Emancipatory research in social work: What does critical realism offer?

Abstract

Summary

Critical realism offers a promising philosophical framework for emancipatory research in social work. Emancipatory research recognizes that people experience multiple realities and necessitates an inclusive participatory approach. However, these experiences are shaped by powers inherent in objectively existing structures, systems, and processes that must be identified and addressed for true emancipation. This theoretical article suggests a critical realism-informed methodology for emancipatory social work research.

Findings

The critical realist framework acknowledges a stratified ontology and relativist epistemology that recognizes both subjective experiences and objective structures, bridging the subject–object binary created by objectivist and constructivist approaches. This allows for a radical shift in the way social work researchers conduct research. For example, using critical realist retroductive analysis, researchers can examine both subjective experiences and objective causal powers through conventional qualitative methods, an approach traditionally considered unsuitable for exploring causal mechanisms. This approach allows researchers to uncover deep causal mechanisms and the empirical experience they generate.

Applications

Social work researchers aiming to conduct emancipatory research and explore the impact of objectively existing structures, systems, and processes on individual experiences require a philosophical and methodological framework that recognizes and acknowledges both experienced realities and the underlying causal mechanisms. A critical realism-informed methodology facilitates this dual recognition, providing a robust philosophical foundation for research. A case study of critical realism-informed research conducted in New Zealand demonstrates how data from conventional qualitative methods enabled an understanding of experiential realities and their causal mechanisms.

Introduction

Social science researchers often grapple with selecting an appropriate methodology, owing to ontological and epistemological considerations. In this article we argue that critical realism offers a comprehensive philosophical framework for informing social work research by presenting a stratified ontology and subjectivist epistemology. We will clarify these concepts and explain how researchers can employ critical realism-informed research to develop a more nuanced understanding of social phenomena for working toward meaningful social change and lasting emancipation.

Literature on emancipatory research mostly focuses on the respectful relationship between researchers and the researched, suggesting researchers be sensitive to the multiple realities that people experience (Nkoane, 2012; Noel, 2016). However, a missing point is what causes people's experiential realities. Examining the generative mechanisms and their potential to produce multiple experiential realities for people within a connected but stratified ontological context is crucial to bring about lasting social change. However, this is largely absent in the current discussions on emancipatory research. This is a significant gap in knowledge that this article addresses. Critical realism's acknowledgment of a stratified reality offers scope for addressing social injustice by recognizing generative mechanisms inherent in social structures (i.e., real reality) that drive the manifestation of experiential realities (i.e., empirical reality) (Bhaskar, 1975).

The usefulness of critical realist perspectives for social work has been extensively discussed (Craig & Bigby, 2015; Houston, 2001, 2010, 2023; Houston & Swords, 2021; Oliver, 2011; Park & Peter, 2022; Peter et al., 2023; Peter & Park, 2018). Houston (2023) discussed the emancipatory potential of critical realism, which can bring transformational change in social work. We build on this understanding and examine the emancipatory potential of critical realism in relation to research methodologies in social work. A critical realist framework can be integral to emancipatory research, helping to understand and address structures, systems, or social processes associated with class, caste, race, gender, disability, age, and sexuality, for progressive social work practice aimed at social transformation.

Critical realism's emancipatory potential can contribute to radical practices within anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory approaches (Houston, 2010), which are both concerned with unjust, oppressive, and exploitative structures. Strier (2007), while explicating the emancipatory potential of anti-oppressive research, highlighted the need to liberate social work research from reproducing structural conditions that generate oppression. He proposed methodological considerations that reject dominant traditions, advocating for a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to address both objective structural aspects and subjective phenomenological dimensions. We build on this proposal; however, we argue that a simple mixing of quantitative and qualitative methodologies can be seen as maintaining the binaries created by objectivist and constructivist ontologies, as well as positivist and interpretivist epistemologies. Critical realism-informed research overcomes this binary by presenting a stratified reality as well as a subjectivist epistemology (Park & Peter, 2022; Peter et al., 2023).

In comparison to positivism and constructivism, critical realism provides a reasoned philosophical approach to ontological and epistemological understanding. Critical realism-informed research recognizes that objectivist (positivist) and subjectivist (constructivist) frameworks are subject to what Bhaskar (1998) identified as an epistemic fallacy, where the nature of reality is reduced to human knowledge. Positivism acknowledges the existence of an objective reality independent of human beliefs and constructions but limit it to what can be empirically studied (Peter & Park, 2018). Constructivism denies objective reality, positing that reality is entirely constructed through and within human discourse or knowledge (Peter & Park, 2018). However, both approaches reduce reality to our knowledge of it. In critical realism, we approach real reality, though never fully capture it. Bhaskar (1998) noted that both positivism and constructivism collapse ontology into epistemology, which has implications for research.

