary for the observed phenomena to occur) helped infer necessary conditions for reducing these disparities, such as implementing implicit bias training and comprehensive policy reforms. The study's outcomes provided foundational insights for actionable strategies aimed at systemic change, including amending policies, modifying training programs, and shifting organizational cultures to enhance health equity. This case demonstrates how critical realism's deep analysis of the hidden structural racism, veiled behind professionalism, reveals the dynamics that either empirical or postmodern/critical approaches might miss.

Example 2: Neonatal intensive care in Mexico

This study conducted by Mendizabal-Espinosa (2017) applying critical realism, explored how socioeconomic conditions and healthcare policies influenced neonatal care practices and outcomes in Mexico. Researchers investigated the effects of resource allocation, healthcare policy frameworks, and staff training on care provided in neonatal units, revealing deep-seated structural issues that impact medical practice and outcomes. Critical realism enabled the identification of discrepancies in resource allocation and policy implementation that contributed to varying care standards across regions.

By involving healthcare professionals and families in identifying issues and cocreating solutions, the study emphasized the critical realism tenet of agency within structural constraints. It led to targeted recommendations for policy adjustments and resource distribution tailored to the needs of neonatal units, especially in underresourced areas. This approach facilitated improvements in neonatal health outcomes, showcasing the transformative potential of critical realism in addressing the root causes of disparities in healthcare. The critical insights from this study included uncovering that the bans on family visits, intended as infection control measures, were actually counterproductive. In reality, families were often not the source of infections, which were instead linked to practices within the hospital such as spiritual anointing by the priests, that were integral, yet overlooked within the clinical settings.

Example 3: Impact of agricultural policy changes on farm women in Saskatchewan

This research conducted by Fletcher (2017) scrutinized the impact of major agricultural policy changes on farm women in the Canadian prairie province of Saskatchewan. Employing a critical realist framework, the study explored how shifts in policy, specifically the elimination of the Crow Rate and the introduction of Plant Breeders’ Rights, influenced the economic and social conditions of rural life. Researchers employed critical realism to dissect not just the empirical data such as changes in farm size and income but also to delve into the actual experiences of farm women and the real, structural forces shaping these experiences.

Through critical realism, the study identified deep causal mechanisms such as gender ideology at the household and farm level, and the corporatization of Canadian agriculture more generally. This approach facilitated an understanding of how these mechanisms influenced women's roles on farms, affecting their work patterns and life choices. By using retroduction, researchers could trace how farm women's increasing off-farm work was not merely a choice but a complex response to economic pressures and gender expectations, shaped by broader political–economic forces.

The study's findings underscored the need for policy adjustments that consider both the economic and gendered dimensions of agriculture. It provided actionable insights aimed at enhancing equity and sustainability in farming practices, demonstrating how critical realism's methodological depth can reveal the intersections of structure, agency, and gender in agricultural contexts. This example highlights how critical realism can be applied to unpack the complex interplay of policy, economy, and gender, offering nuanced insights that could inform more equitable agricultural policies. While other studies may collect both quantitative and qualitative data, critical realism, through its metatheory and critical methodological pluralism, facilitates a dialogue between diverse data types to explore and explain different elements of phenomena more comprehensively.

These studies exemplify the profound capabilities of critical realism to unveil the deeper, often obscured dynamics that shape social phenomena. The first example explores how structural racism in healthcare settings, disguised by professional norms, perpetuates disparities in patient outcomes. By employing critical realism, researchers were able to discern underlying institutional biases and propose actionable reforms that target the roots of racial discrimination. The second example delves into neonatal care in Mexico, where critical realism helped reveal that policies intended to control infections were counterproductive, as the actual source of infections was often overlooked clinical practices, not family visits. This insight led to significant policy revisions that improved neonatal care standards, particularly in underresourced regions. The third case, focusing on the impact of agricultural policy changes on farm women in Saskatchewan, utilized critical realism to identify the economic pressures and gender expectations that shape women's roles on farms. This analysis informed targeted interventions that addressed both gender and economic inequalities in agricultural practices. By challenging and transforming the underlying mechanisms rather than merely addressing symptoms, critical realism equips social workers with the tools to develop interventions that are transformative, proactive, and sustainable.

A solution to the debate? Evaluating critical realism as a middle path

It is worth noting critical realism has not been universally accepted as a foundational approach across the spectrum of philosophers or social scientists (Kemp, 2005; Magill, 1994; Zhang, 2023). For example, Pawson (2013) calls critical realism “a parody of science and yet another grab for the totalizing explanatory systems for which vainglorious social science has an insatiable appetite” (p. 71). Other scholars have criticized critical realism for its insistence on transcendental arguments, its definitions of structure and causality, and its commitment to fallibilism—both in taking a fallibilist position and not being fallibilist enough (Alderson, 2021). Critical realism is often dismissed as too dense, impenetrable (Stutchbury, 2022), and jargon-laden to have value. Bhaskar's work is challenging; however, the specific terms are not in vain as they identify and clarify unique concepts for a more profound understanding of research phenomena (Allan et al., 2009).

Another criticism of critical realism is its inability to make predictions (Alderson, 2021; Magill, 1994; Porpora, 2015). Critical realists believe such criticism reveals a perspective that reduces the complexity of social reality in which social work researchers are situated (Archer et al., 2013; Bhaskar, 2005, 2008). High-impact critical social work research is concerned with very complex matters, as many mechanisms are constantly active (Blom & Morén, 2011; Morén & Blom, 2003). Critical realism cannot predict occurrences or anticipate situations; reality is too complex, but it can provide insight into the mechanisms and tendencies that make things happen in society (Pilgrim, 2019). Critical realism's explanatory power is significant even if it cannot predict concrete events (Alderson, 2021).