Research methods are typically associated with either quantitative or qualitative methodologies, each reflecting specific ontological and epistemological positions. In other words, research methods are often seen as demonstrating allegiance to certain ontological claims. Researchers employ a qualitative or quantitative methodology based on their philosophical stance, aligning with a theoretical framework such as positivism or interpretivism respectively; and employ research methods and tools consistent with the chosen approach. With the introduction of critical realism, researchers have another philosophical stance that goes beyond the binaries created by positivism and interpretivism.

Mixed methodology is a strategy that many researchers employ to go beyond the binaries created by positivism and interpretivism. However, the terrain of mixed methodology is complex due to myriad views on the concept and various forms or types existing in this field. Numerous terms, such as blended research, integrative research, multimethod research, multiple methods, triangulated studies, and mixed research, reflect the different conceptualizations of mixed methodology (see Johnson et al., 2007). However, critical realism-informed research may reduce the need for creating numerous types or forms of mixed-methods approaches because its ontological and epistemological foundation provide a coherent philosophical framework that supports the integration of various methods, as the ensuing discussions will reveal.

A significant concern with mixed methodology is that while quantitative and qualitative research is grounded in distinct philosophical frameworks (positivism for quantitative research and interpretivism for qualitative research), mixed methodology lacks a unified philosophical foundation. Pragmatism serves as a framework that permits the integration of methodologies because of its logic of utilizing what works. Patton (2002) remarks, “Being pragmatic allows one to eschew methodological orthodoxy in favour of methodological appropriateness as the primary criterion for judging methodological quality, recognizing that different methods are appropriate for different situations” (p. 72, emphasis original). Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) argue that pragmatism is a distinct paradigm, separate from positivism or constructivism, which enables the use of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Johnson et al. (2007) claim that pragmatism facilitates the integration of perspectives and approaches, making it particularly beneficial for mixed-methods research.

Pragmatic approaches, however, disregard the challenges of mixing quantitative and qualitative methodologies that have inherently divergent ontological and epistemological positions. Bryman (2004) argues that the incommensurability between quantitative and qualitative methodologies is typically addressed either by disregarding the epistemological and ontological concerns or by asserting that research methods are independent of ontological and epistemological presuppositions. Consequently, a philosophical approach that supports mixing of methods with convincing arguments about ontology and epistemology can be beneficial to social science researchers. A critical realist explanation of a stratified ontology and relativist epistemology offers an alternative framework because it does not make either objective or subjective totalizing truth claims about reality. This claim will become clear in the discussions below on critical realism's conceptual clarification. What has become apparent from the discussion above is that the relationship between the two competing philosophies of critical realism and pragmatism is not a simple one. Elder-Vass (2022) examined the relationship between pragmatism and critical realism as competing philosophies within the social sciences, noting that both traditions are internally diverse, making their relationship complex. The most significant difference lies in pragmatists’ skepticism toward claims regarding structural power in social explanations (Elder-Vass, 2022). In contrast, critical realism acknowledges the importance of structural power, which is a crucial consideration for researchers engaged in emancipatory research, as will be discussed below.

Critical realism: Conceptual clarification

Critical realism is a comprehensive philosophy that acknowledges both the positivist and constructivist approaches to give a detailed account of both ontology and epistemology (Gorski, 2013). In other words, critical realism goes beyond the purely conventional micro and macro binary by appealing to the ontological distinctions evident in the various layers or strata in the social world (Gorski, 2013). Ensuing discussions will now provide a detailed account of critical realism to lay the foundation for emancipatory research.

Critical realism as a philosophical approach has various forms, including American critical realism, theological critical realism, critical naturalism, transcendental realism, dialectical critical realism, and basic critical realism (Bhaskar, 2016). Roy Bhaskar, a British philosopher, contributed to the development of critical realism in the 1970s and 1980s. Bhaskar acknowledged that he was unaware of the many philosophies that had this designation such as American realism and theological critical realism (Bhaskar, 2016). He explained that the term “critical realism” emerged from the running together of the “critical” in critical naturalism and the “realism” in transcendental realism (Bhaskar, 2016). Critical realism distinguishes between two worlds—the real and the observable. The real world exists independent from our perceptions and cannot be observed directly. In contrast, the observable world is constructed from our own subjective experiences and perspectives based on what is observable. To further clarify critical realism, we now turn to its three central components: ontological realism, epistemological relativism, and judgmental rationalism.

Ontological realism

A common understanding of the concept of critical realism arises from its comparison to empirical realism, also known as naïve realism. Empirical realism argues for an independent objective reality that can be comprehended using appropriate methods and claims that the reality corresponds to the terms used to explain it (Bryman, 2016). Bhaskar (1989) criticized empirical realism for its failure to identify the generative mechanisms that drive the manifestation of phenomena that are experienced. He proposed a stratified reality with three levels in which an independent objective reality was recognized along with subjective constructions of reality. Bhaskar (2016) wrote:

…there are the substantive ontological distinctions between (i) open and closed systems and (ii) structures and events or what I call the domain of the real and the domain of the actual, together with a corresponding critique of the implicit actualist ontology of empirical realism. Thus, we have the theorem of the irreducibility of structures, mechanisms and the like to patterns of events (or of the domain of the real to that of the actual) and of patterns of events to our experiences (or of the domain of the actual to the domain of the empirical) [Italics original]. (p. 7)

The observable world is constructed through our experiences and perspectives, forming our social world (see Figure 1). This does not exist independent from our knowledge of it, and this is the domain of the empirical. Critical realism makes a distinction between the unobservable real world and the subjectively constructed observable world. The observable world is caused by certain structures, powers, or qualities inherent in the real, invisible, unobservable world. In other words, invisible structures, powers, or qualities in the domain of the real can cause observable patterns of events in the social world. Hence, a deeper understanding of the social world necessitates uncovering and comprehending the underlying structures that generate observable events. Empiricists acknowledge the objective reality that exists independent from us; however, they do not recognize the structures, powers, or qualities inherent in the objective reality that are capable of producing unique observable realities for people (Edgley et al., 2016). Although causal powers may remain inactivated and not generate any observable events, they always have the potential to cause certain events to occur. Thus, “to explore the real is to ask about the structure of some objects as well as their causal powers” and to explore the domain of the actual “is concerned with what happens if and when those powers are activated” (Edgley et al., 2016, p. 321).

Figure 1.

Domains of the real, actual, and empirical (adapted from Bhaskar, 2016, p. 7).

The social world is made up of numerous entities such as structures, systems, or processes that possess causal powers, and events manifest when those powers are activated (Peter et al., 2023). The entities and their powers are unobservable at the empirical level although their presence can be inferred through observable effects, implying that the nature of the real object may constrain or enable what can happen (Edgley et al., 2016). Identifying the generative mechanisms or causal powers inherent in entities in the social world is crucial for lasting social change. When changes happen to structures, systems, or processes, the events they produce and human experience of them will also vary. Therefore, a critical realist approach would “seek to identify both necessity and possibility or potential in the world – what things must go together, and what could happen, given the nature of the objects” (Sayer, 2000, p. 11).

While the natural world exists independently and can have unlimited existence, the social world depends on human activities for its existence. For example, human activities create the social world of social work. Social workers and their relationship with their clients exist while humanity exists. When humans vanish, the social world also vanishes. The idea of social workers and their relationship with clients has been created and accepted by society, which is thus socially constructed. Once established, this structure has power that can generate certain events or actions to manifest. For example, children experience abuse, or women experience violence (empirical domain), and social workers intervene (domain of the actual) because of the enabling power that a statutory child protection system, for example, provides to social workers (domain of the real). Whether we are aware of it or not, the statutory structure has the power to enable or constrain the actions of social workers.

The example of gender as a social structure, and patriarchy as a structure of power, highlights the layered conceptualization of reality in social work. Social workers are familiar with issues such as intimate partner violence, which is shaped by gender inequality, discrimination, and the victimization of women (Hosang & Bhui, 2018). Historically, women have faced systemic disadvantage compared to men, evident in delayed voting rights, wage disparities, restricted access to education in some countries, limits to or assaults on bodily autonomy, and disproportionate responsibility for household chores. These inequalities raise questions about the causal factors behind differing experiences for men and women. Scholarship has identified gender (and relatedly, cisnormativity) as an objective social structure with inherent generative mechanisms that produce observable events (see Risman, 2018). For instance, violence against women exists in the empirical domain, while acts of male violence (domain of the actual) manifest when the enabling power inherent in the social structure of gender (the domain of the real), maintained by patriarchy (and cisnormativity) as a structure of power, is activated (see Lerner, 1986).