Bhaskar himself did not declare critical realism to be a universal solution, appreciating that explanation is not the purpose of every scientific study. In specific contexts, he contends, it may be highly satisfactory to describe, count, survey, or interpret the phenomena of interest (Alderson, 2021; Archer et al., 2013; Bhaskar, 2005, 2008). There have been numerous critical social work research studies consisting of describing, counting, surveying, and interpreting; however, this is not where the inflection point exists, the crux of the debate, or where problems for minoritized populations persist. Perhaps determining causal conditions or causal relations underlying various social issues may provoke new scientific explanations (Gorski, 2013; Karadzhov, 2021). Moreover, for critical social work research, it is necessary to adopt such approaches if the goal is social justice and social change (Alderson, 2021; Bhaskar, 2009b; Mertens, 2013; Stutchbury, 2022). Knowing the underlying factors of certain events enables us to intervene more effectively, guiding these events toward justice and achieving the goals of high-impact research.

Critical realism, as articulated by Bhaskar, serves as a compelling under-laborer's device. This notion, originally introduced by John Locke, is expanded by Bhaskar to signify the role of critical realism in dispelling conceptual ambiguities and laying a solid ontological groundwork (Alderson, 2021; Bhaskar, 2005, 2008). Through this lens, Bhaskar envisions critical realism as a foundational tool that meticulously clears the debris of confusion, enabling a clearer path for theoretical understanding and application.

Critical realism can assist critical social work researchers in distinguishing between what exists (ontology) and how we come to know it (epistemology). This distinction is crucial in high-impact critical social work research, where understanding the underlying mechanisms and structures that generate observable social phenomena can lead to more effective interventions. Furthermore, critical realism supports emancipatory practices by recognizing the reality of social structures and their causal powers, thereby enabling a deeper analysis of social injustices and informing efforts to transform oppressive systems (Houston, 2010).

Critical realists maintain that there is the possibility of improving the human condition by explaining social relations and structures more adequately. In order to emancipate, we must do more than identify or describe the disempowered. Collier (2013) explains:

When it is just a set of false beliefs that enslaves, their replacement by true beliefs is liberation. But the vast bulk of human bondage, misery and repression is not like that. The extension of emancipatory critique from cognitive error to unsatisfied needs makes it clear that false belief is not the only chain that binds us…unemployed workers, homeless families, bullied wives, tortured prisoners, may all know exactly what would make them free, but lack the power to get it…Hence cognitive enlightenment is a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition of their emancipation. (p. 461)

Critical realism strengthens high-impact critical social work research by emphasizing ontology and the philosophy of science. It questions whose reality is prioritized and how the integration of diverse methods—critical methodological pluralism—can deepen our understanding of various dimensions of reality. This approach also tackles epistemological issues concerning the dynamics between researchers and communities, such as facilitating forming partnerships and building trust (Farias et al., 2017; Mertens, 2011; Sweetman et al., 2010). Willig (1998) argues that neglecting to act on the insights gained from analysis constitutes a politically motivated choice, emphasizing that enlightenment entails responsibility. Thus, researchers in critical realism are tasked with acknowledging and challenging societal inequalities and injustices, aiming to transform the status quo (Collier, 2013).

In 1944, Albert Einstein received a letter from Robert Thornton, a young African-American who had just finished his Ph.D. He had written to solicit from Einstein a few supportive words on behalf of his efforts to introduce “as much of the philosophy of science as possible.” This is what Einstein offered in reply:

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Howard & Giovanelli, 2019, para.3)

Conclusion

This article has aimed to address the prevailing ambivalence within social work by advocating for a move beyond the current impasse. By examining the deep crossroads facing the field—marked by the juxtaposition of the empirical highway and the postmodern/critical off-ramp—we have highlighted the necessity for a metatheoretical framework that transcends traditional dichotomies. Critical realism, with its foundation in dialectical synthesis and profound ontological depth, emerges as a potent solution. Our analysis has shown that critical realism does not simply merge existing paradigms; rather, it offers a radical reconceptualization of how social work research and practice can be approached. This framework allows for the effective integration of quantitative precision and qualitative depth, addressing the intricate and interconnected challenges of contemporary social issues. It fosters a nuanced understanding of social phenomena, leveraging the collective strengths of various paradigms to drive meaningful change.

The implementation of critical realism in social work research provides a robust base for generating high-impact research that is academically rigorous and practically relevant. Critical realist metatheory promotes a reflective and inclusive methodology, sensitive to the diverse realities of individuals and the structural dynamics that influence them. In turn, this equips social workers with the necessary tools to advocate for and effect transformative changes, underpinned by a comprehensive understanding of the underlying dynamics at play.

As the field of social work evolves in response to shifting societal needs and complexities, critical realism presents a promising pathway forward. However, it is important to acknowledge that critical realism is not a perfect solution but it recognizes its own fallibility and the inherent limitations of any approach. This recognition is crucial as it tempers expectations and underscores the ongoing need for critical reflection and adaptation. By embracing critical realism, we draw on the rich historical lessons that warn against repeating past mistakes, enabling us to forge a future where social work not only addresses but transcends its traditional divides.