The social world comprises numerous social entities, such as race, caste, class, gender, economy, religion, and policies, all of which possess causal powers to produce events. These events affect individuals differently. For example, women and transgender people experience systemic disadvantage and discrimination due to the causal powers of gender as a social structure. Housing and homelessness are key areas of social work intervention globally (Henwood et al., 2015), with studies highlighting the gendered nature of women's homelessness pathways (Savage, 2016). In critical realist terms, gender exists in the domain of the “real,” and its causal powers manifest in the domain of the “actual,” leading to observable experiences in the “empirical” domain. These experiences can only be understood by referencing the invisible causal powers inherent in the social structure of gender. Lasting change for women and gender minorities can only occur through structural changes to gender itself. An intersectional lens suggests that multiple structures of power can simultaneously affect individuals in specific locations (Collins & Bilge, 2016). For instance, gender (patriarchy and cisnormativity), social class (capitalism), and race (white supremacy) intersect to shape the experiences of women. Nayak (2022) proposes “understanding how each of these categories of differentiation always exist in an intersection. The intersectional configurations of difference reveal how and why oppressive constructions of difference collide at the intersection, and the consequential compound injuries” (p. 325).

Social structures and systems within the domain of the real enable or constrain actions in social contexts. Unlike closed natural system, social systems are complex and open, interacting with external influences (Bhaskar, 1979). Governed by interconnected structures, processes, and procedures, social systems allow multiple elements to operate simultaneously, often influencing each other. For example, structures governing professional conduct in a social work agency may intersect with or mitigate gender-related structures.

In critical realism, ontological emergence refers to the process by which something comes into existence, with a deeper meaning tied to critical realism's stratified reality. A key characteristic of this ontology is the distinction between the domains of the real, the actual, and the empirical, where the higher order (emergent) levels are irreducible to the lower order (base) levels, although there is a unilateral dependence on them (Bhaskar, 2020). Emergence is thus a productive process in which emergent phenomena (such as events or situations) are not fully reducible to their preceding conditions, signifying newness and autonomy beyond the lower-order level from which they arose (Santos, 2015). These emergent phenomena possess their own ontological status, identity, and causal efficacy (Santos, 2015).

Bhaskar (2020) argues that the core idea of critical realism is its stratified ontology, which conceptualizes reality as layered, differentiated, and dynamic. In the social world, the manifestation of social realities often involves multiple temporal stages and causalities. Thus, emergent phenomena in social contexts can be viewed as a universal effect of multiple causes or as stages in a broader social process. This concept is further elaborated in discussions on structure and agency. For now, we emphasize the importance of critical realism's ontological framework for emancipatory research. As Bhaskar (2016) argued, “Critical realist research is characterised by the primacy of ontology in the research process, whereas for its irrealist rivals, such as positivism and social constructivism, epistemology is primary” (p. 79, emphasis original).

Dualisms and dichotomies, such as structure and agency, are prevalent in social science philosophy and practice (Bhaskar, 2020). Bhaskar (2020) argues that this dichotomy can be resolved through the Transformational Model of Social Activity (TMSA), which emphasizes that social structures are reproduced and transformed by agents’ actions (Bhaskar, 1998). This framework elucidates both continuity and changes in social structure. Elder-Vass (2010) explains this dynamic as a cycle with two critical moments: the structural moment, where individuals are influenced by pre-existing structures, and the agential moment, where agents act to reproduce or transform this structure.

Applying the TMSA model to gender and patriarchy reveals that, in the structural moment, societal gender norms influence an individual's motivation. In the agential moment, the individuals may conform to, endorse, or enforce these norms, thereby reproducing them (Elder-Vass, 2010). However, there is potential for change at the agential level, as social structures’ causal effects are mediated by agent's intentions and actions. Multiple factors can shape these actions. For example, exposure to progressive beliefs and principles—such as gender equity, decolonization and antiracism, social justice, and human rights—may shift motivations. Similarly, changes in material circumstances may render gendered norms and practices unnecessary or counterproductive (Elder-Vass, 2010). All these factors can co-determine motivations, leading to potential changes in behavior regarding the status quo.

When changes to individuals happen, other members of the society may find that their own gendered beliefs and practices have become outdated (Elder-Vass, 2010). It may require a series of experiences or even negative endorsements from authorities to persuade them that the gendered norms they previously believed have changed or are no more applicable (Elder-Vass, 2010). Ultimately, it is possible that the cycle reproducing gendered norms and practices may be challenged, subverted, or transformed (Elder-Vass, 2010). However, Elder-Vass (2010) cautions that it is also possible for individuals to resist change by strengthening their own norm supporting behavior to counter the challenges, and the changing balance of these tendencies may determine the net outcome. Social structures have a dependence on the conceptions that people have about them, although their existence is independent of any one person's belief about them (Elder-Vass, 2022).

Epistemological relativism

Although epistemological relativism (or epistemological subjectivism) is a philosophical position widely associated with constructivism, it is also a central concept of critical realism (Al-Amoudi & Willmott, 2011; Maxwell, 2012). Critical realists argue that epistemic justification relies on multiple set of standards, and no single set of standards provides the full truth, since our understanding is mediated by historical and cultural contexts. This view differs from a positivist or realist epistemology, which holds an objectivist epistemological view (Crotty, 1998) positing that what can be known about reality is scientific, absolute, and exists independently of the observer. Positivists pursue observed events as ultimate phenomena (Fleetwood, 2015) and believe these events are real and not mediated by the observer's senses or contexts (Cohen et al., 2018). In other words, the sensory knowledge reflects or corresponds to the objective reality. Thus, positivists aim to identify event regularities objectively (Park & Peter, 2022). Scientific and objective knowledge is possible only if observable events manifest “patterns and regularities, causes and consequences” (Denscombe, 2002, p. 14).

Accepting the relativity of knowledge means acknowledging the socially constructed nature of reality, and our knowledge construction is “conditioned by our socio-cultural (or biological physical) determinations” (Lawson, 2003, p. 162). Thus, epistemological relativism expresses the idea that:

… our categories, frameworks of thinking, modes of analysis, ways of seeing things, habits of thought, dispositions of every kind, motivating concerns, interests, values and so forth, are affected by our life paths and socio-cultural situations and thereby make a difference in how we can and do ‘see’ or know or approach things, and indeed they bear on which we seek to know. (Lawson, 2003, p. 162)

The frameworks used to explain phenomena at different times are shaped by historical and cultural contexts and debates over competing claims (Al-Amoudi & Willmott, 2011). For example, views on gender roles have shifted over time. In earlier periods, conservative social science provided teleological justification for male dominance, attributing biological differences to distinct societal roles. Men were seen aggressive and strong, suited for hunting and fighting, while women were relegated to childbearing and caregiving (Caine & Caine, 1979). “The basic sex differentiation of society is thus seen as a consequence of inherent activity tendencies” (Caine & Caine, 1979, p. 21). This theory framed male dominance as an outcome of men performing essential subsistence activities, convincing many at the time.

Social equilibrium traditionally required men and women to fulfill their prescribed roles, with any deviation seen as needing correction. While this view highlights societal harmony, it overlooks the systemic disadvantage women face and fails to account for the effects of settler colonialism or non-Western gender roles which extended beyond the binary of male–female (Pihama, 2020). Contemporary feminist theory has exposed gender inequality and the resultant disadvantage, discrimination, and exploitation of women. Intersectional feminism further considers how gender, race, and class intersect to sustain inequalities. Unlike conservative thinking, feminism advocates for systemic change to ensure equity and justice for women. It shows that no single framework fully captures the complexities of gender, as understanding is mediated by historical and cultural contexts. As Al-Amoudi and Willmott (2011) point out, “alternate theories compete and conflict in their claims to advance upon established explanations” (p. 30), necessitating judgmental rationalism proposed by critical realism.

Judgmental rationalism

In critical realism, the frameworks used to understand reality are considered provisional. However, it does not mean that interpretation is equally valid. Within critical realist thinking, epistemological subjectivism necessitates judgmental rationalism. Bhaskar (2016) claims:

The combination of epistemological relativism and judgemental rationalism allows us to assert that, although our knowledge is fallible and without sure foundations and is always knowledge under particular socially and linguistically mediated descriptions, nevertheless there can be rational grounds for preferring one to another competing descriptions (belief or theory). (pp. 25–26)

An essential aspect of critical realism is distinguishing the dimension of ontology from that of epistemology. Disregarding this distinction “seemed to render problematic the idea of a rational choice between ‘incommensurable’ theories and to encourage (super idealist) scepticism about the existence of a theory-independent world” (Bhaskar, 1998, p. x).

Bhaskar (1998) points out that when there are competing theories and their relationship is seen as conflict rather than mere difference, then it

presupposes that they are alternative accounts of the same world, and if one theory can explain more significant phenomena in terms of its descriptions than the other can in terms of its, then there is a rational criterion for theory choice. (p. xi) [emphasis original]

For example, in the context of gender and patriarchy, emancipatory practices like anti-oppressive and intersectional approaches may consider alternative accounts of women's experiences in terms of equity, justice, and human rights. Conservative theories may overlook these aspects, relying instead on traditional and religious beliefs about gender hierarchy and norms. In contrast, feminist theories may reveal structural and systemic injustices, human rights violations, and inequitable practices in gender relations.

The conflict between conservative and feminist theories on gender and patriarchy extends beyond mere difference, challenging core social work values such as dignity, respect, human relationships, social justice, and professional integrity. Conservative theories often support social structures that afford men more power than women (Wolbrecht, 2002), whereas feminist theories advocate for equity, justice, and human rights. Judgmental rationalism in this context involves evaluating competing theories to determine which best promotes human well-being and flourishing. Bhaskar (2016) suggests that emancipatory rationality transcends psychological rationalization and ideological mystification, which often constrain human well-being.

An emerging trend in critical realist discussions is an engagement with moral realism, which asks the question of how an “ought” can be derived from what “is” (Price & Martin, 2018). Bhaskar's (2010) own position is that “what is, is only one possible world and that, moreover, always presupposes the possibility of other worlds” (p. 23). He suggests that considering how social situation could be different, with alternative uses of resources or actions, forms the basis for an ethics oriented toward change. This perspective allows for reimagining existing possibilities and actualizing them in new ways.

Abduction and retroduction

Data analysis in critical realism-informed research relates to the processes of coding, abduction, and retroduction. Coding is the process of identifying demi-regularities (trends or patterns) in the observable empirical realm of reality (Fletcher, 2017). Abduction is a process in which a redescription of the data is done using theoretical concepts (Fletcher, 2017). This is a reasoning process toward new knowledge between the empirical data and theoretical concepts (Eriksson, 2015). Abduction may or may not start with prior theoretical knowledge, but either way it is a back-and-forth process involving real-life observations and theory, and when both are aligned, new theories and propositions can be presented (Eriksson, 2015). Abductive reasoning is a process involving an inference or thought operation in which an observed phenomenon or event is interpreted from a set of general ideas or concepts, but with an acknowledgment that the chosen set of ideas or theory are fallible (Fletcher, 2017).

Retroductive analysis, a form of data analysis proposed by critical realism, allows researchers to search for causal mechanisms and conditions that act at the structural levels that drive manifestation of empirical realities (Park & Peter, 2022). Bryman (2016) defines retroduction as a type of reasoning in which an inference is made about the causal mechanism that lies behind and is the cause for regularities that are observed in the social world. Researchers undertaking a retroductive analysis engage in a reasoning process in which they move from “the manifest phenomena of social life, as conceptualised in the experiences of the social agents concerned, to the essential relations that necessitate them” (Bhaskar, 1979, p. 32). Retroduction, the central inference for critical realism-informed research (Bhaskar & Danermark, 2006), involves an inference process where researchers move “from concrete to abstract and back again” (Fletcher, 2017, p. 189) multiple times during data analysis.

Implications for research

Bhaskar (1989) argues that the manifesto of critical realism includes social change through the recognition of events and discourses of the social world and an understanding of the structures that generate them. These structures are not immediately apparent in the observable pattern of events, requiring social sciences to identity them (Bhaskar, 1989). Identifying generative mechanisms offers the prospect of working toward changes for the well-being and betterment of those served by social workers. Researchers who hold anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory values might find critical realism attractive due to its ontological and epistemological advancement and emancipatory potential. If generative mechanisms can be identified and changed, a different set of empirical reality can emerge. For example, identifying the productive forces inherent in gender allows for changes to its oppressive, unjust, and discriminatory effect on women. Effective changes at the structural level, such as policy reforms, can bring about more equitable outcomes for women who experience gender-based injustice.

Critical realism allows the integration of various research methods for emancipatory research. The historical binary between quantitative and qualitative approaches arose when available theorizing on ontology and epistemology only supported explanations in those lines—objectivist or constructivist ontology and absolute truth claims. However, critical realism's stratified ontology and subjectivist epistemology removes the binary and gives freedom to the researchers to freely use any methods (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed) to generate data for identifying and understanding the generative mechanisms inherent in the domain of the real and the observable events that they produce. The swift ascent of mixed-methods study in social work (see Foote, 2025) reflects spontaneous and instinctive advancement social work researchers have made in the right direction, albeit often without an explicit philosophical framework.

In conventional research practice, qualitative or quantitative methods alone provide a partial explanation of the reality. This is because researchers using qualitative or quantitative methods are constrained by the ontological exposition of underpinning philosophical frameworks. For example, researchers using qualitative methods may examine subjective perspectives, experiences, viewpoints, and opinions of participants. This is justified if the purpose of their research is exploratory, and this is all what they intend to examine. However, they may never attempt to examine objectively existing structures, systems, and processes and their inherent causal powers that produce participants’ experiences because subjectivist/constructivist approaches do not acknowledge objective realities that exist independent of the subjects concerned. A radical alternative to this constrained approach is critical realism-informed research which allows examination of both subjective experiences and objective causal mechanisms governing them even when using conventional qualitative methods. This is a radical departure from the established research practice but one that provides profound opportunities for emancipatory research as the example of a case study below demonstrates.

While social work practice includes multidisciplinary or interprofessional involvement, interdisciplinary research that integrates analytical strengths from multiple disciplines remains limited (Miller et al., 2019). This may be because of the challenges interdisciplinary research faces, such as lack of a unified approach or method (Barković, 2010; Miller et al., 2019). Additionally, there are different types of interdisciplinarity, involving either closely related or non-adjacent disciplines, with different goals such as advancement of knowledge or tackling practical problem solving (see Barković, 2010; Danermark, 2019).

Danermark (2019) points out that interdisciplinary research rarely addresses ontological aspects, despite occasional discussions of epistemology. This is surprising because a deeper understanding of ontological and epistemological issues can contribute to the identification and understanding of relationships between theories at different levels of reality (Danermark, 2019). This is where critical realist framework can make a significant contribution as it can sustain and strengthen interdisciplinary research with its ontological and epistemological explanations (Danermark, 2019). One of the most significant aspects of interdisciplinary research is the integration of knowledge, which critical realism greatly facilitates (Danermark, 2019). In order for this to be fruitful, it needs to be approached in a philosophical way (Bhaskar & Danermark, 2006). Danermark (2019), therefore, suggests a critical realism-informed five phase approach to interdisciplinary research, involving (1) an initial planning phase; (2) a phase for facilitating disciplinary understanding; (3) a teamwork phase characterized by cross-disciplinary understanding; (4) a transdisciplinary phase involving theorizing that transcends the boundaries of an area of knowledge to achieve transdisciplinary integration of knowledge; and (5) a final phase of interdisciplinary understanding, resulting from the integration of knowledge, which provides a holistic understanding of the involved structures and mechanisms.

We now turn to discuss a case study that was conducted by the first and last authors of this article with another colleague in New Zealand. The study demonstrates how retroductive analysis of conventional qualitative data allowed for an understanding of the causal mechanisms inherent in certain structures and processes and the empirical realities that they produced.

A case study of the transition of transnational social workers

Global mobility offers social workers with two primary opportunities for cross-border practice: short-term international action in times of crisis, such as natural disasters, and long-term labor mobility, where social workers professionally trained in one country relocate to another for professional practice, often permanently. The former, known as international social work, involves engaging with transnational populations or processes (Healy & Thomas, 2020), whereas the latter, transnational social work, refers to social workers themselves relocating across borders, often to multiple countries (see Peter et al., 2019, 2023). Unlike international social work, transnational social work (labor mobility) involves social workers negotiating immigration policies and globalized recruitment strategies of host countries (Peter et al., 2019). A literature review identified the lack of coherent transition programs for facilitating the transition of transnational social workers (TSWs) into the host country, except for some ad hoc arrangements in the form of manager-based inductions (see Peter et al., 2019).

A critical realism-informed case study examined structural barriers in the transition of TSWs to New Zealand (Peter et al., 2023). The study received ethics approval from the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (Ref. No. 017897). The research involved three semi-structured focus groups with TSWs (n = 20), three with their employers (n = 17), and a semi-structured interview with a manager who arrived as a TSW. The study aimed to gain insights into how TSWs and their managers interpret and give meaning to their experiences and understandings, as well as their correspondence to the enabling and constraining effects of the social structure (Houston, 2001, 2010).

Data analysis involved a three-layered iterative process exploring data several times. The first stage was coding that involved identifying demi-regularities (patterns or tendencies in relation to the transition of TSWs) at the observable empirical level (Peter et al., 2023). In total, 38 specific sub-themes from TSWs and 35 from their employers were identified, which were the empirical realities experienced by TSWs and their managers, and all of which related to four broad themes including risks associated with manager-based induction of TSWs, challenges of biculturalism, legislation and policy, and workload priorities (Peter et al., 2023).

The second stage was abduction, which involved redescribing the empirical data using the aspirations-capabilities framework that recognizes human mobility as an unavoidable part of broader social change processes (de Haas, 2021). People's mobility is commonly not seen as a capability because of the processes involved in credentialing and assessing professional capabilities that focus more on qualifications and their relevance, disregarding migration process as part of a broader social change (Peter et al., 2023). The capabilities framework helps understand human mobility as people's capability or as freedom to choose where to move, live, or stay and thus acknowledging migration as an active social process rather than a mechanical response to the push pull factors (de Haas, 2021). Thus, abduction as a reasoning process here demonstrates how an event or phenomenon (TSWs’ transition to host country) is theorized or interpreted using concepts related to the capability framework.

The observed demi-regularities—the domain of the empirical—(four broad themes and their sub-themes) have certain contextual conditions for certain causal powers (the domain of the real) to be activated to result in the manifestation of those demi-regularities. This is the final stage of analysis where retroduction is employed to make an inference about the causal mechanisms responsible for the manifestation of the demi-regularities. In our reasoning process, we moved from the observed demi-regularities (as conceptualized in the experience of the TSWs’ and their employers) to the essential relations that necessitated them (Bhaskar, 1979). This is where we identified the structural barriers that impede the transition of TSWs to the host country.

The domain of the actual—events and effects—consists of what happens when TSWs’ transition is impeded; however, this can only be explained by referencing to the domain of the real in which hidden causal powers connected to social entities such as professional regulatory bodies, economic systems, and socio-cultural systems are triggered (Peter et al., 2023). Although these entities themselves are unobservable in the domain of the empirical, the effects of their initiated powers such as the risks associated with manager-led ad hoc transition programs are observable (Peter et al., 2023). Changes to the entities (structures, systems, and processes involved in TSWs’ transition) can produce different events at the domain of the actual and the effects of those events may manifest in positive outcomes for TSWs. For example, pōwhiri—a traditional formal Māori (Indigenous community of New Zealand) ceremony of greeting and engagement organized by the responsible authorities—can greatly facilitate effective transition of TSWs into New Zealand. The social work regulatory body can play a significant role in making this happen.

The absence of a coherent transition program for facilitating the transition of TSWs may not typically be understood as a structural force capable of producing events and experiences. However, critical realism uncovers the productive force of absence through Bhaskar’s (2008a) critique of ontological monovalence, which traditionally focuses solely on positive, actual entities. Ontological monovalence is the idea that the only type of existence is presence that can be experienced and that there is no concept of absence in this view. Ontological monovalence is the absence of the concept of absence itself (Jakobsen, 2016). Bhaskar (2008a) challenged this view establishing that absences have a necessary and legitimate ontological engagement. Bhaskar (2008b) contended “if tautologically everything exists, there is no way to say something does not exist, much less to claim that its absence is causally efficacious” (p. 234). Bhaskar (2008a) argued that social reality is not only open and stratified but it is permeated by negativity such as absences. Just as the absence of oxygen can lead to the death of organisms, the absence of social entities, such as transition programs, can produce certain empirical realities, for example, unmet transitional needs and the resultant disadvantages and risks for TSWs (Peter et al., 2023). Addressing these absences, such as by establishing coherent transition programs, can produce different outcomes for TSWs, including more favorable ones if guided by an ethic of care.

The unique contribution critical realism-informed research provides here is the identification of structural forces (domain of the real) and the events (domain of the actual) they produce. Conventional qualitative research focuses on people's experiences (domain of the empirical) and it fails to acknowledge realities beyond what people construct. The critical realist philosophical approach has revealed that objective real reality exists whether we perceive it or not and it has certain inherent causal powers to produce events and experiences. Thus, critical realism-informed research allows social researchers to examine both people's experiences (empirical reality) and the objective causal powers (real reality) that produced those experiences. Researchers can then recommend relevant structural changes for lasting social change and emancipation.

Limitations of the study

This study does not include discussions on post positivism or post empiricism, types of realism and different types of constructionism. These are established philosophic approaches and available literature provide their detailed understanding. In the current study, we would like to stay focused on the traditional frameworks of positivism and interpretivism to make comparisons and contrasts with critical realism to explain ontological and epistemological considerations to inform emancipatory research methods.

Conclusion

The absence of a methodological approach that allows social work researchers to undertake research without adhering strictly to either an objectivist or a subjectivist stance has long been a constraint for social work researchers. Critical realism has bridged the ontological binary created by positivism and constructivism, offering researchers a stratified ontological understanding and a subjectivist epistemological stance. In doing so, critical realism exposes the epistemic fallacy inherent in both positivism and constructivism, where the nature of reality is reduced to human knowledge. The stratified understanding of reality offers significant potential for emancipatory research, recognizing the multiple realities that people experience, the structural and systemic forces influencing those experience, and the human agency to address these forces for social change. Consequently, researchers using mixed-methods and interdisciplinary research can greatly benefit from a critical realist philosophical framework that offers a stratified ontology, subjectivist epistemology, retroductive reasoning, and judgmental rationalism. The ability to examine both subjective experiences and objective causal mechanisms within the conventional qualitative methods—hitherto unthinkable due to the ontological binaries created by dominant traditional approaches such as objectivism and constructivism—represents a radical change that could have profound impact on emancipatory social research.